The Historicity Of The "I Am" Statements Of Jesus

Critics often object to the historicity of the gospel of John on the basis of the presence of "I am" statements of Jesus there that aren't found in the Synoptics ("I am the light of the world", "I am the good shepherd", etc.). Whether such statements are absent from the Synoptics is a disputed issue, but to whatever extent they are, their presence in John is much less problematic than is typically suggested. We don't need to know why the statements weren't included in the Synoptics in order to have sufficient reason to believe in the historicity of the statements. But it's easier than critics suggest to explain why the "I am" statements would be absent from the Synoptics if the statements were made by Jesus.

Since critics place all of the statements into one category, they shouldn't object if their opponents do the same. And if we place the statements into one category, then we don't need a different explanation for why each "I am" statement was left out of each Synoptic gospel. In principle, there could be one reason for why all of the statements, collectively, are absent from every Synoptic. There may be more than one reason, but there wouldn't need to be more than one. And it's easy to think of potential reasons. That's especially so if the Synoptics were all published close together in time - all three being published within a single-digit number of years, I suspect - whereas John was published about two or three decades later.

One possibility is that an individual or group of some sort - heretical, Jewish, or pagan - was abusing the "I am" statements in some way. So, the Synoptic authors gave the statements less attention for that reason. Maybe there was a tendency at the time to avoid bringing up the statements in order to avoid the controversy. By contrast, that individual or group was less prominent or no longer existed when John wrote. The earlier tendency to avoid the "I am" statements could have been comparable to the tendency some Christians have to avoid those statements today, such as when they argue for the deity of Jesus by using only material from the Synoptics or even limiting it further by using only certain statements in the Synoptics that they expect to be more widely accepted or easier to understand. The reasons modern Christians have for avoiding the "I am" statements are different (and sometimes wrong), and the surrounding context is different, but the general parameters of the circumstances are significantly similar. People are often selective in what arguments they use, and they often accommodate their audience, sometimes even their opponents, to some extent. Given the nature of the early heresies, such as second-century Gnosticism, it's plausible that some heretical individual or group was misusing the "I am" statements in some manner and that there was a Christian tendency to avoid the statements in response. It's also plausible that a Jewish reaction to the statements motivated an avoidance of the subject by at least some Christians, like the Synoptic authors. John 8 illustrates the potential for an unusually high degree of Jewish hostility toward the "I am" statements. In response to the "I am" statement of 8:12, the Jewish authorities accuse Jesus of falsely testifying about himself (verse 13). After some contentious further discussion, Jesus makes another "I am" statement (verse 58), which results in an attempt to murder him (verse 59).

Notice how much attention is given to Jesus' identity in the events surrounding his death in all of the Synoptics (Matthew 27:11, 27:43, Mark 14:58, 14:61, 15:26, Luke 23:2). He was executed under the charge of claiming to be the king of the Jews. Caiaphas asked him whether he was the Messiah and Son of God, and Pilate asked him whether he was a king. Matthew even records some ridicule of Jesus for a type of "I am" statement: "I am the Son of God." (Matthew 27:43) Though Matthew is aware of that "I am" statement, he doesn't record Jesus' stating it that way, and he doesn't record the "I am" statements found in John, but he does acknowledge a Jewish interest in such statements. So, it's plausible that the Synoptics largely avoid such "I am" statements because of Jewish antagonism toward them. There was Jewish antagonism toward other statements Jesus made, claims that were made about him, and so on, but the "I am" statements may have gotten an unusually hostile response.

Whether we accept that sort of explanation of what happened, adopt some other one instead, or remain agnostic on the issue, we shouldn't conclude that the "I am" statements are unhistorical. We have to take into account the evidence we have for the historicity of the gospel of John in general, the historicity of other contexts surrounding the "I am" statements, and the historicity of the "I am" statements in particular. It's not as though the historicity of the "I am" statements is something Christians are only defensive about. There's positive evidence that the statements are historical.

We have a lot of posts in our archives arguing that the fourth gospel was written by John the son of Zebedee. For example, see here regarding the evidence for gospel authorship in general and this post that's more focused on John in particular.

I've also written about John's relationship with the city of Ephesus, the evidence that he lived there until the late first or early second century, and how early reports about him and the fourth gospel (including high views of its historicity and the historicity of the "I am" statements specifically) are more credible accordingly. See here, for example.

Something else we need to keep in mind is that though John seems to have been the last apostle to die, it doesn't follow that nobody was alive at the time when the fourth gospel was published who would have been in a good position to dispute what the gospel reported if what it reported was false. Given how long people live, it would be surprising if no eyewitnesses or contemporaries of Jesus or eyewitnesses or contemporaries other than John were alive when the fourth gospel was published. I've written elsewhere about the evidence that Papias was influenced by the fourth gospel. And Papias names an eyewitness of Jesus who lived down to Papias' day and was prominent alongside John, a man named Aristion. See here regarding other eyewitnesses mentioned by Quadratus. Symeon, a cousin of Jesus, also seems to have lived into the relevant timeframe.

Furthermore, even people who weren't eyewitnesses or contemporaries of Jesus would have been in a good position to judge whether the "I am" statements had been reported in a credible manner before they were recorded in the fourth gospel. Somebody who became a Christian in the middle of the first century, for example, would have been in a good position to know if the "I am" statements hadn't been mentioned until, say, one or two decades or longer after he became a Christian. Fabricating the statements and convincing so many people of their authenticity wouldn't have been as easy as critics often suggest.

We have a large amount of material in our archives on the evidence for the historicity of the fourth gospel. In addition to searching our archives for whatever interests you in that context, there are some good books you can read on the subject. See, for example, Lydia McGrew's The Eye Of The Beholder (Tampa, Florida: DeWard Publishing, 2021) and Craig Blomberg's The Historical Reliability Of John's Gospel (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2001).

On the amount of agreement between the Synoptics and John in general, see here. That has implications for the credibility of John's "I am" material.

We can also move from the credibility of John in general to the credibility of the contexts within John that surround the "I am" statements. Lydia McGrew's book mentioned above discusses some evidence for the historicity of John 6, for example, such as what's addressed here. Or see my post here about how well some material in John 14-16 explains why Christians from the time of Paul onward viewed apostolic documents as scripture. That material in John 14-16 meets the criterion of coherence by offering such a good explanation for why apostolic documents were viewed as scripture so early and so widely. And there are some "I am" statements in those chapters of John's gospel.

In addition to the evidence for John's general trustworthiness and the credibility of the more immediate contexts surrounding the "I am" statements, a lot can be said about the evidence for the "I am" statements themselves. I'll just briefly address some of the relevant points.

The number and variety of the statements are significant. If John and/or his source(s) were making these statements up, it's remarkable that they did it so widely and, as the historical record demonstrates, were so effective at getting so many people to accept the fabrication.

I've put together a collection of my posts on Jesus' fulfillment of Isaiah 9. One of the points I've made in those posts is that there's a high degree of similarity between how Jesus uses Isaiah 9 in John 8:12 (one of the "I am" statements) and what he does in the Synoptics. Matthew 4:12-16, for example, is similar to John 8:12 in having Jesus not only identify himself as the figure of Isaiah 9, but also appeal to the same light theme in the same verse in Isaiah 9 (verse 2) and apply that theme in the same way (in more spiritual contexts, like the gospel, redemption, and discipleship, not a Messianic context that was more popular at the time, like military victory or the status of Israel as a nation). And the Synoptics agree in having Jesus live in Nazareth, then Capernaum as an adult, which lines up with the references to Zebulun and Naphtali in Isaiah 9:1. Jesus' use of Isaiah 9 in John 8:12 is corroborated by the Synoptics in some significant ways.

I wrote a post a few years ago about how much the Synoptics and John agree about soteriological issues. Some of the material there addresses Jesus' comments on shepherding in the Synoptics, which are relevant to the "I am the good shepherd" and "I am the door of the sheep" statements in John, and Jesus' comments in the Synoptics about entrance into the kingdom of God, which are relevant to the "I am the door of the sheep" and "I am the way" statements in John. Notice, too, that Jesus, the Synoptic authors, and other relevant figures often bring up these way, entrance, and door themes in other Synoptic contexts (e.g., Matthew 7:13-14, 23:13, 25:10, Mark 1:1-3, Luke 11:52, 13:24). Those were common themes in Jesus' comments in general, not just in the "I am" context, and they were common themes in the larger historical context in which Jesus lived, both of which increase the plausibility of his use of the themes in the "I am" statements.

Some of the "I am" statements are implied by Synoptic material. Matthew 5:14 not only corroborates John 8:12 by using the same language ("the light of the world"), but also does so in a way that requires that Jesus at least thought of himself in terms of John 8:12. How could he call his followers the light of the world without also thinking of himself as the light of the world in a higher sense? Matthew 5:14 doesn't prove that Jesus spoke the words of John 8:12, but it does substantially increase the plausibility of his having done so. As far as that "I am" statement is concerned (the one in John 8:12), the question isn't whether the Synoptics portray Jesus as viewing himself that way. They clearly do. Rather, the question is merely whether Jesus ever outwardly expressed that view as John describes. Even where the evidence isn't as strong as it is in Matthew 5:14, we can make similar observations. For example, it would be ridiculous to look at what Jesus says about the shepherding theme in the Synoptics and deny that he thought of himself in that context as John describes in the fourth gospel.

The history of interpretation of the "I am" statements supports their historical genre and historicity as well. For example, the best explanation for where Irenaeus got his false belief that Jesus lived to be over forty years old is that he got it from a misinterpretation of John 8:57, which is part of the immediate context of the "I am" statement of verse 58. He attributes his false view to "the gospel", "all the elders", eyewitnesses of the apostles, and the apostles themselves (Against Heresies, 2:22:5). Even if you doubt Irenaeus had John 8:57 in mind in the passage I just cited, he goes on to cite it in the next section (2:22:6) and refers to the comments of Jesus' Jewish opponents as historical ("those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ"). Since Irenaeus' false view of Jesus' age was so unpopular, yet he attributes his view to so many sources and brings up John 8:57 and discusses it in that context, the best explanation of what happened is that the sources he cited affirmed John 8:57, which Irenaeus misinterpreted. Even if what those sources discussed was something like an extrabiblical tradition regarding the events of John 8, the best explanation of what happened is still that it was John 8:57 or something closely related to it. We have to make sense of the widespread nature of Irenaeus' sources, Irenaeus' misunderstanding of them, and his use of John 8:57, and what I'm proposing makes sense of all three. What's most significant here is the affirmation of the historicity of John 8:57 by so many and such credible sources. If you read all of Irenaeus' comments, it's evident that he believed in the historicity of this material in John 8 and thought there was a longstanding Christian tradition of interpreting it so. Elsewhere, Irenaeus refers to how Jesus "himself" made the "I am" statement in John 11:25 (Against Heresies, 4:5:2). When responding to Celsus, Origen repeatedly appeals to the "I am" statements to justify the fact that "we" (Christians in general) believe in the deity of Jesus. Whatever Clement of Alexandria and Origen meant when they referred to the fourth gospel as a spiritual gospel, they seem to have accepted the historicity of the "I am" statements. (For more about the context of Clement's reference to the fourth gospel as spiritual, see here.) Origen refers to how "we" believe what "Jesus himself" said in John 14:6 and similar statements Jesus made elsewhere (Against Celsus, 1:66). Origen places the "I am" statements alongside Jesus' statements in the Synoptics, appealing to both as historical (2:10, 2:25, 2:64). Regarding John 11:25, Origen comments, "it was he who appeared to us in the form of the man Jesus, who taught us, saying, 'I am the resurrection.'" (7:16) The Muratorian Canon, probably composed in the second half of the second century, speaks highly of the historicity of the fourth gospel and puts it in the same category as the other gospels, even appealing to 1 John 1:1-3 in the process:

"And hence, although different points are taught us in the several books of the Gospels, there is no difference as regards the faith of believers, inasmuch as in all of them all things are related under one imperial Spirit, which concern the Lord's nativity, His passion, His resurrection, His conversation with His disciples, and His twofold advent,-the first in the humiliation of rejection, which is now past, and the second in the glory of royal power, which is yet in the future. What marvel is it, then, that John brings forward these several things so constantly in his epistles also, saying in his own person, 'What we have seen with our eyes, and heard with our ears, and our hands have handled, that have we written.' For thus he professes himself to be not only the eye-witness, but also the hearer; and besides that, the historian of all the wondrous facts concerning the Lord in their order." (source here)