Loading...Yesterday I answered a question about whether some of the discrepancies in Luke-Acts are due to the author having used a variety of sources that had different views. The blog member who asked the question also wanted to know if this happened in other books from antiquity. Just sticking with the Bible, the answer is: Yes indeed! Here is what I say about the same issue with respect to the Gospel of John, in my textbook on the New Testament.
*********************************************************
Authors who compose their books by splicing several sources together don’t always neatly cover up their handiwork but sometimes leave literary seams. The Fourth Evangelist was not a sloppy literary seamster, but he did leave a few traces of his work, which become evident as you study his final product with care. Here are several illustrations.
To see what I have to say about this, you will need to belong to the blog. It doesn’t cost much, and you’ll learn more than your friends and neighbors will be able to *stand*. So why not join? All proceeds go to charity!
Very interesting. Is there any indication that the two sources were written by two different authors? I understand textual analysis can sometimes reveal this in word patterns of usage. If not, would this mean the same author writing both accounts at different times, and then weaving them together in the final edit?
The passages are too brief to do any convincing stylistic analysis, I’m afraid.
Actually, maybe Dr. Ehrman is being too nit-picky here. For example, the reference to “going into Judea” since they were already in Jerusalem a part of Judea, is such an example. Jesus and the Apostles were ALL from Galilee. Some of them had ties to Jerusalem surely but it is not likely that all of them did. If I flew into London, the capital of England, I might EASILY say “I am going out into England” as I left London to travel through the rest of England. Same as if visitors to the US landed into New York might be excited because their going out into the US as they start around the country. This is an example of Dr. Ehrman gagging at gnats and swallowing camels.
The other examples could also be explained in a similar manner.
However, if your goal is to try to lay the groundwork that the Gospel of John was NOT written by an eye-witness, finding these types of “traces” may not ring true, but they help with the narrative being built, which is the whole point here from the good Doctor’s post to begin with.
In my humble opinion.
It’d be like my saying that I left Durham to go into North Carolina. I just would never say that, since I would already be *in* North Carolina. Can you imagine someone saying that? I *could* say that I left Durham to go to Virginia, though.
Right, Dr. Ehrman. However, you are living in Durham so there would be nothing new for you. For Galileans or visitors from another country/region, they do not have the experiential knowledge from living in Jerusalem. Many of us have some knowledge of other key places (New York, London, Rome, etc.) but not from an experience pov. So when I first traveled to NYC by air, I was in NY. When I checked into my hotel, looked around the area, had dinner, etc., the nest day when I started my actual touring, I could have EASILY said, I was going into New York.
Same if I go to Rome. Once I travel outside of the airport/hotel area, I could EASILY say, I am going into Italy. You are being nit-picky, in my opinion, not because of the wording issue, but because you are trying to undermine the idea that the Gospel of John was written by an eyewitness to the events.
Respectfully said, in my humble opinion.
No, I don’t know anyone who would say, while driving out of Rome, “Now I’m going to Italy.”
Professor, I am in the middle of a volume of midrashic commentaries on the Book of 1 Kings.
The first chapters of course deal with the construction of the 1st Temple by Solomon. The commentaries say that at that time, the territory allotted to the Tribe of Benjamin at the time of the conquest of the Land of Canaan abutted the future Jerusalem. Furthermore, the commentaries say that a corner of the footprint of the Temple Mount was considered part of Eretz Binyamin, not Eretz Yehuda.
I offer this as a way of reconciling the difficulty you pointed out about how Jesus could leave Jerusalem in order to “go into Judea.” Perhaps the author understood the old tradition of the tribal boundaries and therefore made no error.
By the way, I’m a fan of the new, automatic limits. Each posting is word-counted, and the number of daily postings are counted, up to 3. Good!
“In John 2:23, Jesus is in Jerusalem, the capital of Judea. While there, he engages in a discussion with Nicodemus that lasts until 3:21. Then the text says, “After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea” (3:22). But they are already in the land of Judea, in fact, in its capital. Here, then, is another literary seam. (Some modern translations have gotten around this problem by mistranslating verse 22 to say that they went into the “countryside of Judea,” but this is not the meaning of the Greek word for “land.”)”
//
“If I flew into London, the capital of England, I might EASILY say “I am going out into England” as I left London to travel through the rest of England. ”
if you are IN london, you will say ” i am going out to middlesex” ? london is in middlesex , why would you say, while IN london , ” i am going out to middlesex” ?
One of my favorite inconsistencies is between John 3:22, 26 and the parenthetical comment in 4:2. The former verses clearly say that Jesus baptized, while the latter says that he did not. Dr. Ehrman, why would one source–or a redactor–find Jesus’ baptizing so objectionable?
In that case he was using a source that said Jesus had been baptizing, that he was then correcting (to say: not really!)
Do you have any ideas about *why* the “correction” was made?
Because the redactor was committed to the idea that Jesus himself did not do any baptisms.
Bart,
Elaine Pagels has laid out a pretty good case that the Gospel of John was written to knock down the Gospel of Thomas, citing that only this gospel (John) gives any signifiant mention to Thomas and typically puts him in a negative light, such as him “doubting” the arisen Jesus. Do you see any merit in that?
Yes, that’s a view put out earlier by Greg Riley. I’ve never found it convincing. You can have opposition to a Thomas tradition without having access to the Gospel of Thomas itself.
But could it be possible that the Gospel of John was written to counter support for inclusion of the Gospel of Thomas into the canon, the important number just “4” gospels closing the deal?
Sure, it’s possible. But we have no record of anyone suggesting that as a reason in antiquity. They didn’t need much of a reason other than the fact that hte views propounded in Thomas were not the ones that had gained wide acceptance.
I find some of the seams more surprising than others. On one hand I get it. The editing would have been a hard task and mistakes would be made. I make typos all the time when writing something as short as a blog comment. There might be good reasons for some seams. Jesus went from Jerusalem to the other side of the Sea of Galilee? Perhaps John was unfamiliar with the geography. If so, you wouldn’t expect John to catch that one. But how does someone write lets get up and leave and immediately procede to go into more lengthy discourse? It makes me wonder if perhaps they were aware of seams (some of them at least) and werent concerned about them.
Are there significant theological or christological differences between accounts A and B?
Nope.
I think we may sometimes forget how hard it was for writers in those days. Even *light* wasn’t as good as we have now. They had to deal with cumbersome scrolls. And if they were consulting sources, other people’s handwriting. At times, they were probably so fatigued that they couldn’t decipher some of their own handwriting!
The way I’ve understood the Gospel of John is that it was written by the Johannine community generations after John was gone. Some of what it contains were actual experiences that only the Apostle John would know and recount. The sermons could have been evolved somewhat similarly, as a teaching (perhaps of John) within the community but then written and rewritten. Within that community also there had to be a Gnostic tendency (which I’ve read was quite influential in early churches) and so evidences itself in this Gospel as well. The question I have: what is the importance of knowing these geographic and timeline variations? Does it change the gist and point of view of what is written in the Gospel? Or is it just a way of disproving the inerrancy of scripture?
See today’s post — and then the ones to follow! (BTW: I don’t think an entire community wrote John; surely it was a person who did. And these days most scholars don’t think we can date Gnostics back as early as the first century; we don’t start getting gnostic writings until the 2nd.)
Well, a person or persons obviously wrote down the text. But to think that person or persons did it in isolation makes no sense. What about “in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. …In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shined in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.” Doesn’t sound like Temple Judaism to me.
I certainly think the author was a member of a distinctive community, and that his theological views reflect those of the community.
Do you think the general illiteracy of the day played a role in this? 1. Most people couldn’t read these accounts and therefore no proofreading was taking place. 2. Since it was mostly an oral culture, maybe people just didn’t care about subtle discrepancies. They just enjoyed a good story. (For example, there are a lot of discrepancies in the Star Wars series – but you don’t notice them when you’re caught up in the story.)
Yes, I think all that’s right. Even today people read Luke-Acts and John and never notice the problems!
Do we find examples of these kinds of variant readings combined side by side in other non-Biblical ancient Greek literature? Or is this a peculiarity of the Biblical material?
thanks
I’m sure we do! But I’ve never studied other contemporary literature with this partciaulr question in mind. Maybe someone else can help?
“The theology of a particular passage, or even an entire book, can hinge (in a significant, even radical way) on which textual variant is chosen; but to my knowledge that would never change any of the established Christian doctrines, because these are never based simply on one passage or another.” Bart
If, as Bart says, the theology of an entire gospel hinges in a significant and radical way on which textual variant is chosen, let’s be perfectly clear, that necessarily threatens the core tenets of Christianity.
I’m not sure how.
If baptisms were performed in “the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” long before doctrine of the Trinity, what did they think was the relationship between those three? And how did that evolve into the Trinity?
Very long story! I try to explain it in my book How Jesus Became God, but it takes a chapter, not a comment!
Thanks. I have the audio book and will listen to last two chapters again with this in mind.
regarding John 1:18
NRSV –
No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son,[e] who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known.
—-
footnotes:
(e) Other ancient authorities read It is an only Son, God, or It is the only Son
Does this say Jesus is God or Jesus is distinct from God?
if the verse is implying Jesus IS God, Isn’t it self-contradictory, ie; if Jesus IS God and, and since Jesus disciple saw him, then why does it begin by “No one has ever seen God”
I sometimes feel sorry for people who want to believe the Bible is inerrant. I can imagine the Bible-bending that goes on to try to make the Bible all consistent – as if mere humans could explain the supposed “word of God” more clearly than the Bible they believe is perfect.
What puzzles me is how the authors didn’t ( or couldn’t) see the discrepancies in their sources. Seems to me an author would want to fix things up to make a coherent story.
If they were modern Western authors, they certainly would! On the other hand ,they probably didn’t *see* them any more than students today see their own mistakes.
Very interesting, I understand now why some things (for all the beauty of the gospel according to whoever was John) did not make any sense to me. It was because the editing was not so God-inspired after all. Perhaps a guy was commisioned by the “central comitee” to write the stuff and then they changed some things for doctrinal and political reasons and the writer was not in a possition to overrule his (or her) bosses. So the final result is not entirely coherent. That happens now. I do not find probable that the guy they comissioned was so sloppy as to contradict himself so crassly, even if he was working with two different accounts.
In the famous prologue “In the beggining was the word”, ¿would you translate logos as “reason” and not “word”? And when the writer speaks about “the light” what does he mean? Enlighment in an intellectual sense?
Even at the age of 12, he was deeply interested in Scriptural matters. Clearly, Jesus loved the truth.
The high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching. Jesus answered him, “I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret.”
We know that much of the knowledge and wisdom of Jesus came from the Father. Jesus said, “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me,” Recall from the Gospel of John the Jewish religious leaders felt threatened by Jesus’ effectiveness with people. So much so, they conspired to arrest him because some people exclaimed, “This really is the Prophet.” Others said, “This is the Christ.” (John 7:40-41) However, what happened when the Temple officers were sent out to arrest Jesus?
John 7:45-46 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
The officers then came to the chief priests and Pharisees, who said to them, “Why did you not bring him?” The officers answered, “No one ever spoke like this man!”
The Jewish religious leaders taught by quoting other highly-esteemed Jewish leaders of the past and their present. They also quoted oral traditions from ancient rabbis, using them as their authority. Meanwhile, Jesus taught them with God’s authority: “What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has told me.”
And when he [Jesus] was twelve years old, they went up according to the custom of the feast. And after the days were completed, while they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. And his parents did not know it, but supposing him to be in the company, they went a day’s journey; and they began looking for him among their relatives and acquaintances. and when they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem, looking for him. Then, it occurred, after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers and listening to them and questioning them. And all those listening to him were amazed at his understanding and his answers.
On hearing these words, some of the people said, “This is truly the Prophet.” Others declared, “This is the Christ.”
The Jews may have been expecting someone else to be their messiah, but here, just the power of His voice and words convinced some He was Christ.
395
Not sure of your point as charisma has never related to truth. Even David Koresh convinced people to follow him and die with him. They gave up their lives and fortunes to him. Did that prove his claims true or just he was very convincing? And there are many more examples.
I’m sorry, but are you asking a question or just trying to preach your faith? I’ve seen several comments now with nothing actually asking for clarification or questioning of Bart’s post. Am I missing something?
The Gospel of John is very different from the Synoptic Gospels. Well, there is the Gospel of Mark and Q and some additional sources, L + M; it is assumed those Gospels emerged as the result of stories told about Jesus in oral tradition. John is rather philosophical. Did Jesus’ encounter with Nicodemus really happen? Did Jesus really wash the feet of his disciples? Did he convey Jesus’ farewell speech such as it happened? Or did the author wanted to make a point, convey a teaching, an inner spiritual truth? So in that case, it’s not really historic nor meant to be (even some historic information might have been used). The theory that John used different sources, however, would make the Gospel historic since then one assumed that there are accounts, in addition to John, that reflect the material used by John.
Is it possible to say something about the date of the individual sources? I understand that the conventional dating of the final edition is in the mid 90’ies.
Not the date, but something of the historical circumstances. I’ll say something about that in a future post.
To point #3. Could other side of the Sea mean ‘far’ side, meaning that since Jerusalem was to the south and west of the Sea, going to the east side?
Interesting idea. But if the closest body of water was the (much larger) Dead Sea, it doesn’t seem to make sense that the author would use the lake up north as the spot from which to locate a move across the Jordan.
there are different english translations of John 1:18
Do you think it implies Jesus is God, or not?
The different translations are because there is a variant in the Greek text. In Orthodox Corruption of Scripture I argued that hte original text said “Son of God who is in the bosom of the Father,” NOT “God who is in the bosom of the Father.”
so then, . .
do you agree that in John 1:18 the author is ‘probably impling’ Jesus is NOT God? {especially when considering the prior context ‘No one has ever seen God’ and the subsequent context ‘[the Son} has made [God] know}
but verses 1-17 ‘probably/may imply’ Jesus is God?
why would same author imply such contradiction? or do you know a way to reconcile these verses?
No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying John 1:18 did not explicitly call Jesus “God.” Whether the author thought he was God in some sense or another is a different question.
Bart – Do these “literary seams” indicate any differences in writing style between the alleged author and the author of the “inserted” material? And if so, do they show proof that the completed material is in fact a compilation of different authors? And wouldn’t this be a major problem for fundamentalists?
The problem with the Gospel of John is that the style is fairly uniform throughout (except in some cases, such as the Prologue). That’s what creates the interesting problem: Jesus, John the Baptist, and hte narrator all sound virtually identical. What would be the chances of *that* being historically right? That indicates that when you’re reading what Jesus or John the Baptist allegedly said in the fourth Gospel, you’re reading what the narrator is saying in the way he would say it (not what the characters actually said)
Nic and Jesus walked to Samaria. Jesus made six jars of wine so some called that “signs”.
DR Ehrman:
Your Comment and Question:
In John 5:1, Jesus goes to Jerusalem, where he spends the entire chapter healing and teaching. The author’s comment after his discourse, however, is somewhat puzzling: “After this, Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee” (6:1).
How could he go to the other side of the Sea if he is not already on one of its sides? In fact, he is nowhere near the Sea of Galilee — he is in Jerusalem of Judea.
My comment:
I don’t have to be on the East side of NYC to say that I’m going to the West side of NYC. I don’t have to be on the North side of the Bronx to say that I’m going to the South side of the Bronx.
According to John 5:1, The Sea of Galilee had “two sides. One of these ‘sides’ was known to the people as the other side of Galilee. Perhaps the side not visited as much, or favored as much…Jesus didn’t have to be one side of Galilee to say that he was going to the other side of Galilee. He was in Jerusalem and decided to go to the other side of Galilee; His disciples and the people of that region would’ve known what Jesus meant..
No, but you would say you are going to the West side of NYC. If you were in Charlotte, you wouldn’t say, “And then I went to the *other* side of Manhattan.
The concept of literary seams is very helpful. Thanks.
Bart reading John to understand his last post about the discrepancies about the free in the NT, I came across John 12: 9-11 that talks about the murder of Lazarus, the one that Jesus resurrected.
It’s a small stretch, it’s loose inside the verse. Is this verse a disrespect of John’s gospel?
I’m not sure what the contradiction is you’re seeing? The idea seems to be that after Lazarus was raised from the dead, he was murdered.
One of the enigmatic passages in the final discourses is John 16:8-11; “when he [the Paraclete] comes, he will prove the world wrong about [or, ‘he will convict the world of’] sin and righteousness and judgment: 9about sin, because they do not believe in me; 10about righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will see me no longer; 11about judgment, because the ruler of this world has been condemned.” What do you think Jesus is saying about sin, righteousness, and judgment, beyond the fact that the world doesn’t understand them? What does knowing the truth about Jesus have to do with it? I’m guessing this will require more than a short response.
I think he means that the Spirit will convince people that they are filled with sin when what they need is righteousness because judgment is soon to come.
Sorry for my poor English language, I am from Romania. iI have to questions: Are you aware that your youtube lesson of John Gospel in The New testament lessons (nr. 8) it was blocked by Youtube for authorship rights??? Can be possible? Can I see it in other part or read it on your blog?
Good question! I’m afraid I don’t know. But my guess is that it is because it was pirated from the Great Courses (i.e. youtube didn’t have authorization to publish it)
The internal discrepancies don’t stop with these ones and are making a too long list to enumerate. But I will add just a few of them:
1. In John 11:2, Maria is presented as the one that poured the ointment on the Lord and wiped his feet. But this thing is happening only in the next chapter, nr. 12.
2. What is the precise time that came for Jesus to be glorified? It can be in John 12:23, 13:31, 17:1 or when??
3. In the verse that you quoted, 3:22, from which we know that Jesus came to Judeea, it say that Jesus baptized but in 4:2, Jesus din not baptized himself. Which one is true?
4. In John 1:51, when Jesus met Nathanael, he told him that he and the other disciples will see the heaven opens nd the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man? Did that happen?? By the way, had been Nathanael the same Nathanael from Cana of Galilee in chapter 21?
By the way, we do not have to suppose that your theory about more than author in John.s Gospel is write or not because the Gospel recognize that this is the case, in the end of it, in John 21:24, where it says that WE know that his testimony is true. We know, the ones that are writing it.
But, if you permit it, I have 2 more questions to you, that I didn’t find answer to them:
1. If you know, as I understood, that in Hebrew there is no possibility to say “I am” but the famous verse in the O.T. is “I will be that I will be”, why is this not a problem for you when Jesus said “Before Abraham was, I am”. There is any possibility to say it, in Hebrew.
2. Why don’t you take into consideration nowhere the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew of Shem Tov, which can show us exactly what happened with the gospel and how it had been changed in just one century before the first Bible had been publishd?
1. It’s be cause God calls himself “the one who is” (in Greek). And the way to say “I am the one who is” in Greek is “EGO EIMI” = “I am”
2 It is a medieval productoin, not ancient
Bart wrote:
It’s be cause God calls himself “the one who is” (in Greek). And the way to say “I am the one who is” in Greek is “EGO EIMI” = “I am”
According to this site–https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=2&page=3–the LXX translation of Exodus 3:14 is as follows:
14 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν λέγων· ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν. καὶ εἶπεν· οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς ᾿Ισραήλ· ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέ με πρὸς ὑμᾶς.
Why does the LXX use “ὁ ὢν” rather than “ἐγώ εἰμι”?
Sorry, I should have been clearer. The LXX says that God’s name is ο ων; that means “the one who is.” If someone wanted to say “I am the one who is” they would say εγω ειμι (“I am”)
Thank you for your partial answer. If I may, I have a personal question for you and your beliefs that I didn’t find any answer to it in your speeches or writings: I perfectly understand why your belief in the New Testament failed, beginning with, if I remember correct, your work on Mark 2 and the mistake about the priest Abimelech. What I do not understand why you preferred to annihilate all your belief in God and you didn’t say: “We have a problem with the N.T. but I will believe in the God of the O.T. (is obviously the same God, but without His “other two persons”, the Son and Ruach HaKodesh (which, by the way, it doesn’t mean “Holy spirit” but “The Spirit of Holiness” (because “Ha” is an article that in Hebrew can stand only in front of a substantive and not an adjective).
I just wonder…
Ah, you know only part of my story. I remained a committed believer for many years after recognizing that the New Testament was not an infallible revelation. If you want to see more about my development, see my book God’s Problem.
Bart, am I falling into 1+1=3 here?
1/2/3 John show a proto-orthadox ‘pitch’ to the Johnanine community c 90’s AD (at a time when mergings appear to take place of various churches into Ignatius/Hebrews style orthodoxy)
This wasn’t a convincing success as can be seen from the letters, but the minority who joined took with them the sources for the gospel of John and that’s how we got it, reworked into something acceptable for both parties
The emphasis on love stands out as a key requirement (just like in the Odes of Solomon)
It’s interesting the prominent role Mary Magdalene plays in John even after this process, solidifying her importance in a way that would be far less clear if we only had the synoptics.
It’s interesting to surmise whether there are cryptic allusions to these controversies embedded in this gospel, I think there probably are many!
You would be interested, I think, in reading the classic statement about the Johannine community, in Raymond Brown’s book The Community of the Beloved Disciple.
Thankyou Bart, I will add this interesting looking book to my get list
It is so fascinating that the gospels were written/reached final form after various factions and splits, not before. Can I use this post to ask if you might do a blog on something? The mosaic found in the monastery of lady Mary in Beth Shan, Isreal
John 2:23 is probably best understood simply as Jesus and his disciples leaving Jerusalem and going into the Judean countryside.
John 3:22 After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land (γῆν) of Judea, and there He was spending time with them and baptizing.
In John 5:1, scholar F. F. Bruce notes that it has been argued that chapter five originally came between chapters six and seven noting that in that case the ”after these things” in 6:1 would refer back to 4:46-54 when Jesus was on the west side of the lake and could have crossed to the east side of the lake.
In Chapter 2 The author in 2:11 and 4:54 is concerned only with the miracles that Jesus performed in Galilee rather than the miracles that he performed in Jerusalem. 2:11 refers to Jesus’ first miracle in Galilee and 4:54 refers to Jesus’ second miracle in Galilee. The miracles in 2:23 are miracles performed in Jerusalem.
I have replied to one of your arguments above:
“Other Side” of the Sea of Galilee
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2022/03/ehrman-errors-7-other-side-of-the-sea-of-galilee.html
Excerpts:
The east side was known by them as the “other side” because it was a different culture: a Gentile one.
As a Michigander, if I were to say that “we’re gonna visit the other side of Lake Huron / Michigan / Superior / Erie” (i.e., the Great Lakes), it would be immediately understood by anyone from Michigan that it’s the west side of Lake Michigan (in Illinois and Wisconsin), the east side of Lake Huron and north side of Lake Superior (in Ontario, Canada), and the south side of Lake Erie (in Ohio). And I have visited all those places. It has to do with the side that one is more familiar with (the Michigan side!) and/or where one lives. In that context, “the other side” is immediately understood. This analogy is almost a perfect one.
In all but two of fifteen instances of the phrase “other side” occurring in the NT, it refers to the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee (Matthew 8:18, 28; 14:22; 16:5; Mark 4:35; 5:1, 21; 6:45; 8:13; Luke 8:22; John 6:1, 22, 25).
Everyone knew what “the other side” referred to.
I assume it meant the Eastern side when they were already on the western one. In either event, he was in Jerusalem, 100 miles or so south.