Loading...Continuing my thread on methods for studying the Gospels. In yesterday’s post I began to talk about the “Comparative method” and showed how, in comparison with the Synoptics, just how different John is, purely in terms of contents. But even when John and the Synoptics contain similar stories (e.g., miracles; teachings; passion narrative) they are very different. That’s what I try to show in this excerpt today.
************************************************************
Comparison of Emphases
The differences between John and the Synoptics are perhaps even more striking in stories that they have in common. You can see the differences yourself simply by taking any story of the Synoptics that is also told in John, and comparing the two accounts carefully. A thorough and detailed study of this phenomenon throughout the entire Gospel would reveal several fundamental differences. Here I will emphasize two of them, differences that affect a large number of the stories of Jesus’ deeds and words.
First, the deeds. Jesus does not do as many miracles in John as he does in the Synoptics, but the ones he does are, for the most part, far more spectacular. Indeed, unlike the Synoptics, Jesus does nothing to hide his abilities; on the contrary, he performs miracles openly in order to demonstrate who he is. To illustrate the point, it may be instructive for us to compare two stories that have several striking resemblances to one another, the Synoptic account of the raising of Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5:21-43) and John’s account of the raising of Lazarus (John 11:1-44). Read them for yourself. In both, a person is ill and a relative goes to Jesus for help; Jesus is delayed from coming right away, so that by the time he arrives the person has already died and is being mourned; Jesus speaks of the person as “sleeping” (a euphemism for death); those present think that he has come too late and that now he can do nothing; Jesus approaches the one who has died, speaks some words and raises them from the dead. Both accounts end with Jesus’ instructions to care for the person’s well-being.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN BEFORE THE END IS HERE!!!
I was just wondering how this compares to Thomas’ account of Jesus, which is nearly all parables and no miracles.
Is there a pattern here, in how the story has changed over time? (or am I reading too much from a ‘heretical’ Gospel – based on my limited understanding that Thomas’ Gospel is potentially one of the oldest writings about Jesus).
Yes, things clearly change of time. As an example, the apocalyptic message of Mark and Q comes to be muted in Luke, then to be erased from John, and then to be argued *against* in Thomas.
I assume that this is part your reasoning for Thomas to be a late addition to the catalogue then?
I was just wondering if you are planning to include some of the apocrypha in this section too; much as I am enjoying learning more about the Gospels (especially John, as it is so different) I would love to hear your insight into how the other stories fit into the picture.
It’s one of the reasons. I’m not planning on continuing the thread past John at this stage.
Ok, no problem.
After reading your book on the Gospel of Judas I have become really interested in these ‘lost gospels’.
Really looking forward to your new book though.
Here is something, check it out! 🙂
https://ehrmanblog.org/thomas-and-the-other-gospels-for-members/
Thanks for that link gabilaranjeira, very interesting.
One day I’m going to plough through these archives and consume info until my brain explodes!
Very interesting insights DR Ehrman. Thank you.
As I have stated before, TO ME the Jesus portrayed in the Gospel of John is the real Jesus.
I also believe that the person who wrote the Gospel of John was an eyewitness, probably John himself,
or at least this person knew the eyewitness from whom he received the narrative recorded in this book.
The style of writing is similar to 1 John. The writer of 1 John was also an eyewitness as is stated in the first two verses of the first chapter.
JOHN 19:35
35-And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; AND HE KNOWS that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe.
1 JOHN 1:
1-What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— 2-and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us
It’s interesting that in the first NT gospel there is the mysterious young man who was with the disciples at Jesus’ arrest and therefore fled with the disciples abandoning Jesus to his death. In contrast there is the mysterious young man in the empty tomb who proclaims the risen Christ ending this gospel.
–
Then in the last NT gospel there is mysterious Beloved Disciple who appears periodically but is never named. Could this be an example of stories in the oral tradition developing in different ways in different localities, communities and times until fixed by being written down in a gospel? And is this what has happened in John with the story of the raising of Lazarus as compared to Jairus’ daughter? Similar stories developing in different ways until written. Neither story being more accurate or historic, just oral tradition changing over time and locality.
Interesting idea….
I think the two strongest points in your writing are your discussion of the differences among ancient texts (“Misquoting Jesus”) and your discussion of the differences among the four Gospels (“Jesus Interrupted”). This is a terrific post especially the contrast between Jesus not emphasizing Himself, but instead emphasizing the coming kingdom in Mark, and doing just the opposite in John. Have you seen “Son of God” yet? Obviously, a movie that combines the four Gospels into a single account is going to have difficulty smoothing out these contrasts. Thanks.
I find it ironic that as a modern person who doesn’t believe Jesus was divine, I can only *respect* him if I assume all the Gospels are wrong, and he was a humble man who had to be convinced by his disciples that he was the Messiah (if he ever accepted it al all). I doubt I’m alone in reacting this way.
P.S. I’ve often wondered whether there was symbolism in a man named Jesus raising a man named Lazarus from the dead. Forms of the names Joshua and Eleazar – the successors, respectively, of Moses and Aaron. Might they have symbolized the “revival” of some kind of priesthood?
Hmmm…. Good question!
The review of you new book in today’s “News and Observer” seems reasonable and balanced and I look forward to reading the book as soon as it arrives from amazon.com. I also learned a new word, “nullifidian,” from the review and it is not every day that I learn a new word, especially a word that sounds almost poetic.
I noticed that you didn’t post my comments from last week. Is that because you can’t take dissent and criticism? If so, my opinion of you (which used to be high) has dropped several notches.
I’ve posted everything you’ve sent me.
[Bart] “Only those who receive his message can partake of the world that is above, only they are in the light, only they can enter into the truth.”
Does the Fourth Gospel contain elements of Gnosticism or proto-Gnosticism?
Later Gnostics certainly loved it. But I don’t think it is Gnostic in any sense — any more than, say, it’s Mormon, or Pentecostal, or Greek Orthodox in any sense. Certainly later groups use it and claim to derive their views from it, but the author would almost certainly be extermely surprised at how his words were taken….