Loading...I started this mini-thread by mentioning one of the now-lost documents of early Christianity that I would love to have discovered, the alleged “Signs Source” of the Gospel of John. Before giving the evidence that there may have been some such source, I went off on a tangent, in order to show that John has a different view of Jesus’ spectacular deeds from what you find in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. In these earlier Gospels, Jesus does “miracles,” both because he feels compassion for those in need and in order to illustrate his teaching that the Kingdom of God was soon to appear. In John, however, he does “signs” to prove that he really is a divine being.
So, what evidence is there that John’s accounts of Jesus’ signs derive from a previously existing, but no longer surviving, written source? The evidence does not make a slam-dunk case, and so the matter is debated among scholars. I’ve long thought, though, that there probably was some such source.
First, some basic factual information. These are the seven signs (note: seven! The perfect number, the number of God) that Jesus performs in the Gospel.
- Turning Water Into Wine (2:1-11)
- Healing the Capernaum Official’s Son (4:46-54)
- Healing the Paralytic by the Pool of Bethzatha (5:2-9)
- Feeding the 5000 (6:1-14)
- Walking on Water (6:16-21)
- Healing the Man Born Blind (9:1-12)
- Raising Lazarus from the Dead (11:1-44)ｮLM0ｯ
Jesus performs no other public miracles in John; but it is important to notice the statement near the end of the book: “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples that are not written in this book. But these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the christ, the Son of God, and through believing you may have life in his name” (20:30-31).
To see the logic behind thinking that these stories come from a previously existing written source it is important to recall…
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet: JOIN!!! It doesn’t cost much, and all the money goes to charity!
Prof Ehrman
If I could step back just a bit, is there a text you could recommend that discusses the question of the relationship (if any) between John and the synoptics, especially Mark?
Thanks!
I’d suggest D. Moody Smith, John Among the Gospels.
Is the second sign just an evolution of the Jairus story in the Synoptics?
It’s closer parallel is the healing of the official’s son/servant in the Synoptics
A good and clear explanation of the first sign/second sign problem in John. Thanks.
Does anyone have an idea of *why* seven was considered the “perfect” number? (I’m thinking, maybe, that the ancients may only have been aware of seven “heavenly bodies”: Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. But I’m not sure they would have been able to see something as small as Mercury.)
Probably such things as 7 planets; 7 days of the week; and 7-up.
Dr Ehrman:
Your comment:
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. But then the text says, “After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea” (3:22). The land of Judea? They are already in the land of Judea, in fact, they are in its capital. Here is another literary seam. (Note: some modern translations have gotten around this problem by mistranslating v. 22 to say that they went into the “countryside of Judea.” But this, in fact, is not the meaning of the Greek word, “land.”)
My Comment:
I think in John 2:12,13, Jesus goes up to jerusalem by Himself from Capernaum before the Passover began, For it says the Passover was near when he went down to Capernaum. I don’t believe His disciples were with Him yet. They stayed in Capernaum along with Jesus mother.
In John 2:23 Jesus is now in Jerusalem during the Passover feast. I think He was by Himself at this time. Perhaps this is when Nicodemus came to Him by night… I say perhaps because it’s not clear that Nicodemus came to jesus during the Passover feast, nor is it clear that Nicodemus came to Jesus while He was in Jerusalem. It’s recorded that Nicodemus came to jesus secretly at night.
In John 3:23 it states, “after these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He was spending time with them and baptizing”…Note that this time Jesus came with His disciples and He was spending time with them, suggesting that the previous time when He came to Judea from Capernaum He was not with His disciples, for why would it say that he was spending time with them there in judea. Also note that He was not in jerusalem but in Aenon near Salim where there was much water.
Your comment:
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 could be somewhere in New Jersey and say I’m going to the south Bronx. I don’t have to be in the North Bronx to go to the south Bronx.
The Sea of Galilee had two shores I’m assuming. One of this shores was known to the people as the other side of Galilee. Perhaps the side not visited as much, or favored as much… I don’t have to be on this side to go to the other side. I could be in Jerusalem and Say I’m going to the other side of Galilee and His disciples and the people of that region would’ve known what Jesus meant..
DR Ehrman:
Your Comment
The Greek of 4:54 is a bit complicated and has led to some misunderstanding among some readers who do not see a discrepancy with 3:22. When the verse says that this healing was the second sign Jesus did, having come from Galilee from Judea, it does *not* appear to mean that it was the second sign that was done in Galilee (as opposed to Judea). It instead seems to mean that it was his second sign. And he did it when he had come into Galilee from Judea.
My Comment
Considering John 4:45. The Galileans had seen all the other signs Jesus performed while at the feast in Jerusalem….It’s clear that John 4:54 can only be interpreted as the second sign in Galilee and not the second sign ever. Why would John point out in 4:45 that the Galileans had seen the other signs jesus performed at the feast in Jerusalem and then state in 4:54 that the sign of the healing of the officials son was the “second sign”?
Galileans were among the many who were at the feast in Jerusalem and who had witnessed Jesus signs there during THE PASSOVER FEAST.
Also John 2:23-Now when He was in Jerusalem AT THE PASSOVER, during the feast, many believed in His name, observing His signs which He was doing.
My point is that when Jesus went to Galilee the second time the Galileans received Him because they were at the Passover feast and had witnessed the signs he had done there
John 4:45-So when He came to Galilee, the Galileans received Him, having seen all the things that He did in Jerusalem at the feast; for they themselves also went to the feast.
Jesus had already done other signs besides turning water into wine and the Galileans knew this. Therefore John 4:54 has to be interpreted acknowledging what 2:23 and 4:45 declares. (Read John 2:23 below)
John 2:23-Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name, observing His *signs* which He was *doing*.
John 2:23 and 4:45 occurred before Jesus went to Galilee the second time and performed His sign there. It’s obvious that Jesus had done other miracles.
The second sign can’t mean that it was Jesus’ second miracle because the Galileans had already witnessed other miracles He had done previously as I demonstrated from the texts themselves above.
I think it’s clear Dr Ehrman.
Hi Bart. I don’t think if I would consider Jesus walking on water to be a public sign. This seems like it’s only for Jesus’ disciples. Am I missing something?
It seems to be the outlier among the seven signs. And notice: no discourse connected to it. Various epxlanations for that could be possible….
Bart: “When the verse says that this healing was the second sign Jesus did, having come from Galilee from Judea, it does *not* appear to mean that it was the second sign that was done in Galilee (as opposed to Judea). It instead seems to mean that it was his second sign. And he did it when he had come into Galilee from Judea. … If it meant the former (this was the second Galilean sign) … In this reading, Jesus did his first Galilean sign when he turned the water into wine (2:1-11). He then did signs in Judea (3:22). And then he came back and did his second Galilean sign. … But that’s not how I read the verse. I think the Greek is saying that this healing was “Jesus’ second sign,” and he did this one after he had come from Judea into Galilee. If that’s what the Greek does mean …”
First, let’s be clear, I am in no way arguing for biblical inerrancy, and I certainly believe the author of the fourth gospel made some obvious errors or clumsy seams in his final composition of his work. But this is really not so difficult to understand in the final text.
Τοῦτο [δὲ] πάλιν δεύτερον σημεῖον ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐλθὼν ἐκ τῆς Ἰουδαίας εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν.
[And] this again a second sign Jesus did after coming from Judea into Galilee.
Why not just read the aorist participle as modifying the finite aorist verb, without any definite article with δεύτερον σημεῖον? What are your reasons for thinking this verse must be speaking of Jesus’ second sign regardless of location?
By the way, if you haven’t read it, I highly recommend Gilbert Van Belle’s, The Signs Source in the Fourth Gospel. Historical Survey and Critical Evaluation of the Semeia Hypothesis. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 96. Leuven, University Press, 1994, 503 pages.
I think it must be modifying the verb. “Sign” is the direct object of “did”; “having come” is a circumstantial participle used temporally; since it’s aorist (indicating that the action of the main verb happened *after* the action of the participle, not simultaneously or before), it indicates that it was the second sign he did *after* had had come from Judea. At least in my reading of it.
Bart: “I think it must be modifying the verb. “Sign” is the direct object of “did”; “having come” is a circumstantial participle used temporally; since it’s aorist, it indicates that it was the second sign he did *after* had had come from Judea.”
Close. There is no definite article. It is not the second sign, but rather a second sign after coming from Judea.
Jesus did a first sign in Galilee (Jn 2,11) after coming from Judea (1,19.43 2,1). And in 4,54 it is said that he has done a second sign after coming from Judea to Galilee. That is easily understood as a second sign in Galilee, or even the second sign in Galilee if you insist on adding a nonexistent article to the text. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that the final author/redactor was unaware of the signs that were done in Jerusalem (2,23), which is not in Galilee, by the way.
Again, I am in no way arguing for biblical inerrancy, and I certainly believe the author of the fourth gospel made some obvious errors or clumsy seams in his final composition of his work. But this is really not so difficult to understand in the final text. There is no textual or grammatical reason to translate this as the second sign that Jesus did anywhere. OK, I’m done, unless you can explain why this must be read in contradiction to the context.
Yup, I will never accuse you of arguing for inerrancy!
Interesting interpretation. What then was the first sign he did having come from Judea to Galilee, if this is a second one?
Bart: “Yup, I will never accuse you of arguing for inerrancy!
Interesting interpretation. What then was the first sign he did having come from Judea to Galilee, if this is a second one?”
Easy. Jesus did a first sign in Cana in Galilee (Jn 2,11) after coming from Judea (1,19.43 2,1). And in 4,54 it is merely said that he has done again (πάλιν) a second sign after coming from Judea to Galilee. This in no way shows any unawareness of the additional signs done in Jerusalem (2,23), or the many other signs (20,30).
OK. Seems like a kind of weird way to situate an event, by using a kind of geographical chronology to differentiate between two acts. Why do you think it would be significant to the author that this is the *second* time he did a sign after he had come from Judea?
“OK. Seems like a kind of weird way to situate an event, by using a kind of geographical chronology to differentiate between two acts. Why do you think it would be significant to the author that this is the *second* time he did a sign after he had come from Judea?”
Yes, John is kind of weird. It’s not just the second sign, but the second time he came from Judea to Galilee. I think what John is ’emphasizing’ is rather the implication that his fanciful source(s) of knowledge about Jesus comes from the very beginning, not just from the beginning of creation, but also from the beginning with John the Baptist in Judea. It is barely mentioned in the synoptic gospels that Jesus was in Judea before beginning his public ministry in Galilee. John pretends to know so much more. The author’s anonymous source(s), with which he even connects himself (we of Jn 1,14) were with John the Baptist, his disciples, and Jesus in Judea, and Jesus and his disciples had a ministry continually in Judea and Jerusalem, present during many feasts, for example, ‘cleansing’ the temple from the beginning. The author pretends to have a unique and close knowledge both of Jesus and of the Jews in Judea. In Jn 18, the anonymous disciple (regardless of whether you identify him with the beloved disciple) is even ‘known to the high priest’. So, long story short, the emphasis is not on the first two signs being done in Galilee, but rather that Jesus and his disciples had to repeatedly come from Judea to Galilee for any events that took place there.