John next reports that an elder named Nicodemus comes to visit Jesus, at night, and that Jesus delivers a discourse on spiritual rebirth and eternal life. Now once again, we must observe that the Synoptics do not so much as mention Nicodemus, even in passing, although he is labelled as a "ruler of the Jews" by John. We must also observe that there is no mention of rebirth in the Synoptics, but we can see the following progression of thought from Mark to Matthew to John: Could it be possible that the Johannine statement was de-theologized into the warmer, more human statement in Mark, and is it the original; or is it more likely that the simple statement according to Mark, on the occasion of suffering the little children to come to him, would have evolved into the more dogmatic, allegorical, metaphysical statement found in John?

The rest of the discourse, about the son of man and Son of God, bears every stamp of having been put into Jesus' mouth by the author. It is worded in the past tense, and clearly represents the thinking of the early Christians following Jesus' death; but even so nowhere in it does Jesus claim a unique relationship with God. Furthermore, not one discourse in the Synoptics bears any resemblance to this style of discourse; only one paragraph in them (Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22) contains any reference to the Father and the Son. And we are also told there that Jesus taught in parables, and that without a parable spake he not unto them; but these remarks in John, about rebirth, and water and the spirit, are not a parable, because Jesus treats them as real, not as a simile or a metaphor.

To make this quite clear, note that Jesus is not reported as saying, The kingdom of God is like being born anew; he does not say, It is like being born of water and the spirit. Nor in the Synoptics does he say, The kingdom of God is a grain of mustard seed, growing high overhead; nor, the kingdom of God is a man sowing seed in a field, or is a merchant seeking goodly pearls. A parable teIIs what something is like; but the Jesus of John here says, Ye must be born anew; ye must believe on the Son to have eternal life; God sent the Son so that the world might be saved. All of these ponderous assertions are contradicted by the Synoptics: in a day that thou knowest not the son of man cometh (Luke 12:40); whoso shall seek to save his life shall lose it (Mark 8:35; Luke 17:33); except ye repent, ye shall likewise perish (Luke 13:3,5); seek ye first the kingdom of God, and all else shall be added unto you (Matt. 6:35; Luke 16:31).

The rest of this chapter contains no more words from Jesus, but reports John the Baptizer as saying all kinds of eulogizing things about Jesus. But the records of Matthew, Mark, and Luke not only do not contain any such opinion about Jesus on the part of John, but Matthew and Luke actually report John as doubting that Jesus was the one who he said would come (Matt. 11:2,3; Luke 7:18,19). Which report should we be1ieve? Did John proclaim Jesus to be the Messiah or not? Would Matthew and Luke have reported such doubts on the part of John if he had not actually had them?

Further examination of the above verses and the beginning of the next chapter shows that they are wholly questionable. In verse 3:24 we are told that John was not yet cast into prison, whereas in the Synoptics we are explicitly told that Jesus did not begin to preach until after John had been cast into prison. Whom are we to believe? And in verse 3:22 we are told that Jesus went into Judea, and baptized; but John contradicts himself later, at verse 4:2, when he says that Jesus baptized not, and in the Synoptics we can find no record of Jesus' ever having baptized. Is John a careful and accurate reporter? So far nearly everything John has told us (either the Baptizer or the Evangelist) is contradicted in one way or another by the Synoptics, or is obviously later and more theologically evolved. Should we accept his report as'more reliable than the Synoptics, or not? Well, let us defer our answer until we have studied further.