How John's High Christology Is Connected To Other Historical Events

I've argued elsewhere that Jesus' high claims about himself in the fourth gospel can't be dismissed as easily as critics often suggest. I've argued for the historicity of Jesus' "I am" statements in general. I've argued especially for the historicity of John 8:12, such as how it's connected to so many aspects of the surrounding context in John's gospel and material outside John, meaning that removing 8:12 would cause a ripple effect that would go beyond that one verse. See my comments on 8:12 in the post linked above and my lengthier treatments of the subject here and here, for example.

Another example of that kind of thing is John 11:8. Jesus' disciples refer to how there had just been an attempt to stone him. That occurred in 10:31, in response to Jesus' high claim about himself in 10:30. So, removing 10:30 would affect 10:31 and 11:8, meaning that 10:30 doesn't exist in isolation. Even in the distinct context of 11:8, involving a different sequence of events in a different location, 10:30 is treated as historical.

More Evidence For The Historicity Of The "I Am" Statements Of Jesus

I wrote a post a couple of years ago about some evidence for the historicity of the "I am" statements of Jesus in the fourth gospel. Something I didn't mention there is that some of the "I am" passages or contexts connected to them, depending on how you define the terms, include characteristics of Jesus that are widely attested elsewhere. See the discussions of John 8:59 and 9:6 here. Those verses come just after the "I am" statements in 8:58 and 9:5. The verisimilitude of Jesus' behavior in these passages adds to the cumulative argument for the historicity of the "I am" statements.

While there's a danger of assigning too much significance to something like verisimilitude, there's also a danger of assigning too little significance to it. One way to approach the subject I'm addressing in this post is to ask if there would be any diminishment of the credibility of the John 8 and John 9 passages if they didn't refer to the behaviors of Jesus in question, but instead only referred to behaviors not corroborated by other sources. There would be a diminishment, even though it wouldn't be a large one. It doesn't have to be large to have some significance.

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.