(18 votes, average: 4.94 out of 5)
Loading...I have been talking about the differences between John and the Synoptics, and have discussed the overall contents of John and its unusual take on Jesus’ deeds. Nowhere is this more obvious than in Jesus’ teachings, whichy are very different here from what you find in the other three Gospels. Here is how I explain it in my New Testament textbook.
******************************************************
John’s unique understanding of Jesus’ miracles is matched by his distinctive portrayal of Jesus’ teachings. In the Synoptic Gospels, you will have noticed that Jesus scarcely ever speaks about himself. There his message is about the coming kingdom of God and about what people must do to prepare for it. His regular mode of instruction is the parable. In John, however, Jesus does not speak in parables (which he never uses), nor does he proclaim the imminent appearance of the kingdom (which he never mentions). He instead focuses his words on identifying himself as the one sent from God.
In the Fourth Gospel, Jesus…
The rest of this post is for members only. If you want to read on, shell out! It won’t cost much to join, you get tons for your money, and all proceeds go to charity. So join!
Happy birthday, Bart. Most of us can do even better than a one-time donation.
I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian missionary family and left those religious beliefs behind 51 years ago. Some of those core values, such as helping those in need, remain my values. My 98-year-old spinster Aunt Mae was also a missionary and has loved me her entire life.
She now lives alone and remains active in her extremely fundamentalist Christian church in Indiana. Though her only income is a $500 monthly check from Social Security, Aunt Mae continues to “double-tithe” $100 of that to her church each month. And she does this as cheerfully as she lives the rest of her life.
I believe in what your blog’s charities are doing to help people who direly need it. I’m living on Social Security and income from part-time work. When I began writing this comment, I planned to donate $50 per month. Having reflected on my values in light of what I have written, I’m increasing my monthly donation to your blog’s charities to $100. Giving anything less would make my words about helping those in need feel hollow.
To each of you who also loves Bart’s blog and believes in helping those in need, I encourage you to donate whatever monthly amount reflects that. Whether it be $5, $10, $25, $100, or more, your monthly donation will support Bart’s blog and the charities that receive 100% of your donations to help others.
Even a $10 monthly donation is equivalent to gaining almost five additional subscribers to Bart’s blog and would make a real difference in the lives of real people suffering from hunger, poverty, and homelessness.
Wow. Many thanks for this. I really appreciate it.
Bart, what charities receive your donations?
Never mind…Just found it.
Two of my locals and two internationals. I explain it all here: https://ehrmanblog.org/the-charities-we-support/
Today’s discussion gave a good answer to a question I asked a few days ago regarding the meaning of “eternal life” in contrast to other descriptions of the after life, that is, eternal life in the here and now…the “Eternal now.” Thank you for the references to that concept in John’s gospel. Most appreciated.
May I say how much I appreciate your blog, Bart – I’m learning so many new, thoughtful insights and it’s tremendously helpful. Thank you!
Dr Ehrman,
I am not 100% sure what YOU mean when you write
>. . .believe in the one sent from heaven so as to have eternal life in the here and now. . .
do you mean believing in Jesus so I have eternal life [physically] in the here [on the earth] and now?
I suppose, rather, you mean, believe in Jesus and have eternal[non-pysically] life in someplace [the realm where God dwells??].
Now if I don’t know for sure when you are speaking literally of figuratively how much more difficult is it for me to interpret John’s quotations of Jesus speaking of ‘eternal life’?
So what exactly did john/Jesus mean by ‘life’/’eternal life’?
returning to the question of Jesus’ understanding of afterlife (cause this is what interests me):
The point being:
If I come up with an understanding of how ‘life’/’eternal life’ is used by John, shouldn’t I at least until I get good evidence otherwise accept the same [symbolic?] meaning for ‘life’/eternal life’ when used by Matthew, Mark, and Luke?
I think in the broader context of John’s Gospel he meant that a person will live forever if they believe in Jesus, and that life has started already (and will never end).
When I was involved with the charismatic Jesus movement of the 70’s, this question came up among my group — if eternal life has already begun for those who truly believe, does that mean those true believers will never die because they have already entered into “resurrection life?” There was an “apostle” in Miami named Sam Fife who taught that this was literal for those (meaning us) living in the “last days.” The leadership of our community in Greenville, SC, thought that was heresy, but some among us clung to the idea.
The author of John deals with that in ch. 21:21-23, interpreting Jesus’ words not as a prediction, but as advice to Peter to mind his own business. But, if Jesus was an apocalypticist and believed he was the anointed King of Israel, wouldn’t he believe exactly that, that the resurrection was for those who died before his revealing of himself, but that his followers would not die (of natural causes, at least) at all, because they had been spiritually resurrected in this life?
I think it’s important to differentiate between what Jesus thought and said and what the Gospel of John *says* he thought and said. Jesus himself probably thought that his followers would never die. John’s Gospel decidedly does not think that.
Is this a misprint? Are you truly saying that Jesus really thought his followers would never die?
Apparently so. But that’s no weirder than to say that his disciples thought he would never die again.
The Messianic references to “eternal life” in Mark and Luke are not really symbolic; not at all, in fact. Both of those Gospels give a specific definition of eternal life as the AGE to come. That is the Kingdom Age that follows the Church Age.
So much of the confusion and ambiguity on this issue can be cleared up when accepting that the “never-ending” (“forever”) application to eternal life is NOT CORRECT. What most mainstream Bibles render as “forever,” Young’s Literal renders as “to the AGE.” Or, in the case of “for ever (TWO words) and ever” as in the KJV, Young’s renders it as “to the ages of the ages.”
It is not difficult to see that the phrase “for ever and ever,” or “forever and ever,” is linguistically nonsensical hyperbole. “Forever,” as we understand it, is sufficient to convey “never-ending.” There is no need to add this etymological redundancy “and ever.” This clues us in that translators have generally gone astray here. A true and literal rendering of the Greek phrase is more in line with the Young’s rendering – pertaining to coming ages. Again, if there is no debate that “aion” pertains to an age, then it should be obvious that derivatives of that word pertain to the same. (This widespread misconception has all been an element of the age of blindness we have been in. The Truth has been hidden in plain sight.)
All of this does not nullify that the idea of “forever” CAN BE ENCAPSULATED in the notion of coming ages. For instance, those who have eternal life in the Kingdom Age will never lose it (John 5:24). But this does not mean it is correct to say that the word “eternal” means “forever.” This is taking 1 +1 and getting 3. Again, the coming of the Kingdom is NOT the grand finale! There are many unimaginable things to transpire in coming ages after that!
why do you say
> “eternal life” in Mark and Luke are not really symbolic; not at all, . .?
Mark 8
“whoever loses their life for me and the gospel will save it”
the word ‘life’ is used symbolically either in the losing or in the saving, I figure “eternal life” is also used symbolically
tompicard,
That is true for that particular passage (Mark 8:35), in that when talking about “losing” one’s life, it pertains to one’s WAY of life. (See also Mat. 16:25 and Luke 17:33.) But when dealing specifically with the phrase ETERNAL life, it is defined in Mark and Luke as the “age to come.” That would be the Kingdom Age, which will not be “eternal” as in forever. There will come other ages after that.
So I assume that means that for John, a believer who died would immediately go to “Heaven”?
If so, what was the alternative supposed to be? For people who’d heard about Jesus and rejected him? And for those – in his lifetime and for all the humans who’d *already* lived and died – who’d simply never heard of him?
I think the alternative is that the person would be judged and annihilated.
So to an earlier post I recommended in your book you draw a distinction between ancient concepts of “heaven” as the abode of deities (Asgard, Olympus, etc) and the modern idea of heaven as a place you go when you die.
It sounds like John has some concept like the Modern one?
John thought heaven was the abode for the deities — the striking thing is that he things humans can go there too!
As I understand it, the author of this Gospel is generally thought to have been a member of a persecuted sect of Jews living in Jerusalem around the year of destruction (70 CE), a sect who believed that Jesus is the Messiah. And this Gospel was written largely to pound home that idea and to raise the ante by having the Jesus character in this Gospel announce that he is far more than the Jewish Messiah, i.e. that he is God Himself.
I don’t think most scholars think he was in Jerusalem — probably out in Greek-speaking lands somewhere, and some time after 70.
It is interesting that Martin Luther took many of Jesus’ “I am” statements as metaphors except for the one where at the Last Supper Jesus identifies the elements of bread and wine as his actual body and blood. After the Marburg Colloquy in 1529 when he had been unable to convince Zwingli of his position he is said to have remarked, “I would sooner drink blood with the Papists than wine with the Zwinglians.”
Ha! That’s a good one. Vintage Luther.
I don’t know if it is me, but I always found the “good shepherd” analogue strange: Isn’t the goal of a shepherd to herd and protect the sheep but with the ultimate goal of them being sacrificed/slaughtered and ultimately being eaten?
It’s such an important part of the whole deal, that it looks hard to me to just ignore that part of the shepherd – sheep relationship?
Well, I guess the idea is that he will save the sheep from dying/being killed, whatever it takes.
The Shepard protects the fleeced sheep so they can be sheared ????
Or he could just want to keep them around to shear every now and again.
OK, 3 possibilities come to mind here. Do you think any of these represents John’s understanding about eternal life?
1) Jesus’ true followers would never literally die
2) There was ‘eternal’ (as in amazing) life now, and eternal (as in amazing + forever) life after death as well
3) Jesus’ followers would die, but just like Lazarus, Jesus would resurrect them at some point
Definitely #2.
For reader’s new to this blog, I strongly recommend Dr. Ehrman’s textbook on the New Testament. It is an excellent book written clearly.
This makes me wonder about the Christian church or culture that produced the author of John. Where in the world was it? It does not seem to be the church of Peter and James, the brother of Jesus, nor the church of Paul. So, where was it, what was it, and where did it go? Are there any other ancient Gospels or books that express views similar to the views expressed in the Gospel of John?
The Johannine epistles; and to *some* extent the book of Revelation. Traditionally the community is located in Ephesus, but I think it’s just an educated guess.
Is there anything in the pseudo-Pauline letter to the Ephesians to indicate that author was familiar with John? I’ve read some textual critics doubt it was originally addressed to Ephesus — that a scribe inserted that later. Do you have an opinion on that and whether Ephesians was written to support or oppose the Johannine view?
No, not really. And yes the words “in Ephesus” were probably not originally part of Eph. 1:1.
I’m confused what John believed exactly. If he thought eternal life began in the present, then what happened after death?
If he didn’t believe in a Second Coming, what did he mean by these verses?
John 5:28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.
Yes, these verses are often seen as a fragment from a source that had a different view. At death, teh believer goes to heaven to live with God (see 14:1-3).
The companion text to John 5:28-29 is the entirety of Revelation 20. This does not pertain to the second coming, as in the coming of the Kingdom, but to what is to take place AFTER the Kingdom Age. At the coming of the Kingdom, only those worthy to reign will be “resurrected.” All remaining will be brought forth from the realms of death AFTER the millennial reign. Again, this is all VERY clearly laid out in Revelation 20:
“They lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead didn’t live until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.” (Rev. 20:4-5)
“And after the thousand years”…(Rev. 20:7)
“The sea gave up the dead who were in it. Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them. They were judged, each one according to his works.” (Rev. 20:13)
So then: “And after the thousand years, a time is coming when ALL who are STILL REMAINING in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.”
It requires more than just having “done good” to take part in the Kingdom Age. Only the overcomers, those who have transcended the earth-matrix, will reign. Those who have merely “done good” will rise after the Kingdom Age.
Einstein once said, “Keep things as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Or did he? I wrote this quote from memory and was going to build a comment around it but decided to confirm it’s authenticity before proceeding. One site claims that it is the most queried of all Einstein’s quotes. To be brief, I found several different versions of this quote ranging from the years 1933 to 2010. The sources of publication are remarkably credible and diverse with the likes of Princeton Press, USC Press, and Readers Digest to name a few. I came away with a few different thoughts.
Foremost, there is no direct evidence that Einstein ever made the remark. Secondly, when studied, the remark is so ambiguous that it would have been lost through the annals of time had it been attributed to almost any other person. Lastly, I think anyone who holds a view of the inerrancy of the bible, especially with a writing such as the Gospel of John, has either never used the tools that are available to them, are unaware of the tools that are available, or have just found a comfortable place where they can rest. BTW, I know this comment has nothing to do with today’s topic but I got thrown off-track.
Very nice observation regarding the “I am” phraseology, in comparing John to the Synoptics.
There are two general ways that we can assess all such Gospel differences – through the Gospel/Timeline application, or some other way; which, in essence, is any number of ways. And that is precisely what validates the Gospel/Timeline application!
Countless speculations, with no answers of finality, are required when trying to resolve these Gospel conundrums with only conventional/historical theorems. (Who actually authored the Gospels; How many authors were involved; Were they aware of each others’ existence; What belief systems were they influenced by; etc.) But when the Gospel/Timeline application is accepted, the conundrums all snap back like an elastic band to the ONE interpretative methodology that resolves them with a consistent and harmonious Truth.
When accepting that John pertains to the Kingdom Age, it becomes self-evident why there is a distinction between those who are from “above” and those who are from “below.” In that coming age, the age of “eternal life,” those glorified in the Kingdom will have transcended the “world below” – the 3D earth plane matrix construct. They will have returned to their divine essence. Those who have not will be subservient to the glorified ones throughout that dispensation. This will be the natural order of things.
Now, this does not mean they will be burning in some giant cauldron of fire, though they will endure suffering merely by the nature of the habitat-construct they are confined to. Thus, the mission of those who reign will be to GUIDE ALL THOSE OUTSIDE OF THE KINGDOM TO RESTORATION. (This is all covered in Revelation 22:1-15.)
Of course, this is a Truth to which conventional Christian understanding is blind. Christianity speaks without knowledge; it preaches a Kingdom that it does not know or understand.
This post will be more topical. I just watched your debate with Craig Evans. I have to say that this was one of my favorites. Although the Gospel of John was not the topic, it was discussed quite a bit. To my surprise, he agreed that John’s gospel is not an accurate account of the historical Jesus in terms of what Jesus may have or may not have actually said. For example, the “I am” verses. Of course, he still considers it relevant but of a completely different genre. At least that was my take.
No one bothered to tell me Jesus returned. At least Fox News cares.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/10/04/meet-siberias-jesus-former-traffic-cop-turned-cult-leader.html
I’ve occasionally wondered about the man in *New Zealand* (mentioned in the blog) who claimed not only that he was the reincarnation of Jesus, but that his fiancee was the reincarnation of Mary Magdalene! I’ve also heard about a woman (undoubtedly a fraud) who claimed *she* was the reincarnation of Jesus.
BTW, while I believe in reincarnation, I don’t think anyone whose (probably many) previous incarnations included Jesus would be likely to remember it. And I think it’s quite likely that *more than one* person alive today has that among his or her incarnations. I’m guessing that if they really did remember it, they’d keep their mouths shut.
Well, it only took me 10 (ok 20) minutes to figure out that this was a false Jesus. After all, would the true Jesus wear socks in his sandals?
lol I know right? Or have two wives and a profit making business!
The article said he’s attracted 5,000 followers. I don’t see how.
That is a good explanation, but where in John does it most clearly indicate this spatial dualism?
by spatial dualism do you mean our traditional understanding of heaven hell ?
I mean God up there and us down here. It can be seen in most of the sayings of John where Jesus talks about coming down so that he might take others up. As one example: John 3:13-15.
ok,
so historical Jesus probably believed in a spatial dualism in addition to a temporal dualism, as he likely had read or heard and shared the understandings in Wisdom chapter 2
Synoptics emphasized his teaching in regards to temporal dualism; and John, spatial.
No reason so far as you have presented as yet, to believe in Jesus’ rejection one dualism type and that he held exclusively the other.
“Whereas Jesus scarcely ever talks about himself in the Synoptics, that is virtually all he talks about in John”
This would definitely be the President’s favorite gospel.
(If he ever read one.)
There are so many beautiful passages in John, in some ways he’s the best writer of the four. But his Jesus is oddly passionlesss (even though there’s a disciple that he particularly loves, guess who?). And even while he commands us to love each other, he tells us to reject anyone who does not love and accept him, which is to this very day, most people on the planet.
One can understand ‘John’ rejecting the original preaching regarding the Kingdom, because after all, the Kingdom had not come. Since Jesus could not have been wrong, he must have been misunderstood. That’s not hard to figure out. But why ditch the parables? Too subtle?
Maybe because the parables suggest that the way to salvation is simply to humble yourself, live honestly, and do as much good as you can to those around you. Nobody in the parables is saved or damned because of Jesus, because nobody in the parables ever heard of him. Jesus didn’t simply preach humility, he lived it (most of the time, nobody’s perfect).
If the author of John had ever met Jesus, he’d have been very disappointed. Well, they do say never meet your heroes.
Can you keep your politics in your pants?
Happy Birthday Bart, it’s been on my calendar for months. I just donated too.
Many thanks!!
Bart –
I have to disagree with your assessment that the gospel of John, or any other NT writings, either implies or confirms that Jesus existed before he came into the world, that he literally came down from Heaven or that he is equal with God.
This is a ‘Trinitarian’ view of Jesus that has been debunked by many reputable biblical scholars.
I’m not sure why you think that. Check out John 1:1-3, 14; 3:13; and so on. I certainly don’t think John taught the Trinity: but he did teach that Christ is the one who came from above, having existed before his appearance in the world.
I ‘think’ that specifically because I have studied scripture and pre-trinity biblical history regarding Trinitarian arguments that say Jesus is both eternal and equal to god.
The versus you point out in your response to my comment, as well as many more used by trinitarians, are for the most part taken out of context and greatly misrepresented based on Hebrew history and the culture of the day as well as the intended audience of the author, and sometimes even syntax and grammar.
In connection with my studies I have also read current scholars such as Anthony Buzzard, Eric H. H. Chang and Kegan Chandler and others who give credible insight into the trinity from a scriptural, historical and textual/grammatical point of view.
I am also currently writing a book on the trinity and have posted my notes online if you are interested.
http://trinitylies.blogspot.com/
Here are some excellent sources on the trinity if you are interested:
http://www.christiandiscipleschurch.org/sites/default/files/books/totg_english.pdf
http://www.christiandiscipleschurch.org/sites/default/files/books/topm/TOPM_English_Large_Print.pdf
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/trinity-history.html
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/
http://www.thetrinitydelusion.com/
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/trinity.html#_1_19
Yes, I’m familiar with the doctrine of the Trinity! And I completely agree with you that John’s Gospel does not embody that later doctrine. But it does maintain that Jesus was a previously existing divine being who came to earth and then returned to heaven.
Dr Ehrman
why do christians say that God revealed Yhwh as his name, when Yhwh is not a name but a description about what God will do?
They understood it to be his name.
I was raised Catholic, and we were absolutely taught that Jesus was consubstantial with God, even though he was also human. That has been the consensus Christian view for most of Christian history. It’s in the Apostle’s Creed. To the point where if you don’t believe that (and I don’t) it’s debatable whether you are still a Christian, in the devotional sense of the word.
‘John’ was one of the people who made that happen. But Paul was already well along the road to that conclusion. I fully agree with Bart’s suggestion that Paul thought of Jesus as an angel incarnated in a human body, and therefore someone who existed before the dawn of history. However, Paul never put words in Jesus’ mouth. ‘John’ did.
And so did all the gospel authors, because you couldn’t write that kind of story without doing that. It’s not like they had transcripts to work from, and they all had ideas of their own about who Jesus was, and what he meant.
Difference with John’s gospel, I think, is that he’s much less willing to work with the material at hand. If Jesus says or does something that conflicts with his view of Jesus, he just willfully ignores it. If his had been the only gospel that survived, we’d have no way of ever knowing who Jesus was, or what he meant. Which is why I strongly agree with Bart’s assertion that you don’t teach this gospel towards that end.
Do you think conservative Seminaries teach these important differences between Jesus in the Synoptics and john’s gospel?
They may teach the distinctiveness of John, but they certainly would not teach that there are actual discrepancies between John and the others.
I have heard of various modern Christian sects claiming John as “their gospel,’ i.e. the one that best portrays their vision of Christ. Have any ever claimed Mark, Matthew, or Luke, as theirs in that sense, that you know?
Not so much.
It seems to me that John dispenses with the Jewish concept of the paradisal earth, in which the “down here” is re-made and refined into a new Eden, where there is no corruption (i.e. disease and death), no misery, and no evil. Instead, the resurrected bodies of the righteous go up to “heaven” to be with God and the angels, while the bodies of wicked stay down here to burn in a literal living hell on earth.
certainly John’s Gospel is very different,
> For John, eternal life is not a future event. . . .
> using the present tense:
> “Whoever BELIEVEs IN THE SON has eternal life” (Jn 3:36).
> Eternal life is here and now, for all who believe in Jesus.
I don’t see as big a difference as you do, and there is absolutely no inconsistency
From Matthew chapter 19
A man asked, “…, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
Jesus “keep the commandments.”
The man “All these I have kept, What do I still lack?”
Jesus “. . sell your possessions and give to the poor, . .. Then COME FOLLOW ME.”
John – BELIEVE IN THE SON
Matthew – COME FOLLOW ME (following a person likely encompasses believing in that person)
is it that important (well at least when comparing these two sets of verses) ‘has eternal life’ vs ‘gain eternal life’.
I know many Christian fundamentalists who believe in the absolute inerrancy of the Bible. But obviously, just a few horizontal readings of the gospels will reveal this not to be true. And the Bible itself doesn’t seem to make the claim of inerrancy.
Do you know when the idea of absolute inerrancy originated, is it a relatively recent development? It seems rather problematic.
It first developed at the end of the 19th c. at the “Niagara Conferences” (google them)
Thank you! Just what I was looking for. Looks like they even developed their own “Niagara Creed.”
I had heard that the “I Am” incident was just Christians translating it a certain way to try to create connections that aren’t there, and that it should have simply been translated as “I have been” or the like. What I heard is that it was simply an issue of how that Greek was written when it came to tenses, and that in other cases, they correctly adapted to English, except there when they had the opportunity to benefit from the mistranslation. An example used was ithe verse where it says “you have been with me from the beginning” (referring to the apostles), and that they could have equally applied the trickery there since a mechanical translation would have been “you are with me from the beginning”. Further evidence of this is that apparently Jesus quoted the wrong “I Am” if he was trying to quote the “I Am” from exodus. In exodus, the verse goes ” I am that I am… you shall say that I Am has sent you”. In the Septuagint, the first I am and second I am are different (for example, saying “I am the one that exists”), and then finally is left as a singular “I Am” (then left as “the one that exists”). Jesus quotes the “I am” that was not the second, nor the remaining “I am” but rather the first one that merely points to “what he is” (I believe HA OHN). That would be like Jesus saying “I am” when the exodus verse went “I am the one that’s exists, furthermore you shall say ‘the one that exists’ has sent me). The I am that Jesus quotes is the wrong one (eimi rather than ha ohn).
As far as “so, what was the outrage about?” It could have simply been his claim that he either pre-existed, or that he was greater than Abraham.
I love the “I am that I am,” as both more mysterious and compelling than “I am who I am,” which seems rather weak to me.
Hi Dr Ehrman, a bit off topic but are any legit scholars willing to debate you on inerrancy? I think inerrancy is ridiculous and am baffled as to how scholars like Daniel Wallace or Darryl Bock hold to these views in good conscious.
Do you foresee any debates on this topic in the future?
I”ve had debates about the discrepancies in the Gospels (related, of course, to the question of inerrancy) with Craig Evans (who has a conservative view of Scripture, but not inerrancy) and others, usually under the rubric of “Are the Gospels Reliable.” That’s the closest I think I’ve come.
I didn’t know that Dan Wallace held to the view of inerrancy. I have a FB acquaintance who is a conservative NT scholar and believes the Bible is inerrant. Part of his studies included Coptic papyrology and theory translation, so he’s no dummy. He says the contradictions are apparent but judgement should be reserved until further light is shed. ????♀️
It would be interesting to know why the author or community of authors of the Fourth Gospel made this transition to Jesus as a divine being. What drove it, given its radical departure from the depiction of Jesus in the Synoptics?
the most popular theory is that the group had been kicked out of their synagogue, became a sectarian community of their own, developed a fortress mentality of us-versus-them, leading to a kind of dualism that included down here-versus-up there, that led to an understanding of Jesus-is-from-up-there-verses- from down here. In a nutshell!
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
Do you think that the Gospel of John could of been written by multiple authors due to the internally inconsistent Christology?
For example, verses like John 1:18 and 8:58 suggest that the author believed that Jesus IS God:
John 1:18: “No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him know.”
John 8:58: “‘Very truly I tell you,’ Jesus answered, ‘before Abraham was born, I am!'”
Whereas verses like 14:28 and 17:3 suggest the author believed a subordination Christology.:
John 14:28: “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.”
John 17:3: “Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.”
Yes, in my chapter on John in my New Testament textbook I argue that the various Christological statements (that embody different perspectives) arose in different periods of the Johannine community prior to the writing of the Gospel (a common view among scholars)
I have written a lengthy reply to your post:
Jesus: Synoptics vs. John?
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2022/03/ehrman-errors-8-jesus-synoptics-vs-john.html
Excerpts:
Jesus speaking about Himself in the Synoptics (whereas you claimed: “In the Synoptic Gospels, … Jesus scarcely ever speaks about himself”):
Matthew 4:19; (cf. Mk 1:17); Matthew 5:17; 10:22, 32-33 (cf. Lk 12:8-9);Matthew 10:34-35, 37-38, 40 (cf. Lk 10:16); Matthew 11:6 (cf. Lk 7:23); Matthew 11:27-29 [cf. Lk 10:22]; Matthew 12:30 (cf. Lk 11:23); Matthew 13:15; 15:32; 16:16-17, 20 (cf. Mk 8:27-30; 9:41; Lk 4:41; 9:18-21; Jn 4:25-26); Matthew 16:24 (cf. Lk 9:23);
Matthew 16:25; 18:5-6 (cf. Mk 9:37, 42; Lk 9:48); Matthew 18:20; 24:5 (cf. Lk 21:8); Matthew 23:34, 37; 24:35; 26:31-32 (cf. Mk 14:28); Matthew 26:53; 28:18, 20; Mark 9:39; 10:29-30 (cf. Mt 19:29; Lk 18:30); Mark 10:38; 14:7, 61-62 (cf. Lk 22:70); Luke 2:49; 5:32; 6:46; 9:18, 26; 12:49-50; 13:34-35; 14:27; 22:15, 19, 32, 37; 24:25-27, 44.
Preexistence is implied in the Synoptics, in saying that the Son was “sent” by the Father (Mt 10:40; 15:24; 21:37; Mk 12:6; 9:37; Lk 4:18, 43; 10:16) and the equation of folks receiving Jesus = receiving God the Father (Mt 10:40; Mk 9:37; Lk 10:16).
So when the prophets of the OT were sent from God, or John the Baptist, does that mean they pre-existed?
No. I’d appeal to your own words above, which seem different from what you are now saying. You wrote:
“In the Fourth Gospel, Jesus has come down from the Father and is soon to return to him. … He existed before he came into the world…. He says that he is the one sent from God to bring life to the world, … How does one belong to the world that is above? By believing in the one who has come from that world, Jesus (3:31). … it is an appeal to believe in the one sent from heaven so as to have eternal life in the here and now.”
With these comments you appear to think that when Jesus says He was “sent” in John, He was referring to His preexistence. I agree! My point is that He also does so in the Synoptics (Mt 10:40; 15:24; 21:37; Mk 12:6; 9:37; Lk 4:18, 43; 10:16).
Did you read my article? Obviously, no dialogue of much substance can occur here, with a two-comment, 400 word-per-day limit. I had barely enough words allowed to me to make this reply, and it’s my second comment of the day. But thanks for the 20-word reply!
No, I didn’t read your article. And yes, in John Jesus clearly states he pre-existed, as does the Prologue. That is precisely what we don’t have in the Synoptics. “Sent” language is common in the prophets of Scripture, with no reference to pre-existence.
I agree that pre-existence is not explicit in Mark, but it is in Matthew and Luke:
Jesus teaches in His own authority (“I say to you”) in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:18-34, etc.), and many other passages. The prophets, in contrast, spoke as God’s messengers in the second person (“The Lord says…”). He often talks in a way in which only God could speak, and distinguishes Himself from the prophets (Mt 13:17). Perhaps the most striking example of this occurs in Matthew 23:
Matthew 23:34, 37 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes… [37] O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! (cf. Lk 13:34; Jud 6:8; 2 Ki 17:13; 2 Chr 24:19; Jer 7:25; 25:4; 26:5; 29:19; 35:15; 44:4; Hag 1:12; Zech 7:12)
Prophets don’t send other prophets. Only God sends prophets. Since Jesus is speaking in the first person of sending prophets, it’s a claim to be God. John the Baptist was the last prophet, and he was born before Jesus; therefore, if Jesus “sent” him, He was pre-existent.