Muslims argue that the Gospel of John is not historically reliable and contradicts the Synoptic Gospels.

John MacArthur argues that the differences between John's Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are not contradictions but rather serve to supplement each other. He highlights that both John and the Synoptics present Jesus as the Son of Man and the Son of God, emphasizing His divine nature and sacrificial role in salvation. For instance, while the Synoptics may not provide certain details about events, John often fills in these gaps, thereby enhancing the overall narrative of Jesus' ministry. MacArthur points out that the Gospels were designed by the divine Spirit to interlock and reinforce one another. He provides examples where John's Gospel offers explanations for events that the Synoptics record without context, such as the accusations against Jesus during His trial and the reasons behind certain actions taken by Jesus. This interdependence illustrates that the Gospels, while differing in style and emphasis, collectively contribute to a coherent portrayal of Jesus. Furthermore, MacArthur notes that John's Gospel was written later, assuming that readers were already familiar with the Synoptic accounts. This assumption allows John to provide additional insights that deepen the understanding of Jesus' identity and mission. The complementary nature of the Gospels supports the argument for their reliability and authenticity, countering claims made by critics, including Muslims, who question their historical accuracy.