Loading...In my previous post I provided a summary of the main themes and emphases of 1 John; now I can turn to the question of Who, Why, and When.
They question of “who wrote it” has long been discussed, and almost always in relationship to the Gospel of John. Neither book mentions the name John; neither identifies its author; and neither refers directly to the other. Even so, as I pointed out in my discussion of John (see: https://ehrmanblog.org/the-gospel-of-john-who-wrote-it-when-and-why/ ), the Gospel was from early times said to have been written by John the son of Zebedee. And since 1 John (along with 2 and 3 John) seemed so similar in many ways to the Gospel, it was assumed to have been written by him as well. Hence the titles they received, as the Epistles of John.
Among the shared themes of the Gospel and Epistles of John are the following:
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Learn More!
1 John 3:23
Was “the name” an early use of the Hebrew expression Hashem? Did Christian literature actually invent the use of “Hashem “ which was later picked up by Rabbinical Judaism sometime after 70AD?
It was a Jewish “invention” to be used in substitution for the actual divine name, (“Yahweh” from the Tetragrammaton). I believe it started before the Christian era, but I don’t know a lot about it.
Totally off topic here.
I’ve made a little slideshow video of a possible solution to the Synoptics Problem and a possible hypothesis as to where the Q document came from.
It’s just 2 to 3 minutes long, and there’s no sound/voiceover. I’m afraid I’m new at this kind of thing.
The kicker for me, is that since I’ve posted it, the thumbnail for the video has gotten over 1,000 views.
Just wanted to share.
The Synoptics Problem and Q | Where did Q originate from?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzIDe59z2f4&t=3s
Hello Dr.Bart Ehrman
I have heard that people say that in oral cultures people memorize stories better because they use poems and forms in where it is easier to remember things. Is it true?
Nope, not at all. Though people always say that. It’s a major topic I address at some length in my book Jesus Before the Gospels
John 6:40 says the will of the father is that “everyone should have eternal life and I will raise them up on the last day” – hardly that different from 1st John’s “promise” of eternal life.
Aren’t these differences far too minor to outweigh the 40 or so agreements in expression between the two books? and given the fact so few people (and even less christians) could write, isn’t the safest bet that the two books have the same author? And that any minor differences of opinion are just the kind of minor changes you’d expect from any author over the course of their life. Nobody writes two books separated by a number of years which are entirely in perfect agreement with each other.
It’s relatively easy to model agreements; what are telling are the key differences. Someone could write a blog post in my name and say tons of things that I would say. But I would be able to tell quickly that it wasn’t something I wrote based on just one or two misstatements.
Wouldn’t the realized eschatology – possibly also the more refined language – suggest that the gospel represents a later development of the “Johannine” ideology? Primitive and apocalyptic usually precedes refined and non-apocalyptic. You don’t need a gospel to write a letter. Paul didn’t.
I don’t think we can date books based on their views of eschatology, since in virtually all ages there are Christians who maintain the end is near and other Christians who insiste they’re barkin’ up the wrong tree…
Yes, it’s a problem to argue that texts must be late if they don’t expect an imminent end. Go into any Christian book site or book store and you will find tons of books indicating that the End is Near in our own day. But that doesn’t mean the books were written in the first century.
Can you please explain John 13:16?
Jesus washes his disciple’s feet, seemingly to demonstrate the importance of humility and the virtue of serving rather than being served, regardless of rank. Then he seems to undercut that very message in verse 16 by reinforcing the idea of hierarchy and rank. I don’t get it.
I think v. 16 is either saying that Jesus is not greater than God or, more generally, that slaves are not greater than their masters; his followers are to behave like slaves, not masters.