For many decades now there have been scholars who have been convinced that the Gospel of John is based, in large part, on written, but no-longer surviving, sources. It is much debated whether John relied on the Synoptic Gospels for any of its stories, or whether in fact its author had ever read (or even heard of) Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
There are very few verbatim overlaps between John and the others, and outside of the Passion narrative there is not a lot of overlap in the stories told. Somewhat like the Synoptics John does have the healing of a Capernaum official’s son, the feeding of the 5000, and the walking on the water – all told in striking different ways. John’s four other miracles (which he doesn’t call miracles, but “signs”) are unique to his account (including the favorite miracle on college campuses everywhere, the turning of water into wine, and the favorite of most Hollyood screen writers, the raising of Lazarus).
Moreover, the teachings of Jesus are highly distinctive in John. Almost nothing that Jesus teaches in the Synoptics can be found in John (there is not a single parable in John!) and almost nothing of Jesus’ teaching in John can be found in the Synoptics.
I’m among the scholars who thinks that John probably had not read the Synoptics. If he had read them, then he wasn’t following them for his accounts. I may change my mind about this one. It’s not a view I’m completely convinced by. But it’s been my view for many years.
That doesn’t mean, however, that John was without its own sources though. One source that scholars have isolated (this too is much debated) ….
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN ALREADY!!! It doesn’t cost much, and every penny goes to worthy charities!!!
I am catching up on threads and wondered while reading the thread on “just wants to sell books” if you allow yourself to speculate, Bart, and do you share those speculations if you do? I enjoy speculation if it is based on some evidence and is identified for what it is. Sometimes speculation leads to discovery. On the other hand, I also enjoy getting solid facts, which are often in short supply or aren’t given nearly enough attention and importance when they are available.
I do on occasion — but I usually warn the reader that’s what I’m doing.
Excellent read. I just completed a Bible Study on the Gospel of John, and preached a sermon series on the Seven Signs. I wish I had read this post prior to the series. Thank you for sharing.
I just want to mention that there is a writer and scholar who has focused on the writings of John for many years. He is neither progressive nor fundamentslist. He is a linguistic Expert and bases much of his writings on linguistic analysis. He maintains that the writer of John’s gospel is John The Presbyter or the elder, writing from Ephesus and who also wrote the “Revelation” and the letters 1&2. This John the Presbyter, he indicates was an eyewitness to Jesus when John was a young man.
The author is James David Audlin. Two books are involved with this: The Gospel of John vols 1 and 2, and The Writings of John The Presbyter. These are large volumes, not cheap, and contain Audlin’s own translation (much fro the Aramaic sources and extensive commentary with considerable historical and linguistic analysis.
I find his writings on John very well done.
James Audlin is not an “academic” in the sense of being a paid university teacher and lecturer, but does his research and writing in seclusion, so to speak.
Are you aware of him and his work? If not, I can arrange for him to send you some PDFs of his books when he returns from his current trip to Patmos and Ephesus and Jerusalem.
The books are also available through Amazon and other sources. I think it would be good to give his position a good read…he is no amateur in any way.
No, I’m afraid I’m not familiar with him or his work.
Dr. Bart Ehrman: John’s four other miracles (which he doesn’t call miracles, but “signs”) are unique to his account (including (1) the favorite miracle on college campuses everywhere, the turning of water into wine, and (2) the favorite of most Hollyood screen writers, the raising of Lazarus).
Steefen: What are the other two?
The seven signs are:[2]
u – Changing water into wine in John 2:1-11
nu – Healing the royal official’s son in Capernaum in John 4:46-54
Healing the paralytic at Bethesda in John 5:1-18
nu – Feeding the 5000 in John 6:5-14
nu – Jesus’ walk on water in John 6:16-24
Healing the man born blind in John 9:1-7
u – Raising of Lazarus in John 11:1-45
So the other two that are unique are Healing the paralytic and Healing the blind man, as listed above.
The seven signs are seen by some scholars and theologians as evidence of new creation theology in the Gospel of John, the resurrection of Jesus being the implied eighth sign, indicating a week of creation and then a new creation beginning with the resurrection.
John Marsh and Stephen Smalley, have credibly suggested six initial signs (the walking on the water not a sign in itself), and the seventh sign as the crucifixion.
John Hutchinson[5] and E. W. Bullinger have emphasized the sequence of eight signs; concluding with the great harvest of fish in John 21:1-14.
Jesus was clairvoyant in all 4 Gospels. I really think this is significant to the memory of Jesus and the origin of miracle stories. If he was clairvoyant, I can understand how people thought he was a prophet or divine. He had to have done something significant to spur such great interest other than just being a good orator. People that dismiss psychic ability can’t understand the relevance of this concept. Prophets from the Old Testament had to give proof of their claims. I can’t believe they could just say, “Hey, I’m a prophet!”, without some sort of demonstration proving it.
Because human beings never give credence to the claims of charlatans? You ever hear tell of televangelism?
Not that I am calling the Old Testament prophets charlatans, but they wouldn’t need to be. The fact is, the stories about them were written down so long after the people in question had lived, we can not in any way be certain that they made those prophecies–or that history was not rewritten to fit the prophecies. And there’s a lot of scholarship to suggest that happened.
Jesus made a number of prophecies, no doubt–but even though his story was written down a shorter period of time after his death, still more than long enough for some retro-fitting to take place. And anyway, didn’t he prophecy that the world as we knew it was coming to an end? That God was coming to rule the world, either in his lifetime, or the lifetimes of those listening to him? That did not happen.
The prophecies he made were mainly quite vague and allegorical, and could be interpreted in a number of ways (and have been). And so have the quatrains of Nostradamus. There’s no way to prove or disprove the accuracy of a prophetic statement that isn’t extremely specific and easily understood. Perhaps he did predict the destruction of the temple–but he didn’t predict the Romans would destroy it. Given the political situation in Palestine, you wouldn’t have needed supernatural abillities to guess that was a real possibility, but that wasn’t what he said. He said he’d destroy it and then rebuild it. He didn’t. Not literally. Allegorically, perhaps–doesn’t count. Self-fulfilling prophecies never do.
There were many wonder-workers and self-styled prophets in this time period. There are many in this time period. The fact that some people believed them can’t possibly prove they were all right, or that any of them were.
Jesus was prescient in saying that many false prophets would come after him (assuming he did say that), but that was not exactly a shot in the dark, was it?
It is not necessary to assume Jesus had no extraordinary abilities–he was clearly an extraordinary man, with tremendous charisma, and powers of persuasion. He also had a remarkable and original mind. But there is no possible way to prove he was anything other than a man with the normal powers of a man. No claims made of him that have not been made of many others we do not currently accept to have been divine beings.
To clarify a clumsily written sentence, I’m saying that there are still people making fantastic claims, who find large audiences ready to believe them, in modern times–and not all these claims are religious in nature (for example, there are people claiming the historical Jesus was a hoax). The fact that someone was believed does not prove he or she was a true prophet. And most people of Jesus’ time clearly did not believe him, or he would not have been crucified and then largely forgotten by all but a handful of followers for such a long time.
What about Ezekiel’s prophecy to Nebuchadnezzar that he would destroy Tyre? If it was written after the fact, I think Ezekiel would have done a better job prophesying. After 13 years of attempting to take Tyre, Ezekiel basically says to Nebuchadnezzar, ‘You know what, forget that prophecy, here’s another one.’ So I don’t think that account is written after the fact. Even though Ezekiel wasn’t entirely correct, he was still viewed as a prophet. Also, it’s my understanding that the Prophets replaced the Urim and Thummin. I think this shows the deep belief in the power of divination and people who demonstrated clairvoyance were seen as special.
When I say Jesus was a Prophet, I don’t mean to say that he could predict everything with 100% accuracy. I’m talking about stories like the woman at the well where Jesus told her how many husbands she had and how he could perceive their thoughts. If he was demonstrating the “divine” gift of clairvoyance, then I can see how those around him embellished his memory. As far as the prediction of the destruction of the Temple, Jesus went on to say how the disciples would be persecuted because of him. How could he have known, for sure, all of the horrible things the disciples went through? Isn’t Mark dated by some scholars before the destruction of the Temple? If you don’t believe in this sort of thing, then it’s not a possibility in your mind. I do believe clairvoyance is real for many reasons, but no one is correct at all times.
Also, when I looked up information about Besh’t, I found that he may have been using plants and other various forms of holistic medicine to help people with illnesses. If this type of medicine did work, then it’s not much of a stretch to see how people, who did not understand it, thought God empowered him to be a healer. That’s why I think Jesus demonstrated something more than charisma, and it was beyond their understanding.
There is something wrong about the raising of Lazarus only appearing in the Gospel of John (written during the reign of Emperor Domitian). How can something that great be left out of Mark, Matthew, and Luke?
Right! It probalby wasn’t widely known.
It was not widely known. That is so unlike you, professor. What is like you: the lack of multiple attestation means it is probably an interpolation or it did not happen. Why are we not getting that response?
Jn 11: 7 – He said to his disciples, let’s go back to Judea. So, each offspring community of disciples after Jesus’ death would have to preserve this account.
Jn 11: 16 Thomas said let’s go with Jesus because those people who wanted to stone Jesus will stone him when he returns to help Lazarus. Let’s go die with Jesus. [Dr. Ehrman, this means some of Jesus’ enemies would have caught up with Jesus at Lazarus’ grave site.]
18Now Bethany was near Jerusalem, about two miles off; 19and many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary, to console them concerning their brother.
Dear Doctor Ehrman, please help us understand your reply: the resurrection of Lazarus was not widely known given all the disciples were there, all those to console the sisters of Lazarus were there, and all communities of disciples would have learned of this great sign.
Here, Jesus is Isis for resurrecting Lazarus but more so Jesus is Osiris, the Resurrection (and the bread of heaven to the extent Osiris is tied to the planting of wheat and the sprouting of wheat after wheat has been buried in the earth).
25Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, 26and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?”
Here, the writer of John is saying Osiris is no longer the resurrection but Jesus is the resurrection.
On the first day of the Festival of Ploughing, where the goddess Isis appeared in her shrine where she was stripped naked, paste made from the grain were placed in her bed and moistened with water, representing the fecund earth. All of these sacred rituals were “climaxed by the eating of sacramental god, the eucharist by which the celebrants were transformed, in their persuasion, into replicas of their god-man” (Larson 20)
Here: John 6: 32 and 51, speaking of bread of Heaven are sourced from the former Egyptian Moses and from the wheat ploughing associated with Isis, Osiris, and Resurrection.
Conclusion: without multiple attestation that the raising of Lazarus was a real event, it is a literary event to bring in Exodus and the popular Isis cult of Rome.
I’m not saying it happened. I don’t think it did. I’m saying that the story was not widely known.
You are really hurting the feelings of Christians.
– Jesus wasn’t the “leading man” who saved a woman from being stoned to death.
– Jesus did not raise Lazarus.
(etc.)
Interruption for a more important but related point: Wikipedia says:
Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman relates that in the introduction to his textbook on the New Testament, he describes an important figure from the first century without first revealing he is writing about Apollonius of Tyana:
… Apollonius of Tyana raised the dead.
Ehrman goes on to explain that Apollonius was a real person and that his followers believed Jesus to be a fraud.
Dr. Ehrman, was the raising of the dead by Apollonius of Tyana (born 15 died 100) more widely known?
John says he raised the dead in front of all of his disciples. Without this appearing in Mark, Matthew, and Luke, it probably did not make it into Oral Tradition or Q source. This leaves us with the possibility that the Lazarus account only dates to when it was written. Apparently, Jesus had to best Apollonius and that is part of the reason why the resurrection of Lazarus appears in John.
it’s not clear how widely known Apollonius was in antiquity.
Responding to Steefan–it’s not clear Jesus was ‘responding’ to anyone by reputedly raising the dead. Those stories are most likely a response to the tradition in the Jewish scriptures of Elijah and Elisha raising the dead. We know Jesus was strongly identified with Elijah–believed by some to be Elijah resurrected. In the story of the Transfiguration, he is seen communing with Elijah and Moses (as apparent equals).
The story of him raising the little girl in Mark–is that so hard to believe? She could have been in a coma, or an catatonic trance. We know people have many times been buried alive. Some would have said “It’s not a miracle, she just wasn’t really dead”, but some would have believed it was a miracle. We can’t know what might have given rise to that story, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be based on nothing but other stories–all stories are ultimately based on something. It can’t all be copying somebody else’s story.
It starts as something real, and grows over time, aided by the memory of earlier stories, which themselves might have had a kernel of truth to them. We make our own realities, but we don’t make them up out of whole cloth.
In “Jesus: A Historian’s View of the Gospels”, Michael Grant mentioned that there were stories of Jewish ‘wonder rabbis’, which often sounded no less amazing than those of Jesus. And they were not necessarily meant to be taken literally–they were an expression of how amazing this man was, how his holiness inspired people, how he made people feel in his presence.
A good story is not a lie, simply because it didn’t happen just the way you told it. Not unless you’re using it to fool people, which I don’t think the gospel writers were. Not intentionally, at least.
I would like to give this post a 4.9, so, I’m going to give it a 5 star rating.
#1 As mentioned in my book, Heron/Hero of Alexandria, an inventory, made a vase that could poor water when tilted one way and pour wine when tilted another way. Because Vespasian was in Alexandria before going to Rome for crowning as emperor, the famed Heron/Hero and/or his inventions could have found their way into Flavian empire literature. Vespasian fulfilled the sign of the star prophecy “of the Jews.” Vespasian fulfilled the sign of giving sight to the blind by using his saliva as Jesus did. Vespasian fulfilled the sign of making the lame walk. Entertaining the powerful Roman general, emperor in waiting, Hero/Heron’s party trick/miracle could have been put in the hands of Vespasian or his entourage.
#2 Jesus is not the messiah of the temporal world, he is a heavenly messiah who requires people’s consumption of his body and blood. I’m looking at: The “Son of Man” is Jesus’ own self-description—he uses the title twelve times in the Gospel of John (1:51; 3:13, 14; 5:27; 6:27, 53, 62; 8:28; 9:35; 12:23; 13:31; in 12:34 his language is quoted back to him).
Here is the contrast of Son of Man and Messiah:
John 12: 33 But He was saying this to indicate the kind of death by which He was to die. 34The crowd then answered Him, “We have heard out of the Law that the Messiah/Christ is to remain forever; and how can You say, ‘The Son of Man must be lifted up’? Who is this Son of Man?”
In the Synoptics, Jesus tells John the Baptist he is the one for which all have been waiting. More specifically, the blind man asks, who is the Son of Man. Jesus answers, the one before you is the Son of Man.
In the Synoptics the Son of Man is in first person and third person. In John, the Son of Man is glorified when Judas leaves to betray him. In the Synoptics, we have the Great Tribulation before the glorification of the Son of Man.
correction: Heron/Hero of Alexandria, an inventor,
~ ~ ~
Jesus needs signs that he is
a) son of God
b) messiah – I don’t think the Jews were looking for a spiritual messiah, especially the Galileans who had Judah the Galilean trying to usher in a temporal, political revolt
c) son of Man – Jesus’ self-identification
~ ~ ~
With what I wrote above, John either did not read the Synoptics or he was disregarding their claim that Jesus was
Son of Man in 1st person;
but tragedy strikes making him unable to live out the roll to glorification after the tribulation. He is crucified (resurrects and ascends to heaven, abandoning the fulfillment of the temporal messiah, leaving no political provisions for the Tribulation during the Jewish Revolt and destruction of the Temple),
then Son of Man is spoken of in the third person in the things that were to take place after Jesus’ ascension.
There is no speaking of the Son of Man in the third person in John. John’s omission of the signs for the coming of the Son of Man is shocking, if not an affront to the orthodoxy of the Synoptics.
(Sorry about the 30-min. delay: lights in the neighborhood went out for about 25 minutes)
Gospel according to John is written during Domitian’s reign and the reference to the Tribulation of armies surrounding Jerusalem and the Temple being destroyed is absent from that gospel.
Why?
Domitian, son of Vespasian and brother of Titus, did not fight against the Jews in the Jewish Revolt against Rome.
If there were to be gospels circulating in Rome for the Early Christianity in Rome, why mention the military gospel, good news, of his father and brother. Take it out. And also, during Domitian’s reign, there were some sort of persecutions against Christians, Christians who probably were tied to Mark, Matthew, and Luke, reluctant or refusing the counter-gospel according to John.
I think John was almost certainly aware of synoptic traditions – e.g. in John 12:27, he denies that he will ask The Father for “his hour” to be removed from him – yet this is precisely what he does in the synoptic Gethsemane traditions.
Have you read Spong’s new book entitled “The Fourth Gospel”? He discusses much of this same material and in the Second Part of the book discusses “signs.” I understand that Spong does not have scholarly training but, like you, he has a gift for explaining stuff to lay readers.
No, I’m afraid I haven’t read it! You’d be amazed what I haven’t read….
You said you do not think John read the synoptics. Could you expand a little on why? There are places where there are certainly similarities, thieves at Calvary etc.
Any thoughts on Louis A. Ruprecht’s hypothesis in “This Tragic Gospel”? I haven’t read it but it seems he focuses mostly on comparing the cowering fear of death Jesus has in Gethsemane in Mark with the Godlike confidence we see in John. He concludes that John must have read at least one of the Synoptics and altered the message to show a God instead of a man.
I want to investigate the idea myself, because it explains both the similarities and the differences between John and the synoptics in 1 simple hypothesis. Is it worth looking into or is there something that makes it unlikely off the bat?
I think without verbatim agreements it’s impossible to know. And if he did know them, it’s odd he left so much of their material out (as in, virtually all of Jesus’ teachings! And most of his miracles.)
The gospel of John is so at odds with the synoptics on so many different levels that one might conclude that the Jesus of John’s gospel is a different guy altogether. Here’s another stark example: as you noted, Bart, there is not a single parable in the gospel of John yet Matthew (13:34) asserts that Jesus taught the crowds EXCLUSIVELY with parables! Huh?
Great post.
Do you see this supposed divine claim in John’s gospel as “a” divine being or as “the” divine being? In either case, how was the title [human] Messiah or son of God divine per se?
Rev 12:10 -> Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say:‘Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his [God’s] Messiah.
Thanks,
John
He’s certainly not claiming to be God the Father, as he clearly differentiates himself from the Father.
Why does the mass of scholarship seem to assume that John’s sources were primarily written rather than still in oral circulation (and continuing to evolve for another 70 or so years) like Mark’s? Is John so elegant and poetic in Koíne that it implies that he was surrounded by other scrolls and codices as he composed?
I’ll be giving some reasons anon. You might also search for John’s sources on the blog: I devoted some posts to it a while back.
I’m glad you are taking on John. Do you think the Prologue was inspired by the Ode to Wisdom in Proverbs 8?
In part. And in part Genesis 1. Etc. See my discussoin in How Jesus Became God.
“beneath the earth for three days and then reappear” etc.: what is your view of how the Jews counted days? I’ve seen comments elsewhere that “three days” by their counting could include partial days but a statement “three days and three nights” would be more literally three days as we think. So for example if Jesus was dead from Friday evening and rose Sunday moring (especially before dawn?) would that be a day and a half or what?
yeah, it’s a tricky business. I don’t have any insider knowledge. It’s usually said that any part of a day counts as a whole day…
In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus flat-out refuses to do signs in order to demonstrate his personal identity. Bart
Luke 5:1-11
“Do not be afraid; henceforth you will become catchers of men.
In Mark 2:1-12
But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man, 11 “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.”
Hi Bart
I just came across this from Jonathan McLatchie who you may have heard of. He is not too impressed with Jesus Interrupted.
I was particularly interested in you thoughts on the first of these (but also the rest if you are interested and there is also a part 2) on the signs from John. Does the original Greek clarify this for example?
Your thoughts on this?
https://jonathanmclatchie.com/why-you-should-not-be-intimidated-by-bart-ehrman-a-review-of-jesus-interrupted-part-1/?fbclid=IwAR2fk5xY66FbC-6E0CxPuXmLyaixYkhZxkUWCFDGfIDmdvLGIIsApU3au6E
No, I’m afraid I’ve never heard of him. I’m not able to read what he has to say, but if you want to summarize it in a comment I’d be happy to respond. One thing I think he and I can agree on: there is absolutely no reason to be intimidated by me!! 🙂
Thanks Bart, did the link not work? Here’s his first point, does the Greek make a difference?
“…and we’re told that “this was the first sign that Jesus did” (John 2:11). Later in that chapter we’re told that Jesus did “many signs” in Jerusalem (John 2:23).”
“Now, let’s review the actual texts that Ehrman cites here –
John 2:11 – “This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee.”
John 2:23 – “Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing.”
John 4:54 – “This was now the second sign that Jesus did when he had come from Judea to Galilee.”
Pay special attention to the text that I have highlighted in bold, since these are the sections of the texts Ehrman has omitted to tell you about. John 2:11 and 4:54 are talking about the first and second signs that Jesus did while in Galilee. The signs alluded to in John 2:23 were not in Galilee but in Jerusalem. Is Ehrman being dishonest, or is he merely incompetent? You decide.
Sorry — I don’t have time to read links! But yes, that is the typical response (he didn’t come up with it). I’ve argued on teh blog that it is not the best way to understand the Greek text of John 4:54. To paraphrase what I think the Greek is saying: “This now is the second sign that Jesus did, one which he did after coming from Judea to Galilee.”
Thanks. Do you have time to look at some of the other comments made? I can post them here.
I’m happy to reply to anything you post within the word limit as a comment.
OK Thanks, here’s the next.
Now let us take an example from chapter 2 of the book. This one pertains to the resurrection narratives:
Who actually went to the tomb? Was it Mary alone (John 20:1)? Mary and another Mary (Matthew 28:1)? Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome (Mark 16:1)? Or women who had accompanied Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem – possibly Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and “other women” (Luke 24:1; see 23:55)?
According to Bart Ehrman, John 20:1 indicates that it was Mary alone who went to the tomb. But is this actually what the text says? Apparently Bart Ehrman did not read as far as verse 2, in which we read,
Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. 2 So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.”
The use of the plural pronoun “we” in this text in fact presupposes that there had been other women who had been present with Mary at the tomb, so there is no contradiction here at all.
Yes, it’s a famous problem that she says “we.” But 20:1 is explicit: Mary is the only one said to go to the tomb. The we could be a “royal we”; it could mean that she conferred with others after she went to the tomb in v. 1 and consulted with Simon Peter and the other in v. 2; it could simply mean “no one”; it could mean that the author of John has spliced together two different accounts and not ironed out the differences; it could mean a lot of things. But 20:1 is indeed explicit. It was Mary who went.
I recently re-read a book that I’ve had in cold storage since my religious days, to see if I have any further use for it. It is about as scholarly as you would expect from a book by a Christian songwriter whose sources include an Israeli tour guide (i.e. not), and a textbook example of your point that people mash the four gospels together to create their own. On the other hand, it is a deeply compassionate version of the life of Jesus and an engaging story well told.
Anyway, the author claims that running out of wine at a wedding was a matter of honour, a humiliating insult that would taint the union forever. Jesus, we are told, knows what it is like to be the object of shame, because of that ridiculous virgin birth thing that the good folk of Nazareth never believed for a moment. And so this miracle is an act borne of empathy, to save the young couple from humiliation and judgement and (as with all of Jesus’ signs) to reveal the character of God.
Do you detect any grain of truth in this interpretation?
Nope….
The marriage feast of Cana must have been a very boozy affair. The quantities of wine miraculously made from water are translated as totalling hundreds of gallons. Even some translations give the quantity as “two or three measures “(e.g. Douay, Segond [French]), which allow the reader to imagine some reasonable quantity, there are appendices that give an equivalent of hundreds of gallons.
The sunday school level explanation I recall hearing as a child is that the entire town participated and that the feast lasted for many days.
What does Dr. Ehrman think of this?
My college students think it’s the best miracle in the Bible! But yes, it would be a lot of wine, especially after they’d been drinking for a while. We don’t know who was there, but Jesus and his mother were “invited” which suggests it wasn’t everyone.
The stuff about the signs in John (1st in Cana, then some in Jerusalem, then 2nd when he had come from Judea to Galilee) can be read in three ways, all valid in terms of language: 1) 1st sign overall in Cana (of Galilee), then signs in Jerusalem, then 2nd sign overall when he had come from Judea to Galilee (ergo there is a discrepancy) 2) 1st sign overall in Cana, then signs in Jerusalem, then 2nd sign ON THE WAY from Judea to Galilee (which implies there was a 1st sign ON THE WAY from Judea to Galilee, ergo we wonder what was the 1st sign, and generally we are left with derivative questions). 3) 1st sign OF GALILEE (Cana), then signs in Jerusalem, then 2nd sign OF GALILEE, which btw happened to occur when he had come from Judea. The third variation is the only one which harmonizes the verses, although this is by no means proof of whether that is what John (or whoever) actually meant. It’s not so much a question of how to translate the participle “ἐλθὼν” (meaning “when/after he had come”) but of commas, or lack thereof.
The narrations about the Holy Spirit, the baptism and the (lack of) wilderness in John can be reconciled without claiming that the Holy Spirit descended twice, because John does not necessarily narrate Jesus’ baptism; he only elaborates on the comments made by the Baptist about the baptismal practice, Jesus and the Holy Spirit descending in general. John does not clarify to what time the Baptist is referring, he only states when the Baptist made the relevant comments. Therefore, we don’t know what (supposedly) happened (at and after) the baptism. For all we know, according to John, Jesus wasn’t necessarily baptised and the Holy Spirit descended upon him independently of any baptism. I don’t know why we have to consider John 1,29-34 as describing the Jesus’ baptism, because it is unclear. I assume it’s because the Baptist says he saw the Holy Spirit descending, so we draw from the baptism narrations of other Gospels, in which this miracle is combined with the baptism of Jesus. But, as you often argue, as a general rule, we shouldn’t smash the Gospels together and assume that what one Gospel says should be read in light of the others.