Loading...This is the fifth of my FIVE FAVORITES — reposts of blog posts from years ago, in part to celebrate the new launch of the blog and in part to encapsulate some of the kinds of posts that can be found in the archives. The archives go back to April 2012 and are easily searched. As you can see, you can simply do a word search for any issue; you can get a list of posts for any category; you can actually go back to any month and year and see a list of posts. Ain’t life grand?
Here is a post from 2016 on what is, for me, a topic of long-standing interest.
*********************************
In my previous post I explained why the author of the book of Revelation, someone named John, was not claiming to be John the son of Zebedee and in fact probably was *not* John the son of Zebedee. I also showed why this author was not the same one who produced the fourth Gospel, the Gospel of John (see https://ehrmanblog.org/the-author-of-revelation/) Now I want to talk about the Gospel to show that it too was probably not written by John.
The first thing to stress – it can’t be stressed enough – is that like the other Gospels of the New Testament, the Gospel of John (as I’ll continue to call it, for the sake of convenience, since that is, after all, the title that was later given to it) is completely anonymous. The author does not tell us his name or identify himself in any way.
I have already explained why people in the early church came to *think* the book was written by Jesus’ earthly disciple, John the son of Zebedee (see https://ehrmanblog.org/who-wrote-the-book-of-revelation-and-the-fourth-gospel/ from a few days ago). There are very good reasons, however, for thinking that this view is wrong.
It is interesting to note that John the son of Zebedee is never (ever)…
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, NOW is your BIG CHANCE! JOIN! It doesn’t cost much, you get masses for your money, and every dime goes to charity.
On the subject of literacy in first-century Palestine, I recommend Chris Keith’s Jesus Against the Scribal Elite: The Origins of the Conflict. It really opened my eyes to the reality of literacy levels at the time of Jesus. In particular, Keith makes a strong argument that Jesus himself may well have been unable to read or write.
You used to note the date of each post against its listing under the heading ‘Recent Posts’ at the righthand side of the screen. I used to find this helpful. Is there any reason for no longer do this? The date at the bottom of the post has to be searched for.
Yes, I’ve asked Steven to correct that too. I always found that useful as well.
The date for each post is showing now. Thank you, Steven!
I’ve always thought that the Gospels were writing as missionary tools, but you’ve said that that’s an outdated idea. I don’t like having outdated ideas. Why were they written?
Me either! The were written almost certainly for Christian insiders, to provide them with information and ways to understand what Jesus really said and did.
While I do not, when I read the 4th gospel, think of it as having been composed by an eyewitness, I find the argument that a Galilean fisherman could not have been literate not very convincing. I base this on years of experience as a teacher, which has shown me that there is a wide range in the ability to learn to read. Some children seem to take to it almost as naturally as breathing, while for others it is always a struggle. We could probably assert that because of the lack of opportunity, it would be unusual for a Galilean fisherman to become literate, but knowing a bit about how learning works, I expect that there were at least a few who did.
Good point. The problem is that you teach in a school, and in our context every child goes to school. Literacy is all around us, in most media forms. (Internet!) In the ancient world the vast majority of children did not go to school; those who did were the upper crust elite with rich parents. Very few towns in Galilee even would have even had a school. Literacy at the time was probably around 10 per cent (of those who could *read*); it was apparently even lower in Roman Palestine. So the big problem is that it’s hard for us to imagine living in that completely different context.
I just wanted to add an example from my experience. I was raised in Taiwan as the son of American missionaries. We lived there for ten years and while I became fluent in speaking the most common dialect, Mandarin Chinese, I never learned to read the language (save for perhaps a few characters here and there.) So for all intents and purposes I was illiterate. Speaking and reading, not to mention writing, really were three completely different skill sets.
The difference is that in jewish culture the torah commands that the parents teach the children the torah, so in part it was nearly part of their faith that people learn to read. This is unique to that faith, most just insisted that you give offerings/sacrifices, but this faith required that people knew the words for themselves. So it could be that a much larger part of this culture could read and write, or at least read.
Wouldn’t that be an assumption, that if the Torah commands it that it was necessarily the case? It would seem to me that it would only take a generation or two of illiteracy for that command in the Torah to be inaccessible to the average person. And if the grandparents and parents are illiterate who’s left to teach the children?
I suppose an apologist might say that the illiteracy problem was removed by the Holy Spirit. Suddenly they became literate. Suddenly the gospel authors could write in Greek (even though the quality varied and in some cases the Greek wasn’t very good, but still– it was a miracle!). Another example of how all things can be explained when you believe in miracles. Any rabbit can be pulled out of any hat at any time for any purpose. Ta da! It’s a miracle! That sort of “reasoning” seems like cheating to me. Are apologists card sharks?
Right — if you invoke miracle, there is zero reason to look for evidence!
But it is no miracle if the culture is considered. The torah in a round about way commands that people be taught to read, and some to write. So it would be possible that a large portion of the jewish population would have the ability to read, learned at the synagogue. This culture was very different than the roman culture, parents would consider it as part of their bond with their children (yes primarily male children) to take them to look and read the torah scroll at the place they met often.
Likewise to invoking a miracle means there is no need to look for evidence, the opposite is true, if you hear they claim a miracle there is no reason to find evidence it simply must not be true. But you could simply ignore both extremes and just look at evidence.
Evidence, schmevidence! The answer is simple.
Is there a problem somewhere in the world that can’t be solved via the Scientific or some other proven empirical method/process? (Maestro, a drum roll, please, and sound seven trumpet Ruffles and Flourishes!)
ENTER STAGE LEFT: the sovereign and supreme “God of the Gaps”* (GoG) who, at center stage, waves an albeit fickle supernatural finger and –VIOLA’ — four illiterate backwater/-woods early 1st century Jesus followers become instantly fluent in speaking, reading, writing, and composing a book penned in lingua franca Alexandrian Greek.
GoG EXITS STAGE RIGHT to thunderous applause and bombastic angelic singing.
Now, who needs evidence when GoG is always available to perform a metaphysical magic act for bewitched naive observers? 😀
_________________________
* “God considered solely as an explanation for anything not otherwise (explainable)”. ~Online Etymology Dictionary entry at “god (n)”.
> Suddenly the gospel authors could write in Greek (even though the quality varied and in some cases the Greek wasn’t very good, but still– it was a miracle!)
Rather like the gift of tongues, no?
It does make you wonder exactly who the gospel writers were given that most first century Christians were from the lower echelons of Greco-Roman society. They were arguably at the top of the ‘food chain’ intellectually if not in terms of wealth or power. Is there any mileage at all in asking whether John the son of Zebedee could have in some way supplied the basic material for the fourth gospel, through an oral interview say, even though he didn’t actually write it?
These 5 favourite posts of professor Bart have been brilliant. Would you want to go for 10, sir? ?
I’m gonna go for 8!
Dear Bart,
“The “sons of Zebedee” are mentioned in the appendix (this was not originally part of the Gospel) in chapter 21”.
Please could you elaborate on this point? How do scholars know that chapter 21 was not part if the original text? Is this a certainty?
Enjoying your blog as always.
Kindest regards.
Ah, I should post on this. I’ll add it to my list of things to talk about.
I was curious about that as well, I look forward to hearing more. When you enlighten us here it keeps us away from Wikipedia, Bart! 🙂
Dear Bart,
“The “sons of Zebedee” are mentioned in the appendix (this was not originally part of the Gospel) in chapter 21”.
Please could you elaborate on this point? How do scholars know that chapter 21 was not part of the original text? Is this a certainty?
Enjoying your blog as always.
Kindest regards.
May peace be with you.
I have a very interesting question about tradition in the catholic church.
The claim says that we don’t even need the Bible to prove the message of Jesus and what he taught, rather, we have tradition that says Jesus had given the Roman catholic church the infallibility in which what it claims/does is true, what tradition/letters are they referring to? And what was the nature of the catholic church during that period?
I also would appreciate some recommend books talking about this matter.
I also would love to know everything that isn’t addressed in my question, because I feel as if what the gospel writers went through is different than what the church history is..
And at the same time, I couldn’t find any article that talks about the church in details.
I know that refuting The claim is easy through the argument of contradictions in the Bible, since they believe it holds no contradictions, but my main focus is on the refutation of the claims through the elements the claimer holds, which are letters, history of the church and their reliability etc..
Sorry for the long message and thank you for reading, my deepest wishes.
I acknowledge how my question may seem to be a child’s question, and for that I apologize.
Ah, it’s a good question but it would require a very long and complicated answer. Briefly I’ll just say this. Until Judaism, adn then more so Christianity, and then Islam — religions in antiquity (thousands of them) did not have sacred books to provide them with information about what God had really done in past or how he wanted his people to behave, etc. These things were passed along in the communities. This person is saying the same think could have happened in Christianity. Th eCAtholic church maintains that is it the bearer of the old traditions. The Scriptures are still important, but they are not essential to the faith. That in fact is a view of many Christians, not just Catholics.
What is your first to fourth favorite posts Dr. Bart Ehrman? Can you send me a link?
You can find them simply by going to Recent Posts. They would be the four posts before the fifth favorite one!
It seems to me that asserting that Jesus’ disciple John wrote or was the direct source for the gospel raises a host of questions. “John” is the only Gospel to report Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus about the importance of being “born again” (or “from above”); was John keeping this secret until he wrote his own gospel, so the other gospel writers wouldn’t scoop him? John asserts that Jesus not only did the astounding miracle of raising Lazarus, but also that it was the event that led to Jesus’ eventual arrest and crucifixion (John 11:47-53). The other gospels don’t even mention such an event. Wouldn’t the other disciples know of this event so that it would find its way into the other Gospels? Likewise with Jesus’ lengthy and deep discourse on the eve of his crucifixion, and most of the other teachings and events in John. Seems more likely to me that the “witness” in John was either invented to lend credibility to its extraordinary content, or was a false witness who invented stories, which is why the other gospel writers were ignorant of them.
I think John 21:24 is part of the epilogue and refers to Ch1-20, still at least claiming that the beloved disciple wrote the gospel.
Also I don’t think the question is whether an impoverished day laborer could learn to read and write greek, but whether a pillar of early christianity who no longer had to work for a living could learn to.
1 Cor 9:5-6 “Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? Or is it only I and Barnabas who lack the right to not work for a living?”
John and Peter are described as unlearned and idiots in Acts but Paul describes himself as an idiot when it comes to public speaking in 2 Cor 11, with the implication that the “super-apostles” are good at it.
Anyone good at composing the christian message into a public speech is capable of composing something like the 4th gospel, whether they can physically write it down or not.
I think the use in John 1 of the Hebrew Messiah and Cephas, unlike the synoptics, before translating to greek indicates that this is how the author first knew these terms.
(I know this is tangential to the topic of the fourth gospel’s authorship, but since we’re dealing with this gospel…)
In your view, Dr Ehrman, how strong are claims that some Jews – excluding Christ-followers – in the first century CE believed that God’s personified attributes (e.g. wisdom, word, name) were actual individual heavenly beings distinct from God?
I’m thinking of Segal’s and Boyarin’s claims that such beliefs existed in the 1st century CE within Judaism that’s not associated with Christ-followers.
(In contrast, for example, some like Hurtado thought that Philo’s use of personified divine attributes were merely roundabout ways of preserving divine transcendence while also emphasising divine activities in creation, similar to the use of such terms in earlier Jewish wisdom literature.)
I think Philo, for example, certainly thought of divine attributes as embodied in beings — divine “hypostases.”
Following up on the question as to *why* the gospels were written and the idea that the authors wrote to educate their fellow Christians: Could there have been other motivations? For example, could Luke have been somehow commissioned by Theophilus to write his account?
It’s possible. I’m not sure Theophilus was a real human; the name means “beloved of God,” and my sense is that Luke is righting for members of his Xn community and using a kind of code name for them. But it may have been a real person. If it was, thoguh, it woudl have been a Roman official (given the title “Most excellent”), and from all we know about that time period, there’s almost no way a Roman official would have commissioned an account of the life ofJesus.
Are there examples of ancient authors referring to themselves in the third person?
I find the argument that John was almost certainly illiterate pretty solid. But is it that hard to believe an author wrote a story in the third person, throwing in an I or a we here and there (this could also apply to other books)? If an argument is made based on strict rules of grammar, the wrong conclusion might be drawn if the author broke the rules.
Yes indeed. Lots of them. One very famous example is Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars. But in that case it is clear as day he’s referring to himself. Nothing suggests that about the author of the fourth Gospel (who, by the way, never mentions John!)
The objective evidence supports the idea that they were all highly literate in Greek. All of the earliest writings that have survived were written in Greek. Greek was the language spoken throughout the Roman Empire at the time, including ancient Palestine. Jesus and his disciples navigated the region with ease, as multilingual travelers would. The earliest Christian churches appeared not in the area of Jerusalem, but in the Greek-speaking cities of… Greece. A debate held on this blog included discussion of a scripture contained in the Book of Judith and whether Jesus could have been aware of it. Judith is a book found in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, not in the Hebrew versions. The sophistication of the ideas, the quality of the prose, and many nuances throughout confirm again and again that Jesus of Nazareth and his disciples and followers were some of the most highly educated and learned people of their time.
What is the objective evidence that they wrote these books, or that the books are recording their words as they spoke them in Greek? You may want to read up on issues of literacy in that time and place. A good starting point is CAtherine Hezser’s Literacy in Roman Palestine. I think you’ll find that she provides a comprehensive coverage of the evidence.
So many today have no idea what it means to live in an agrarian, labor-oriented society. I grew up on a Norwegian dairy farm in Wisconsin, working alongside my Norwegian grandfathers. Both could do algebra in their heads (how much hay and corn will we need to get X number of cattle through the winter). They could do geometry in their heads (how large must a field be in order to accomplish a certain yield during harvest). They were perfectly bilingual. But neither could read their bibles in their native language. There simply wasn’t **time** to learn how to do that. I never ever once saw them write a sentence.
I also deployed to Haiti in 1994. A year of ‘public school’ cost about $20 (at the time about 20% of the average yearly salary). There were many street orphans who couldn’t afford the ‘play time’ to go to school and get an education when they could go out and shine shoes or collect recyclables or whatever to earn their food. If we gave them candy they would sell it to get real food.
Life in Palestine had to be harder still.
This exegesis disregards Redaction Criticism. Fortna, for example, finds a Signs Source.
Further — given that all fishermen of Galilee would be illiterate — Peter, too. That means that Peter gave his Epistle verbally to an amanuensis, a volunteering educated Christian. Homer and Muhammad also had the benefit on an amanuensis.
That suggests that John the Son of Zebedee would also have an amanuensis. Just because he dictated his Gospel (or the main parts of it) does not remove his historic credit of authorship.
If John dictates a letter, John is still the author. Some parts of John (as all the Gospels) were modified by redacting editors over the decades until canonization. That *still* doesn’t disqualify John as the author. That’s what Redaction Criticism aims to demonstrate by finding the Ur-John inside the text.
I too think there is a signs source behind John. I’ve written extensivley on the idea of the apostles using a secretary. If you do a word search on “secretary” here on the blog you’ll see a number of posts. I show why we have no evidence from antiquity that secretaries were ever used in this way. (We naturally think they were, since it is *typical* today. But it was virtually non-existent then)
When the Apostle Paul wrote his Epistles, he gave credit to his co-writers (e.g. 1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1; and Philemon 1:1).
Paul also indicated when he was writing with his own hand (e.g. Galatians 6:11; and 2 Thessalonians 3:17).
The Apostle Paul, as the very first writer of any Epistles, set a model that the other Apostles could follow. He used co-writers, often called amanuensis by scholars.
Since Paul was so influential, even in the days of Peter, James and John, it remains possible that they imitated his winning strategy. I have little doubt that very willing, Greek-language educated assistants would line up to volunteer to help the early Apostles.
1 Peter 5:12 suggests to me (and to many others) that Silas helped Peter write his letter.
Scholars differentiate between co-writers and amanuenses. If you want to see some discussion, look up “secretaries’ on the blog. I talk about it at length to show that the idea that a secretary would help someone compose a book such as those in the NT is a modern idea, and there is no evidence for it from antiquity.
Question unrelated to topic of John the author:
My topic: Beer usage in Hebrew Bible
Question: Wasn’t beer an important and ubiquitous drink in the cultures of the Hebrew Bible? Where and how is it mentioned?
(I’m thinking especially of Egypt and the stories of Joseph and the management of grain in famine. I’m unaware of a single reference to beer or its cultural or religious significance. I’m guessing the drink-offerings of Numbers might have been beer?)
Impetus for ?: Reading A HISTORY OF THE WORLD IN 6 GLASSES by Tom Standage
I used to know the answer to that! And now I no longer do. But yes, it was a widely accessed beverage in antiquity. Safer to drink than water, among other thhings. But most of the Bible sticks to wine. So do I.
Prof Ehrman,
In this regard, what’s the best explanation for the seven uncontested epistles that were authored by Paul. What is the evidence that Paul did really write them?
They all claim to be written by Paul; unlike the non-Pauline letters, they appear to cohere in terms of writing style, theology, historical situations, etc., and they can plausibly be placed in the 50s and early 60s CE. The normal approach is to accept an authorial claim unless there are very good reasons to doubt it, and in this case there don’t seem to be many reasons.
Prof Ehrman,
On an unrelated book – The Book of Job.
In one of your interviews, you postulated that the Book can be best understood as two strands of texts from two different authors which have been hemmed together.
Q1. What are the ‘Forms’ and ‘Sources’ behind these strands of traditions
Q2. Are there parallels either in structure or detail or other ways to ancient text prior to Judaism’s Hebrew Bible? (eg as found in some Biblical parallels with ancient narratives like Sargon of Akkad, Epic of Gilgamesh, Enuma Elish etc.)
Prof Ehrman,
Now a Platinum Member, I joined the Blog on the 3rd January 2020 and I am happy to announce that just when the Blog relaunched and hit the $1,000,000 mark, I also hit my 100th response from you.
I have posed 100 questions to you via comments on the Blog and you have shown extreme generosity by answering each and everyone of them.
Its been an honor and I look forward to more interactions ahead.
I am very grateful and much appreciative
Wow! Well done us!!
1. Form: one is a prose narrative, the other is a poetic dialogue. Sources: we have no evidence.
2. For Job? It’s a common story of the rich man who suffers and is rewarded, but it’s not in Gilgamesh or Enuma Elish. I don’t recall what the other ancient parallels are, I’m afraid to say. Amazing what I don’t recall….
I think it is worth considering the possibility that the appendix ch. 21 was being added to the semeia source at an early stage in the gospel’s evolution, and that the author of John 21:24 was attributing authorship of the semeia source (or Ur-John) to the BD. He was not attributing authorship of the entire canonical John to the BD, as it did not yet exist. We commonly assume that ch.21 was a subsequent and final addition to the canonical text, but I don’t think there is a reason to assume that, is there?
Yes, it’s because of writing style and awkward connection to 20:30-31, which appear to be the *end* of the Signs Source. The narrative that follows does not seem consonant with it or with the structure of the other stories that would have been in the Signs source — it is not the description of a single sign, e.g., that comes as the climax of the story; it takes place *after* the sign (Jesus’ resurrection). I suppose in a nut shell that’s why it’s thought to be later.
Dr Ehrman
“But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once blood and water came out. 35 (He who saw this has testified so that you also may believe. His testimony is true, and he knows[g] that he tells the truth.)”
1. when roman soldiers were breaking legs and piercing sides, would they allow family and beloved friends to watch their (roman)brutality or would they turn on them(friends and family)?
2. are we to believe that the disciples who had ran away because of fear of being crucified, had change of mind and stood near the cross carefully observing result from pierced side ?
3.Jesus said to him, “Truly I tell you, this day, this very night, before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.” 31 But he said vehemently, “Even though I must die with you, I will not deny you.” And all of them said the same.
….ALL OF them said the same. ……they don’t want the cross, so what is the beloved disciple doing near the cross?
We have no record of them breaking the bones outside of the Christain Gospels; they almost certainly did not do so historically. The idea was to make the death as prolonged and painful as possible.
But no, almost certainly none of the disciples would have been there to see or hear what happened.
Wow! That was really informative. I wonder if that’s the reason why there are no writings from Jesus. Because he was illiterate too.
I think almost certainly he could not write, yes.
I’m not sure if it’s historical since it’s only in one gospel, but Jesus nicknames James & John the “sons of thunder”. Maybe they were known for their thunderous personality in the early church or it was a real nickname given to them so Mark created a story around it? Or maybe it’s historical after all.
I’ve often wondered? Did they fly off into fits of rage on occasion? Were they loud?
Dr. Ehrman,
You wrote, “The author then clearly distinguishes himself from the Beloved Disciple. He is not claiming to *be* that disciple. He is claiming that he has read what that disciple wrote.”
Would this mean that the author of John does claim to be getting his source from written eyewitness testimony and not from oral traditions told and retold over a period of decades?
He claims it for just this one story, not for all his stories.
Dr. Ehrman,
I was once told that Clement of Alexandria (writing around the same time as Irenaeus) can be used as an independent source (from Irenaeus) to demonstrate that John wrote the Gospel of John. What are your thoughts? Do you think Clement of Alexandria was writing independently of Irenaeus when he said that John wrote the Gospel of John?
Clement was writing 15-20 years later. But I have no problem with thinking that he also had heard that John wrote the Gospel. By then I think it was probably fairly common “knowledge.” At about the same time as Ireneaus is also the Muratorian Fragment, which also calls the fourth Gospel John.