In these next few verses John proclaims that Jesus is the one whom he said would come, and that he knew him not until he beheld the Spirit as a dove descending upon Jesus. But Matthew, Mark, and Luke all report that it was Jesus who saw the vision of the dove (Matt. 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22), and also that a voice from heaven spoke to him in words from the 2nd Psalm: although Matthew makes it seem as if it was a public pronouncement, by altering the first two words to "This is". But John reports nothing of the voice nor the quotation from the Psalms; he doesn't even give any indication that he ever baptized Jesus, as the Synoptics say. This clearly indicates that the author of John did not want to report anything which made Jesus seem like a lesser or ordinary being. Matthew contains a statement from John the Baptizer that he recognized Jesus before the baptism, but this is not found in either Mark or Luke, and anyway it is contradicted by the statement in John that he "knew him not". Which report should we believe? Did John recognize Jesus before the baptism, and did John or Jesus see the vision? Which narrative is the more plausible, that of the Synoptics, or that of John? Is it more probable that Jesus had an awakening experience at the time of the baptism, or that the event was a pre-ordained signal to John? The writer of John could simply have forgotten about the voice, but Paul also reports that these words were spoken to Jesus (Hebrews 1:5).

Then we are told that Andrew, after hearing John's words, first followed Jesus, then came and told his brother Peter that he had found the Messiah. But again, this is contradicted by the story in the Synoptics, where it is Jesus who calls Peter and Andrew, and then James and John (Matt. 4:18-21; Mark 1:16-20; Luke 5:1-11). John's gospel goes on to report that Jesus (evidently) next called Philip, who tells Nathanael, who is skeptical; but after Jesus pronounces him as "without guile", Nathanael declares Jesus to be the Son of God! But Nathanael is not mentioned in the Synoptics, either as a skeptic or in any other wise. Furthermore, on every occasion when Jesus is addressed as the "son of God" in Matthew, Mark and Luke, he rebukes them. Once more, we must ask, did Jesus call the disciples, and appoint them, as we are told in the records of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Matt. 10:2-4; Mark 3:13-15; Luke 6:13-16)? Or did they themselves pick out Jesus and apply the label of the Messiah to him? Who first asserted that he was the messiah? The first reference to Jesus as such in the Synoptics is at Caesarea Philippi, halfway through Mark, and more than halfway through Matthew (Matt. 16:13-16; Mark 8:27-29; Luke 9:18-20), except for the "devils" who call him so, and he rebukes them. But even after Peter's declaration at Caesarea Philippi, Jesus tells them sternly to tell no one that (Matt. 16:20; Mark 8:30; Luke 9:21). All scholars agree that the commendation of Peter by Jesus in Matthew (Matt. 16:17-19) is an interpolation, since it is not found in Mark or Luke, and it is contradicted immediately in both Matthew and Mark when Jesus calls Peter Satan and tells him to "get behind him" (Matt. 16:23; Mark 8:33).

Finally in the last verse of the first chapter, we have Jesus' first reference to himself, but as the Son of man, not as the Son of God, if indeed it is a reference to himself, which may be doubted as he does not use the pronoun "I". Thus, at the conclusion of the first chapter of John we have no words from Jesus claiming any divine identity, only the words of other persons not even the author. Wherefore need we believe their report? We must needs inquire further.