THE REFUTATION OF JOHN
by miriam berg
Chapter II
CANA AND JERUSALEM
(John 2:1-11)
The first part of the second chapter of the gospel of John
reports Jesus as performing magic, transforming
water into wine, and as doing it voluntarily, without
being asked. Now the Synoptics do not report this event,
nor do they report any other magic tricks; the loaves and
fishes, walking on the water, and calming the sea are not
the same kind of magical transformation as changing
water into wine. And the Synoptics declare repeatedly
that Jesus healed people only when asked, telling them
to tell no one, and declaring that it was their faith which
healed them and that he would perform no sign. Thus this
tale is not confirmed by the other three gospels but is
actually inconsistent with them. And whether this story is
completely made up, or whether it has an allegorical (i.e.
not real) meaning, what is its moral teaching? What part
does it play in the coming of the kingdom of God, or in the
system of Jesus' thought as reported in Matthew's Sermon
on the Mount, or the two Great Commandments taken from
the books of Moses? Even if Jesus or anyone else could
turn water into wine, what would that teach us about
righteousness and moral behavior?
This story as reported by John also depicts Jesus as
being sarcastic with his mother, saying, "Woman,
what have I to do with thee?" Now it is true that
Matthew, Mark, and Luke also report an event where
Jesus refuses to pay any special attention to his mother,
when he says, Behold, my mother and brethren are those
which hear the word of God, and do it (Luke 8:21); and
that on other occasions he disparages relations with
parents in favor of the kingdom of God (Matt. 10:37;
Luke 14:26). But on these occasions he definitely does
not relate it to himself, as he does here in John, saying,
Mine hour is not yet come. So, apart from the difference
in style as reported between John and the Synoptics, is it
more likely that Jesus would have spoken the words
reported in John, or those in the Synoptics?
(John 2:12-25)
John next reports that Jesus went up to Jerusalem
for the passover, and drove the money-changers from the
temple. This story is also told in the Synoptics, but near
the end of Jesus' career, rather than at the beginning.
Whom shall we believe? But we still have no words
from Jesus regarding himself, only the words of the
narrator; and the fact that the Synoptics report the
quotations from Isaiah and Jeremiah accurately ("My
house shall be called a house of prayer for all the
nations (Isa. 56:7); but ye make it a den of robbers
(Jer.7:1l), whereas John combines them and softens
them and makes Jesus claim God as his personal father
which is not part of the authentic quotations, raises
doubts about John's ability to report accurately without
editorializing and theologizing over Jesus. It does not
make sense for Matthew, Mark, and Luke all to have
perverted the statement as reported in John ("Make not
my father's house a den of merchandise") into the sterner,
less personal, but accurately quoted verses in the
Synoptics; the direction of literary evolution is quite
clearly the opposite.
(John 2:23-25)
In the last three verses of this chapter we again find>
Jesus portrayed as being haughty and disdainful
of people around him ("Jesus did not trust himself to them;
because he himself knew what was in man"). Now the
Synoptics report on a few occasions that Jesus "knew their
thoughts" but never that he said that he "knew all things
that would happen to him" as is reported in John; and while
Matthew, Mark, and Luke report that Jesus was harsh in his
judgments of the Pharisees, this is counterbalanced by his
exhortation to "Judge not, that ye be not judged" and to his
followers to judge for themselves what was right
(Luke 12:57) and not to simply call on his name but
to do the will of God (Luke 6:46; Matt. 7:21).
Are we to believe the image of the self-proclaimed Messiah
told of by John or the compassionate and humble but forthright
ethical and moral teacher told of by Matthew, Mark, and Luke?
Next chapter