As the author of John was not plagiarizing Mark, unlike the authors of Matthew and Luke, there are significant differences—and there are actually very few similarities—between the synoptic gospels and John. As we saw with Matthew and Luke, as the authors were not copying from Mark when it came to the birth narratives and post-resurrection accounts, their stories are simply irreconcilable: Jesus could not be born both before King Herod dies in 4 BCE while being born after King Herod's son Herod Archelaus is deposed in 6 CE; and Jesus cannot simultaneously tell the disciples to meet him in Galilee while simultaneously playing magical tricks on his disciples and followers while ordering them to remain near Jerusalem. Similarly, there are stories in the gospel of John that are irreconcilable with the synoptic gospels.

A poem

The gospel of John is no different in its divergence, but we will begin by looking at the first chapter, which starts what appears to be a poem or hymn:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος,

καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν,

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν.

πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο,

καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο

οὐδὲ ἓν ὃ γέγονεν.

ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν,

καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων,

καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει,

καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν.

Ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ θεοῦ, ὄνομα αὐτῷ Ἰωάννης.

οὗτος ἦλθεν εἰς μαρτυρίαν ἵνα μαρτυρήσῃ περὶ τοῦ φωτός,
ἵνα πάντες πιστεύσωσιν δι᾽ αὐτοῦ.
οὐκ ἦν ἐκεῖνος τὸ φῶς, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα μαρτυρήσῃ περὶ τοῦ φωτός.

ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ὃ φωτίζει

πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον.

ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν,

καὶ ὁ κόσμος δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο,

καὶ ὁ κόσμος αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω.

εἰς τὰ ἴδια ἦλθεν,

καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον.

ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτόν,

ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα θεοῦ γενέσθαι,

τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ,

οἳ οὐκ ἐξ αἱμάτων

οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκὸς

οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρὸς ἀλλ᾽

ἐκ θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν.

καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο

καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν,

καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ,

δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός,

πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας.

Ἰωάννης μαρτυρεῖ περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ κέκραγεν λέγων· οὗτος ἦν ὃν εἶπον· ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν, ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν.

ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ πληρώματος

αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἐλάβομεν

καὶ χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος.

ὅτι ὁ νόμος διὰ Μωϋσέως ἐδόθη,

ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια διὰ Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ ἐγένετο.

Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε·

ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς

ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός,

ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

The colors highlight the patterns of Greek poetry, where repeated words or words with similar prefixes appear in close proximity. There are two lines, however, that do not follow this poetic style: both of these refer to John the Baptist, and these are separated out and highlighted in bold. Translated into English, these two passages about John the Baptist read:

There was a man sent from God whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.

John testified to him and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks ahead of me because he was before me.’ ”

Rather than poetry, these two additions would best be described as prose. You will observe that in the first additional fragment, the author did at least use the word light (photos or φωτός), but not in the same poetic style of the surrounding verses. This is likely because the original poetry was about Jesus, and not about John the Baptist; however, looking ahead, it seems the author needed to include John the Baptist, as the balance of John 1 following this poetry focus on that individual. If we remove these additional verses in the translation, we can even see the poetic style even in English:

In the beginning was the Word,

and the Word was with God,

and the Word was God.

He was in the beginning with God.

All things came into being through him,

and without him not one thing came into being.

What has come into being in him was life,

and the life was the light of all people.

The light shines in the darkness,

and the darkness did not overtake it.

He was in the world,

and the world came into being through him,

yet the world did not know him.

He came to what was his own,

and his own people did not accept him.

But to all who received him, who believed in his name,

he gave power to become children of God,

who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word became flesh and lived among us,

and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son,

full of grace and truth.

From his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace.

The law indeed was given through Moses;

grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

No one has ever seen God.

It is the only Son, himself God,

who is close to the Father’s heart,

who has made him known.

It is unfortunate that the author of John could not be sufficiently inspired to maintain the poetic style, and instead inserted prose. It would be no different than someone taking the song "It came upon the midnight clear" and inserting random prose at completely inopportune times:

It came upon the midnight clear,
That glorious song of old,
From angels bending near the earth
To touch their harps of gold;
"Peace on the earth, good will to men
From heaven's all-gracious King" –

Still through the cloven skies they come
With peaceful wings unfurled,
And still their heavenly music floats
O'er all the weary world;
Above its sad and lowly plains
They bend on hovering wing,

John testified to him and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks ahead of me because he was before me.’ ”
And ever o'er its Babel-sounds
The blessed angels sing.

As we read the balance of John 1, we will see why John the Baptist was inserted into this poetry: the balance specifically is about the experiences of John the Baptist. However, before proceeding, we will look at another aspect of this poem; specifically, the manner in which it is layered, and if we ignore those verses about John the Baptist, we can see that layering:

Relationship between Jesus and God then
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

What came from Jesus then
All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people.

The relationship between Jesus and the world then
The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overtake it. * He was in the world, and the world came into being through him, yet the world did not know him.

He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him.
But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God,

who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God.

The relationship between Jesus and the world now
And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth. *

What has come from Jesus now
From his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Relationship between Jesus and God now
No one has ever seen God. It is the only Son, himself God, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known.

The focus is the poetry that appears in the center of the surrounding verses (highlighted in red), and the poetry around it are symmetric in what they discuss. The central idea is the relationship between the followers of the Word of God and God: they are God's children. It seems that the author of John who copied this poetry into his first chapter was aware, as the two fragments of prose were inserted at the two asterisks, both one sentence before, and one sentence after this core.

To emphasize how the poetry without the inserted proses flows poetically, we can even translate this into English and visualize the poetry, for the poetry is not in rhymes (which do not survive translation) but repetition of the same or similar words, which do survive translation. Here, we show the poetic style with the prose replaced by asterisks, and it becomes clear that the poetry continues to flow. The verses surrounding the first inserted fragment include:

What has come into being in him was life,

and the life was the light of all people.

The light shines in the darkness,

and the darkness did not overtake it. *

The true light, which enlightens everyone,

was coming into the world.

He was in the world,

and the world came into being through him,

yet the world did not know him.

He came to what was his own,

and his own people did not accept him.

The verses surrounding the second inserted fragment include:

who were born,

not of blood or of the will of the flesh

or of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word became flesh

and lived among us,

and we have seen his glory,

the glory as of a father’s only son,

full of grace and truth. *

From his fullness we have all received,

grace upon grace.

The law indeed was given through Moses;

grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

One would wonder why whatever divine inspiration the author this gospel had to take an already-written poem or hymn of Jesus and then interpolate two lines of prose into the middle would not also inspire the individual to harmonize the style. Could not the same inspiration that caused the author of Luke to faithfully record the conversations between Mary and the angel Gabriel and Elizabeth likewise inspire the author of John to at least make an attempt at having a harmonious poem or hymn that blends in the statements about John the Baptist into the hymn of Jesus? However, what is beautiful is the original unadulterated poem, free from any mention of John the Baptist.

Jesus's baptism? (John 1:19-)

Recall that in Mark, Jesus is baptized by John, in Matthew, John objects to baptizing Jesus but does so anyways, and in Luke, Jesus is baptized, but it does not state that it was John who did the baptizing. In the book of John, however, Jesus is not explicitly baptized, period. Instead, Jesus is immediately recognized as the Lamb of Yahweh, thus, foreshadowing the significance of Jesus's subsequent execution:

“Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks ahead of me because he was before me.’ I myself did not know him, but I came baptizing with water for this reason, that he might be revealed to Israel.”

“I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I myself have seen and have testified that this is the Chosen One.”

None of this is in Mark, who has Jesus "immediately" going into the wilderness for forty days following his baptism:

In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove upon him. And a voice came from the heavens, “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.” And the Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness.

So John the Baptist said nothing that worth recording at Jesus's baptism, Jesus is baptized and is immediately driven into the wilderness. Let us see how this plays out in John:

The next day John again was standing with two of his disciples, and as he watched Jesus walk by he exclaimed, “Look, here is the Lamb of God!” The two disciples heard him say this, and they followed Jesus. When Jesus turned and saw them following, he said to them, “What are you looking for?” They said to him, “Rabbi” (which translated means Teacher), “where are you staying?” He said to them, “Come and see.” They came and saw where he was staying, and they remained with him that day. It was about four o’clock in the afternoon. One of the two who heard John speak and followed him was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. He first found his brother Simon and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which is translated Anointed). He brought Simon to Jesus, who looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You are to be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).

So Andrew and Simon Peter were disciples of John the Baptist? There is no mention of this in the synoptic gospels. Additionally, in all three synoptic gospels, it is not until the end of Jesus's ministry in Galilee that Peter declares Jesus to be "The Messiah of God." or "You are the Messiah." or "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." depending on which you read (once again, so perfectly transcribing the words of Simeon at the Temple a month after Jesus's birth, and yet none can actually recall what it is that Peter actually said. However, in John, it is Andrew who recognizes that Jesus is the Messiah who goes to bring Simon Peter to Jesus right there, the day after Jesus's baptism.

Jesus enters the wilderness? (John 1:43-)

Rather than being driven immediately into the wilderness, the author John had Jesus remaining around Bethany, but only for a day. Perhaps now Jesus will go into the wilderness:

The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. He found Philip and said to him, “Follow me.” Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him about whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote, Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth.” Nathanael said to him, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Philip said to him, “Come and see.”

Okay, so maybe Jesus did not immediately go into the wilderness. However, it is the land around Bethany-beyond-the-Jordan (not Bethany near Jerusalem) that is more correctly called a wilderness, as the Jordan Rift Valley is more desolate than the fertile regions of Samaria and Galilee.

But let us consider this: the distance between Bethany and Nazareth (as Jesus will be joining Mary, his mother) is approximately 100 km as the crow flies and one can get there by following the Jordan Rift Valley and then the Jezreel valley, so perhaps 130 km. Walking at 5 km/h, this should take 26 hours, and as we will later see that these events occurred right before Passover, so right after the Spring Equinox, there are thirteen hours of daylight, so assuming they walked non-stop throughout the day, slept in the evening, and then walked all of the next day, they would have arrived in Nazareth at around sunset the next day. More realistic, however, is no more than 40 km a day: eight hours of walking.

Also, after being in the wilderness, Jesus also returns to Nazareth, but he stays there until John the Baptist is arrested: remember Jesus does not start his ministry according to the authors of Mark and Matthew until John the Baptist is arrested. It is only after John the Baptist is arrested that Jesus goes to Capernaum and it is there that he calls his first disciples:

Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee proclaiming the good news of God and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news.” As Jesus passed along the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the sea, for they were fishers. And Jesus said to them, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of people.” And immediately they left their nets and followed him. As he went a little farther, he saw James son of Zebedee and his brother John, who were in their boat mending the nets. Immediately he called them, and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men and followed him.

But this is the story as told by the author of Mark, which is not what is told in Luke:

Once while Jesus was standing beside the Lake of Gennesaret and the crowd was pressing in on him to hear the word of God, he saw two boats there at the shore of the lake; the fishermen had gotten out of them and were washing their nets. He got into one of the boats, the one belonging to Simon, and asked him to put out a little way from the shore. Then he sat down and taught the crowds from the boat. When he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, “Put out into the deep water and let down your nets for a catch.” Simon answered, “Master, we have worked all night long but have caught nothing. Yet if you say so, I will let down the nets.” When they had done this, they caught so many fish that their nets were beginning to burst. So they signaled their partners in the other boat to come and help them. And they came and filled both boats, so that they began to sink. But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’s knees, saying, “Go away from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man!” For he and all who were with him were astounded at the catch of fish that they had taken, and so also were James and John, sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon. Then Jesus said to Simon, “Do not be afraid; from now on you will be catching people.” When they had brought their boats to shore, they left everything and followed him.

So, while in Mark, Jesus calls to Simon Peter and Andrew, and then again separately to James and John, here there is no mention of Andrew and the two other brothers are partners of Simon Peter. Neither Mark nor Matthew tell of a great catch of fish, but fortunately, the author of John does include this tale: we will see that this story is appended to the post-resurrection narrative. Recall that the author of Luke has the disciples stay in the vicinity of Jerusalem, while the author of Matthew has Jesus visit the disciples at a pre-arranged meeting point in Galilee? The author of John also has Jesus appearing in Galilee (unlike Luke), and it is there that (like Luke), Jesus plays games with his disciples by hiding his identity, and it is there that he tells them to

“Cast the net to the right side of the boat, and you will find some.” So they cast it, and now they were not able to haul it in because there were so many fish.

So each author has heard various stories about Jesus, and each author (unless they are copying another source), places the same story at very different times in the life of Jesus. Perhaps Jesus met Simon Peter and Andrew in the same place he was baptized, and then went on his own way, and only meets up with again in Galilee. Well, that's not really happens in John:

On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. When the wine gave out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”

This must have been a reasonable pace, as this would have been approximately eight hours of walking each day to cover 40 km, with a few extra kilometers to cover in the last day for Jesus to get to Nazareth, and then on getting to Nazareth, they had to get to the wedding in Cana, which is another 8 km from Nazareth, so another hour-and-a-half walk. Fortunately, it seems, they came just in time to ensure that the wine continues to flow.

So now they're in Galilee with his disciples (Simon Peter, Andrew, Philip and Nathanael; or was it Simon Peter, Andrew, John and James?) and the first action of any significance is to provide approximately 150 gallons of water into wine. That's approximately 750 bottles of 750 mL of wine, and apparently “Everyone serves the good wine first and then the inferior wine after the guests have become drunk. But you have kept the good wine until now.” Okay, so the person in charge more or less suggests that everyone is already drunk and only now another 750 bottles of very good wine are now coming out to do what? Ensure that every dies of alcohol poisoning?

Another point is that this is actually Jesus's greatest miracle: he transforms oxygen atoms into carbon atoms and other atoms required to make the flavoring and coloring of wine together with all the alcohol atoms. This is, in a sense, much more difficult than bringing someone back to life: the latter only requires that already existing atoms be rearranged. After all, after three days, most proteins have probably started to break down, bacteria have wildly multiplied, cell walls have decayed and contents spilt, but most of the atoms are still there; they only need to be rearranged into all those proteins required for life. Of course, the electrical activity of the brain would have to be restarted, but that is nothing compared to causing oxygen atoms to fission into carbon atoms. Also, as the density of wine is less than that of water, a significant percentage of the atoms seem to have just disappeared, as there is no report of the vessels of water (which were filled to the brim) overflowing when they were converted into wine, so we even do not have conservation of mass.

Another point: how anyone can claim that Christianity promotes sobriety and prohibition is beyond this author: the very first miracle is not, for example, converting rock or mud or a piece of wood into a missing limb (converting silicon atoms to carbon atoms should be as easy as converting oxygen atoms into carbon atoms; after all, Yahweh "formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being"), but rather it is providing more alcohol for those at a wedding who are already drunk: over fifty cases of wine. This reads more like a story told in a bar: "Hey, dude, I was at a party last weekend, and after we totally sloshed, some guy brought in another fifty two-fours of beer! That Jesus dude is totally awesome!"

Finally, it would be fascinating to know what the wine actually was: was it a Shiraz, was it oaked, how subtle were the tannins, or was it white wine? Alas, we will never know what is likely the best wine never made.

Anyway, so perhaps now Jesus goes by himself into the wilderness:

After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother, his brothers, and his disciples, and they remained there a few days.

So, no wilderness yet, and it is the fourth day after his baptism. Notice also that Jesus goes to Capernaum with his disciples, whereas in the other gospels, Jesus apparently goes to the Sea of Galilee by himself and only calls Simon Peter, Andrew, John and James when he gets there (or was it Simon Peter, Andrew, Philip and Nathanael?). There is no mention of Jesus's mother or his brothers. Also, their stay in Capernaum is rather transient: "they remainder there a few days." This contrasts with the synoptic gospels where Jesus seems to have spent significant time there, and in Mark, the only reason Mary and Jesus's brothers come, thinking he has lost his mind, to take him away:

When his family heard it, they went out to restrain him, for people were saying, “He has gone out of his mind.”

... Then his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him.

In Matthew, Luke and John, it is clear that Mary understands that Jesus is somehow special, but the earliest gospel, Mark, explicitly has Mary question the sanity of Jesus. After all, if you simply believe that Jesus was adopted the Son of Yahweh at his baptism, that he sinned and had his issues and the character of any other human in his youth and adulthood, one may indeed have that person's mother question the actions of her son. If, however, the author believed that Jesus was somehow special, then the clear and obvious demonstration of her knowledge of her special son is to have that mother ask him to turn water into wine. Why did Mary not get Jesus to heal the sick or to regrow a limb or expel the Romans? Clearly, if Jesus can cause matter to change (oxygen into carbon), he could simply cause cells in the hearts of every Roman to turn into silicon. Why provide more booze for a party? What kind of so-called "god" is that?

Jesus goes to Jerusalem (John 2:13-)

However, returning to John, we are given some context as to when Jesus was baptized:

The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

So a short while (say, a few weeks) after Jesus's baptism is Passover, so this suggests that Jesus's baptism occurred in late March or early April (hence the above time being stated as being after the Spring Equinox), and thus he finds himself back in the vicinity in Jerusalem, so perhaps now he is going to go into the wilderness?

In the temple he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves and the money changers seated at their tables. Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, with the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. He told those who were selling the doves, “Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father’s house a marketplace!”

This story should be familiar, but this occurs in the other gospels in the last week of Jesus's life, not the event that occurs

Then they came to Jerusalem [from Bethany]. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves, and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. He was teaching and saying, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers.”

So is Jesus's issue that the Temple is being made into a marketplace, or that it was made into a den of robbers? However, the real issue is that this event is only recorded once in each of the gospels: in Mark, Matthew, and Luke it is one of the last actions of Jesus, while in John it is one of the first (immediately after providing sufficient wine to the wedding guests to ensure each guest has the opportunity to die of alcohol poisoning). Also, the first three gospels do not hint that the disruption of commerce in the Temple as they record is not the first time Jesus acted in this way, and John mentions nothing of Jesus disrupting the commerce in the Temple during the last week of his life. This is what one would expect if different authors had heard various tales of Jesus, and in compiling their own version of events, inserts them wherever they see fit, just like the first three authors carefully describing Jesus being tempted in the wilderness for forty days immediately after his baptism, while John tells other stories, including one that the other authors leave to the end of Jesus's life.

Next, while in Jerusalem, Jesus talks to Nicodemus. Recall that all of this is occurring immediately after Jesus's baptism--at the same time that Jesus should be spending time in the wilderness. All other events described in the other gospels should therefore be subsequent to this conversation and these events, and yet, Jesus does not seem to have the same standing in the eyes of the pharisees in the other gospels. Indeed, as all the gospels were written at least forty years after the death of Jesus, one would think that if it was well known in the Christian community that one as high as Nicodemus would be known to the authors of at least one of the other three gospels, and would merit some sort of comment; however, it is more likely that this entire episode was made of whole cloth by either the author of John or one in his community.

In this narrative, Jesus uses three double meanings and yet, these only work in Greek, for words that are homophones in one language may not be homophones in another. Specifically, the word used by the author of John is anathon (ἄνωθεν) a word that means either "again" or "from above."

Jesus answered him, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born ἄνωθεν [from above].”

Nicodemus said to him, “How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be astonished that I said to you, ‘You must be born ἄνωθεν [from above].’

Jesus corrects Nicodemus and emphasizes that you must be "born of the Spirit" or "born from above."

What is most hilarious is that evangelical Christians use the wrong translation: Jesus said that you must be "born from above," and it was Nicodemus who misinterpreted what Jesus said as meaning "born again." These evangelicals should be running around claiming that they are "born-from-above Christians," not "born-again Christians."

This issue, however, is that in Aramaic, the words for "again" and "from above" are two completely different words. If this conversation had taken place in Aramaic, it would be no different than the following being spoken in either English or German:

This plane [aircraft] is very plain.

This [hand] plane is very plain.
This plain [flatlands] are very plain.

Dieses Flugzeug ist sehr schlicht.

Dieses Hobel ist sehr einfach.
Dieses Flachland ist sehr flach.

In English, the common words not only have the same pronouciation but often the same spelling; while in German, all they are significantly different. It would be impossible to misinterpret "Flachland" as meaning an aircraft. Thus, any play on words between the various definitions of plane or plain would make sense if spoken in English, but would be absurd if attributed to German speakers, and it is very unlikely that Jesus and Nicodemus spoke Greek.

As noted in the above link on double meanings, Jesus is said to have used two more double meanings: the word for wind and spirit is the same word in Greek and in Aramaic, but the word for "lifted up" (as in raising) and "exalted" is only the same word in Greek. We will see that the author of John continues to see Jesus use double meanings later.

Jesus goes to Judea (John 3:23-)

The author of John now records that

After this Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, ...

So still no being on his own for forty days? What happened to the analogy to Jonah in the stomach of a whale? What happened to Satan tempting Jesus? Instead, this immediately begins with "After this ..." Not only that, why would Jesus and his disciples go Judea? They are in Judea: Jerusalem is the capital of Judea. Just like the author did not understand the distance between Bethany and Nazareth, the author does not seem to have been aware that Jerusalem is in Judea.

Jesus is with John the Baptist

Most awkward now is what Jesus does in Judea:

and he spent some time there with them and baptized. John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim because water was abundant there, and people kept coming and were being baptized. (John, of course, had not yet been thrown into prison.)

John the Baptist is not arrested? Let us return to Mark:

In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan... And the Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. He was in the wilderness forty days... Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee proclaiming the good news of God and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news.” As Jesus passed along the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the sea, for they were fishers.

The authors of both Mark and Matthew explicitly state that it was on Jesus hearing that John the Baptist was arrested that he started his ministry, and yet, the author of John has Jesus:

turn water into wine,
travel to Capernaum,
travel to Jerusalem for Passover,
disrupt the markets at the Temple, and
speak at great length to Nicodemus,

all before John the Baptist is arrested. None of these events are recorded in the other gospels, and of course, the author of John explicitly states what Jesus did following his baptism such that these events must be occurring at the same time as Jesus is allegedly in the wilderness alone.

Now, here is another example of the confusion between the gospels and the disciples of John the Baptist. In John, John the Baptist repeatedly, and before he is arrested, testifies as to the significance of Jesus:

They came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, the one who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you testified, here he is baptizing, and all are going to him.” John answered, “No one can receive anything except what has been given from heaven. You yourselves are my witnesses that I said, ‘I am not the Messiah, but I have been sent ahead of him.’ He who has the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom who stands and hears him rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice. For this reason my joy has been fulfilled. He must increase, but I must decrease.”

This is the same John the Baptist who, in Matthew and Luke, was told to question the significance of Jesus while in prison:

When John heard in prison what the Messiah was doing, he sent word by his disciples and said to him, “Are you the one who is to come, or are we to wait for another?”

The disciples of John reported all these things to him. So John summoned two of his disciples 19 and sent them to the Lord to ask, “Are you the one who is to come, or are we to expect someone else?”

Thus, the author of John has John the Baptist affirming that Jesus is the "Lamb of Yahweh" and saying explicitly that Jesus must increase while he himself decreases, and yet, the authors of Matthew and Luke tell stories that suggest otherwise. Again, this is exactly what you would expect if Jesus was an itinerant preacher who was executed for having himself anointed (that is, declaring himself king), and whose followers are subsequently left trying to make sense of what just happened. They made up stories, and in different communities, different stories appeared. Each, however, had to explain how, if Jesus was to follow John the Baptist, why there were never-the-less still disciples of John the Baptist who continued to preach the teachings of John the Baptist even after both John and Jesus were long dead.

Leaving Judea for Galilee (John 4:1-)

Once again, the author of John demonstrates his total lack of knowledge of the geography of the Levant. The author records

he left Judea and started back to Galilee. But he had to go through Samaria. So he came to a Samaritan city called Sychar, near the plot of ground that Jacob had given to his son Joseph. Jacob’s well was there, and Jesus, tired out by his journey, was sitting by the well. It was about noon.

The boundary between Judea and and Samaria is not significantly further north than Jerusalem itself, where the more rugged Judean highlands end and the more rolling Samarian highlands begin; at approximately the latitude of Ramallah. The trip from Ramallah to Jacob's well is 57 km and thus at least eleven hours. First, Jesus likely did not need to go through Samaria, and it likely would have been much easier to travel east or west first and then travel north along either the Jordan Rift Valley (following the path he previously took) or along the coast. Jacob's well is in the middle of northern Samaria, in the middle of the aforementioned rolling hills. The author of John suggests that Jesus reached this location around noon, so it is interesting that he doesn't mention Jesus stopping first for sleep, but again, the author of John is likely just once again demonstrating an absolute lack of any knowledge of the topography of the Levant.

There is a story at Jacob's well that involves yet again another double meaning: Jesus uses the Greek word that means both "running" and "living" to describe waters, and the first is the more common description of flowing water; yet Jesus means the alternative interpretation "living waters." The woman to whom Jesus speaks is confused, and yet, if they were speaking Aramaic, there would be no such confusion: the words would be entirely different, as in English. Thus, the awkward placing of Jesus in this town, together with the double meaning, probably means that this story never really happened, or at the very least, the words spoken were not that of Jesus.

Additionally, it is told that many Samaritans came to believe that Jesus was the anointed one; that is, the one that would vanquish the Romans. There is, however, one interesting truth in this passage:

Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you say that the place where people must worship is in Jerusalem.” Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.

Jacob's well is just two kilometers away from Mount Gerizim, the holy site for the Samaritans, and not Jerusalem. Indeed, if you read the Samaritan Torah, you will see it parallels the Judean Torah, only the land of milk and honey is Samaria and not Judea, and given that the Judean highlands are much more desolate than the more rolling hills of Samaria, one may wonder which Torah is actually more faithful?

However, more important is how Jesus treats the Samaritans in other gospels:

These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not take a road leading to gentiles, and do not enter a Samaritan town, 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

When the days drew near for him to be taken up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem. And he sent messengers ahead of him. On their way they entered a village of the Samaritans to prepare for his arrival, but they did not receive him because his face was set toward Jerusalem. 54 When his disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do you want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?” But he turned and rebuked them. Then they went on to another village.

The contrast in Jesus's interactions with the Samaritans should be noted, and perhaps more closely reflects the author's attitude towards these people. The author of John however has Jesus staying with the Samaritans for two days, and after which, Jesus continues his journey to Galilee.

Continuing to Galilee (John 4:43-)

So Jesus and his disciples continue to Galilee, but now we get this awkward phrase:

When the two days were over, he went from that place to Galilee (for Jesus himself had testified that a prophet has no honor in the prophet’s own country). When he came to Galilee, the Galileans welcomed him, since they had seen all that he had done in Jerusalem at the festival, for they, too, had gone to the festival.

This is also awkward: the statement that a prophet has no honor in the prophet's own country is one that appears in the other gospels, but

“Prophets are not without honor, except in their hometown and among their own kin and in their own house.”

“Prophets are not without honor except in their own hometown and in their own house.”

“Truly I tell you, no prophet is accepted in his hometown.

Each of these refers to his explicit rejection in his hometown of Nazareth, and there is a complete narrative around each of these statements; however, in John, it is not the prophet's "hometown" (i.e., Nazareth), but rather his "country" (i.e., Galilee). Now, there is truth to the statement that a prophet does not have honor in their own hometown because everyone there knows that individual while they were growing up; they know that individual's faults, their character flaws, their issues, their phobias, their idiosyncrasies, and because no one is perfect, many will suspect the individual for the same characteristics we expect from modern prophets such as David Koresh and Joseph Smith: egocentricity or sociopathy. But why would anyone in Nazareth suspect Jesus? He, after all, being god, was perfect his entire life, from birth, though infancy, through youth and adolescence, and as a young adult. As the childish hymn goes, "But little Lord Jesus no crying he makes." Apart from the absurdity of such a verse, if it were true, would no one have noticed that this particular infant, over the course of five years, never once cried? Would not the people of Nazareth recognize this miraculous character? Imagine your neighbor never annoying anyone, always being helpful (well, if that is what you think the character of Yahweh is), never got angry unnecessarily (after all, Jesus is recorded as having been angry during his ministry), never once broke on the Sabbath, etc., etc. If Jesus gave such miraculous and awe inspiring (and yet unrecorded) sermons in the Temple, would he have not also acted similarly in Nazareth? Could he have not on a number of occasions interjected with wisdom beyond the knowledge of a twelve-year old?

But that is only in Nazareth, according to the first three gospels, and John has all of Galilee knowing of him. In reality, of course, he was a carpenter or laborer and may have gone as far as Sepphoris, building the city for the glory of Herod Antipas. He reconstructed Sepphoris as the Ornament of the Galilee and renamed the city Autocratoris, the Greek translation of Imperator, or Emperor. As a youth and young man, the human Jesus would likely have been employed in the reconstruction of this city, as it is only eight kilometers from Nazareth. There, he would have seen first-hand the contrast of the poverty of Nazareth and the opulence of Autocratoris, and no doubt, this likely affected him significantly, and as a human itinerant follower of John the Baptist, such a contrast would likely have spurred him on.

Now, who in Galilee would have even known of this person? The people of Nazareth, and perhaps a few workers and managers in Autocratoris, and perhaps a few more. Who in Capernaum would have heard of him? Likely no one. Recall that in this gospel, Jesus had very recently said that “My hour has not yet come.” Thus, it is almost certain he was a complete unknown in Galilee.

However, returning to John, it has only been a short time since Jesus had even begun his ministry, and he had only returned to Nazareth once after his baptism, and that was in association with the wedding in Cana, and even then, when Jesus's mother told him to turn water into wine, Jesus explicitly said “Woman, what concern is that to me and to you? My hour has not yet come.” After this, they went to Capernaum, and then to Jerusalem, and now they are returning to Nazareth a second time, so if you take the stop at Jacob's well out of the narrative, you get:

Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard, “Jesus is making and baptizing more disciples than John” (although it was not Jesus himself but his disciples who baptized), he left Judea and started back to Galilee. [After a rest at Jacob's well,] he went from that place to Galilee (for Jesus himself had testified that a prophet has no honor in the prophet’s own country). When he came to Galilee, the Galileans welcomed him, since they had seen all that he had done in Jerusalem at the festival, for they, too, had gone to the festival.

When he came to Galilee, the Galileans welcomed him, since they had seen all that he had done in Jerusalem at the festival, for they, too, had gone to the festival.

So there is no preamble to the narrative that suggests that all Galileans should not be giving him honor, and then when he gets there, the Galileans welcome him. Contrast this with the narratives in the other gospels where in each case, this statement of honor is associated with Jesus being chased out of town. It seems that the author of John was simply aware of this saying of Jesus and chose to place it here entirely out of context.

Back in Cana, healing a son (John 4:46-)

Jesus is now back in Galilee, and he goes again to Cana, the same place where he turned water into wine and provided the equivalent of another 750 bottles of 750 mL of the best wine to allow the wedding guests to continue deepening their states of intoxication. While all three gospels mention Capernaum where many events are recorded in the vicinity of the Sea of Galilee, none of the first three gospels ever mention Cana, a town that appears to have some significance to the author of John.

This story also suggests the author of John trying to whittle in a known saying of Jesus into another story.

Now there was a royal official whose son lay ill in Capernaum. When he heard that Jesus had come from Judea to Galilee, he went and begged him to come down and heal his son, for he was at the point of death. Then Jesus said to him, “Unless you see signs and wonders you will not believe.” The official said to him, “Sir, come down before my little boy dies.” Jesus said to him, “Go; your son will live.” The man believed the word that Jesus spoke to him and started on his way. As he was going down, his slaves met him and told him that his child was alive. So he asked them the hour when he began to recover, and they said to him, “Yesterday at one in the afternoon the fever left him.” The father realized that this was the hour when Jesus had said to him, “Your son will live.” So he himself believed, along with his whole household. Now this was the second sign that Jesus did after coming from Judea to Galilee.

There are three points that should be noted.

First, the parallel between healing this son and the healing of the centurion's servant should be noted, for the authors of both Matthew and John emphasize that the son or servant were healed at the exact hour that Jesus said that individual would be healed:

So he asked them the hour when he began to recover, and they said to him, “Yesterday at one in the afternoon the fever left him.” The father realized that this was the hour when Jesus had said to him, “Your son will live.”

And Jesus said to the centurion, “Go; let it be done for you according to your faith.” And the servant was healed in that hour.

Note also that neither Matthew nor Luke, which tell the story of the centurion's servant, tell the story of the royal official's son, and the author of John does not tell the story of the Centurion's servant.

Second, there is the very particular admonition in the gospel of John:

Then Jesus said to him, “Unless you see signs and wonders you will not believe.”

The only reason that this royal official is even talking to Jesus is to "beg" him to "come down and heal his son, for he was at the point of death." By coming to Jesus, he already is believing that Jesus can heal him. He is not seeking a sign to believe, he is asking for his son to be healed, and if he did not believe, why is he coming to Jesus? Again, like the statement of honor, it seems the author of John was aware of this saying of Jesus and managed to jerry-rig it into this story. If the author wanted to make a real point, the author could have included some context or justification for giving this royal official this admonition.

Finally, suppose that the slaves of the royal official (and if royal, why is his son in Capernaum?) left Capernaum when the son was healed. It is maybe a 40 kilometer walk between Cana and Capernaum. If Jesus healed the son at one o'clock in the afternoon, and the royal official and his slaves started walking towards each other, they would have met well before sunset of that same day; however, we are told:

So he asked them the hour when he began to recover, and they said to him, “Yesterday at one in the afternoon the fever left him.”

The start of a cycle of Jewish hatred and scheming

With the start of Chapter 5, we finally have a pause in the narrative, for up to this point, one event is described in relation to the previous, often with a time period given; however, in all this time, he never seems to find sufficient time to tempted in the wilderness for forty days. Let us review:

John the Baptist talks to some pharisees.
The next day, he baptizes Jesus.
The next day, Andrew and Simon Peter meet Jesus.
The next day they set out for Galilee.
Three days after this they attend the wedding.
After this, they go to Capernaum and stay there a few days.
After this, Jesus goes to Jerusalem.
After this, Jesus goes to baptize.
After this, Jesus returns to Galilee, stopping off at Jacob's well for two days.

It is only with the start of Chapter 5 that we have the opportunity for a pause. This starts what I consider the cycle of violence, for each chapter has an action followed by Jesus followed by a reaction of "the Jews." If you look at the other synoptic gospels, Jesus only goes down to Jerusalem at the end of his ministry, and it is only when he disrupts commerce at the Temple that the Sadducees find reason to deal with this troublemaker from Galilee.

This is classic: Then the Jews began to complain about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”

The story here is that this is occurring in Capernaum, fifty kilometers from Nazareth, and these are crowds that had followed him from the other side of the Sea of Galilee. Why would there be people in this crowd who knew Joseph and Mary? However,

5 After this there was a festival of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem where he heals a man who has been ill for thirty-eight years. For this reason the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because he was not only breaking the Sabbath but was also calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God.

6 After this Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, also called the Sea of Tiberias. Then the Jews began to complain about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”

Chapter 7

The time of Chapter 7 and 8 are around Sukkot, the festival of the Tabernacles, an event that occurs in September or October.

Chapter 7 begins with

After this Jesus went about in Galilee. He did not wish to go about in Judea because the Jews were looking for an opportunity to kill him.

In none of the other gospels is such animosity towards Jesus recorded until the very end, and no other gospel narrates any visits to Jerusalem until the very end. This chapter begins with a discussion between Jesus and his brothers, and his brothers seem to be goading Jesus to going to Jerusalem, yet he says he will not go. Never-the-less, once his brothers go to Jerusalem, he follows them. When he reaches there, it seems that there is such animosity against Jesus that "no one would speak openly about him for fear of the Jews." At this time, Jesus, for the most part, only had Jewish followers... Anyway, Jesus begins teaching again, and once again the author says "The Jews were astonished at it, saying, “How does this man have such learning, when he has never been taught?”" Why is it every time there is an opportunity to describe some aspect that advances Christian interpretations, the authors of the gospels are so able to repeat verbatim the private discussions between Mary and an angel, or the thoughts of Joseph, or the discussions between Herod and the magi, and yet, every time Jesus teaches something that astounds those around him, the authors completely fail to record what was so astounding (e.g., see Luke 2:41-51).

Following this, the chapter ends with "[t]he Pharisees heard the crowd muttering such things about him, and the chief priests and Pharisees sent temple police to arrest him." and "[s]ome of them wanted to arrest him, but no one laid hands on him."

Now, interestingly enough, Jesus lied at the start of Chapter 7: “Go to the festival yourselves. I am not going to this festival, for my time has not yet fully come.” He never-the-less went.

Chapter 8

The oldest copies of the gospel of John do not contain the story of the woman taken in adultery, so we will ignore it here; however, it is rather awkward, for if the "woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery", where is the man with whom she was committing this act?

Jesus continues to teach, and this is interspersed with statements like:

He spoke these words while he was teaching in the treasury of the temple, but no one arrested him, because his hour had not yet come.
I know that you are descendants of Abraham, yet you look for an opportunity to kill me because there is no place in you for my word.
“If you are Abraham’s children, you would do what Abraham did, but now you are trying to kill me, ...”

After further discussion, this chapter also ends with "So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple."

Chapter 9 and half of Chapter 10

The timing of Chapter 9 and the first half of Chapter 10 is not given. It could be at any time between Sukkot and Hanukkah; however, Jesus is certainly near Jerusalem, as he asks the blind man to wash the mud off his eyes at the Pool of Siloam, which is next to Jerusalem.

Chapter 9 is no different: Jesus heals a blind man on the Sabbath, the Pharisees query both the man and his parents, and after a back-and-forth, "they drove him out." Jesus speaks to this person again, and some Pharisees overhear this conversation and ask “Surely we are not blind, are we?” Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would not have sin. But now that you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains.” Jesus's discussion with the pharisees continues at the start of Chapter 10, where Jesus compares himself to a shepherd.

At the end of this section we have "Again the Jews were divided because of these words. Many of them were saying, “He has a demon and is out of his mind. Why listen to him?” Others were saying, “These are not the words of one who has a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?”"

The balance of Chapter 10

The second half of Chapter 10 occurs at the time of Hanukkah, or the end of December, and once again Jesus finds himself in Jerusalem (if he had ever left it after Sukkot). This takes place at Solomon's Porch inside the Temple.

Jesus once again speaks to "the Jews" and then claims that “The Father and I are one.” After this, "[t]he Jews took up stones again to stone him." The chapter essentially ends with "Then they tried to arrest him again, but he escaped from their hands." First they're trying to kill him, then instead they try to arrest him in the periphery of the Temple, and yet he escapes, again.

Following this, Jesus leaves Jerusalem and returns Bethany across the Jordan, which is where John 1 indicates that John the Baptist was baptizing.

Chapter 11

This now becomes confusing, for Jesus is at Bethany across the Jordan, but the siblings Mary, Martha and Lazarus, and Lazarus live in Bethany next to Jerusalem, and Lazarus is dying, "[s]o the sisters sent a message to Jesus." Jesus delays going to Bethany so that Lazarus can die, he goes there and then resurrects him. None of the other gospels mention this miracle even though Luke 10 also refers to Mary and Martha, yet Luke does not suggest that they live in Bethany next to Jerusalem. Indeed, the gospel of John explicitly says that "Mary was the one who anointed the Lord with perfume and wiped his feet with her hair." Consequently, it seems that Mary, Martha and Lazarus all knew Jesus before Lazarus becoming ill, and it was Mary who anoints Jesus, and yet, neither Matthew nor Mark mentions the name of the woman who anointed him (although, the anointing did occur in Bethany), and despite Luke naming Mary and Martha, again, no mention is made of the name of the woman who anoints him. Given that Jesus resurrects her brother, is this not awkward?

Anyway, Jesus resurrects Lazarus, and what do the pharisees do? They claim that because of this, the Romans will destroy Judea: “What are we to do? This man is performing many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation.” This is awkward at best, as Jesus just resurrected someone who was dead--what does it matter if the Romans attack? The high priest chimes in: “You do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed.” Consequently, the pericope ends with "from that day on they planned to put him to death."

Jesus leaves Jerusalem for Ephraim (four hours walk northeast of Jerusalem) and only returned for the Passover. The chapter ends with "the chief priests and the Pharisees had given orders that anyone who knew where Jesus was should let them know, so that they might arrest him."

Chapter 12

This chapter begins with Jesus returning to Bethany to be with Mary, Martha and Lazarus, and it seems that many Jews knew he was there, so one must wonder why no one covered the two miles to go and arrest him. Instead, "the chief priests planned to put Lazarus to death as well, since it was on account of him that many of the Jews were deserting and were believing in Jesus." No mention of this is ever made again--we do not know what happend to Lazarus.

Next, Jesus enters Jerusalem to a great crowd, and yet after speaking to them, "he departed and hid from them."

What follows parallels, at least in part, the narrative told in the other gospels... At some point, I'll finish this to discuss how the author of John changes the date of Jesus's execution so that it coincides with the sacrifice of the Passover lamb.