In chapter 6 of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels, after I deal with collective memory in theory, I move on to talk about how Jesus was remembered in three different early Christian communities, those behind the Gospels of Mark (our earliest canonical Gospel), John (our latest canonical Gospel), and Thomas (our best known non-canonical Gospel). One thing we have learned from memory studies is that the present affects not only what is remembered about the past, but also how it is remembered. That is true for communities as well as individuals. And so in my treatment of how Jesus was remembered in such different ways in these three communities, I discuss as well what can be established or at least surmised about the historical circumstances that would have made such memories plausible.
I don’t want to spill the beans here about what I say for each of these communities, but I do want to show how scholars have tried to establish the historical context for one of them, the one behind the Gospel of John. Here is how I lay out the matter in my New Testament textbook discussion of John, and the three stages in the life of the community. This will take two posts.
************************************************************************
Stage One: In the Synagogue
The oldest stories of the Fourth Gospel appear to indicate that the Johannine community originated as a group of Jews who came to believe that Jesus was the messiah, who nonetheless continued to maintain their Jewish identity and to worship in their Jewish synagogue. We do not know where exactly this community was originally located, except that it may have been someplace in Palestine where Aramaic was spoken.
The reasons for drawing these historical conclusions come from our only source of information, the Gospel of John itself. Some of John’s stories emphasize Jesus’ Jewishness and narrate how some Jews came to identify him as the Jewish messiah. Since this identification of the messiah would have been of no interest to pagans (it’s a reference to the deliverer of Israel), it makes sense that the stories would have been told within Jewish communities. Since the stories presuppose knowledge of Jesus’ own mother tongue, Aramaic, they appear to have been among the most ancient accounts of the Gospel.
This community of Jewish believers may have owed their existence to a follower of Jesus whom they later called “the Beloved Disciple.” This enigmatic figure appears several times in the course of the Gospel; he appears to have enjoyed a position of prominence among those who told the stories (see, for example, John 13:23; 19:26-27; 20:2-8).
It appears that these Jewish converts attempted to proselytize other members of their Jewish synagogue. Evidence for this hypothesis is found not only in such stories as the call of the disciples, which presumably would have been told in order to show how some Jews had recognized Jesus as their messiah, but also, perhaps, in the Signs Source. You may recall the theory that this source ended with the words now found in 20:30-31: “Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.” The purpose of the Signs Source, in other words, was missionary. It recorded the miraculous deeds of Jesus precisely in order to convince Jews that Jesus was the messiah. Originally, then, the signs were not designed to show that Jesus was God. They indicated that he was empowered by God as his representative. Jesus was still understood to be a special human being at the stage of the community’s history in which the stories were first told, but he was not yet thought of as himself divine.
Stage Two: Excluded from the Synagogue
It is impossible to say how long the Jews of this community remained in their synagogue without causing a major disturbance. What does become clear from several of the stories of the Fourth Gospel is that a significant disruption eventually took place in which the Jews who believed in Jesus were excluded from the synagogue. There is no indication of exactly what led to this exclusion, but it is not difficult to paint a plausible scenario. First-century Jews by and large rejected any idea that Jesus could be the messiah. For most of them, the messiah was to be a figure of grandeur and power, for example, a heavenly being sent to rule the earth, or a great warrior king who would overthrow the oppressive forces of Rome and renew David’s kingdom in Jerusalem. Jesus was clearly nothing of the sort. On the contrary, he was an itinerant preacher who was executed for treason against the state.
So long as the Jews who believed in Jesus kept a low profile, keeping their notions to themselves, there was probably no problem with their worshipping in the synagogue. But from its earliest days, Christianity was a missionary religion, dedicated to converting others to faith in Jesus. In the Johannine community, as in most other Jewish communities, the Christians were no doubt rejected by the majority of the Jews and probably mocked and marginalized. This may have led on the one hand to increased antagonism from non-Christian Jews and, on the other hand, to heightened efforts at evangelism on the part of the Christian Jews. Eventually, these believers in Jesus became something more than a headache. Perhaps because of their persistent badgering of the skeptical and their refusal to keep their views to themselves — or perhaps for some other unknown reason — this group of believers in Jesus was forced to leave the Jewish community.
There is some evidence within the Gospel of John itself that the Jewish Christians within the synagogue were at some point forced to leave. Several scholars have considered the most compelling piece of evidence to be embodied in the healing story of John 9. In this account, Jesus heals a man who had been born blind. The Jewish authorities take umbrage at this action, because it has occurred on the Sabbath. They interrogate the man who has been healed, trying to learn how he gained his sight. When he identifies Jesus as the one who healed him, they refuse to believe it and call in his parents to uncover the truth. His parents, however, refuse to answer their questions, insisting that since he is of age, they should ask the man himself. And then the author explains why the man’s parents refuse to cooperate, in one of the most intriguing verses of the entire Gospel: “His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews; for the Jews had already agreed that anyone who confessed Jesus to be the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue” (9:22).
This verse is significant from a socio-historical perspective because we know that there was no official policy against accepting Jesus as messiah — or anyone else as the messiah, for that matter — during his lifetime. On the other hand, some Jewish synagogues evidently did begin to exclude members who believed in Jesus’ messiahship towards the end of the first century. It appears then that the story reflects the experience of the later community that stood behind the Fourth Gospel. These believers in Jesus had been expelled from the Jewish community, the community, presumably, of their families and friends and neighbors, the community in which they had worshipped God and had fellowship with one another.
This expulsion from their synagogue had serious implications for the Christian community’s social life and, correspondingly, for the way it began to understand its world and its stories about its messiah, Jesus.
I am anxiously awaiting the Book! When is it due out?
Spring 2016, gods willing.
Professor Ehrman …
I have just finished reading “Cites of God” by Professor Rodney Stark and am about to start reading another of his books called “How the West Was Won”. I am going to try and resist the temptation of a “sneak preview” (honesty I am) of what you say about these early Gospel communities and wait until your book comes out so I can read what you say in full.
If you could recommend any other “Quality” reading material to continue my new found perspective on early Christian development it would be greatly appreciated.
Many thanks John.
You might look at Ramsey MacMullen, Christianizing the Roman Empire.
I’ve just finished Douglas Boin’s “Coming Out Christian in the Roman World”. Fantastic.
I can’t understand why ANY Jew would have believed in Jesus as the Messiah because IF they were Jews who knew their history from OT scriptures, they would surely know what the prophesied Messiah was to become as you alluded to Bart. Any preconception they may have had surely was surely dealt with at the crucifixion. The main reason why the disciples carried has been dealt with by others eg They had invested a large part of their lives in believing Jesus was the Messiah and weren’t about to give that up easily but the other main aspect not being dealt with here was that they still all thought Jesus was coming back in their generation and so they and Paul had no other place to go but to carry on with a distorted view of Jesus. Thete is very little in the OT that suggested the Messiah would be crucified, never mind resurrected and even coming back a second time. All that was just fanciful thinking by imo NON Jewish influence and was a Greek narrative as indeed is what John’s Gospel is. Paul obviously did not know about the blind man story/miracle as Jesus replied he had not sinned nor his parents as why he was blind( Another clue as how clueless they were at that time) Paul wrote that ALL had sinned and come short of the glory of God and reinforced original sin that even today the brain dead Vatican still believes in because of Genesis and Paul’s writings. So it was inevitable the Jews would not carry on believing Jesus was the Messiah and of course its only in John’s Gospel the claim is made that Jesus was and is God and was with God from the beginning. Shows how myths and legends grow. Surely time for Christians to grow up and think for themselves about these things. The disciples called Jesus, Teacher, Rabbi, Master and Lord etc. Why on earth would they even think he was the Messiah then? Here’s the question then Bart. IF those disciples thought Jesus was the Messiah as prophized, how come they didn’t refer to Isaaih 53 like all Christians do now?
The other thing is why would God send all the Jews who didn’t believe that Jesus was the Messiah to hell, when he made it quite clear in the OT what was expected of him? Somehow the Jews for Jesus movement cannot fathom that easy puzzle out/
yes, it’s one of the curiosities that in the NT Isaiah 53 is indeed quoted on various occasions, but never to support the view that Jesus’ death was a substituionary atonement. But it does get quoted. (See e.g., Acts 7)
This sounds like a summary of Raymond Brown’s “The Community of the Beloved Disciple.” Am I right , or are you basing this on additional works?
FYI, I enjoyed reading your NT textbook so much that I also read a number of the recommended readings you list at the end of each chapter – including this book of Brown’s.
Yes, and Lou Martyn’s History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel.
Dr. Ehrman: What does become clear from several of the stories of the Fourth Gospel is that a significant disruption eventually took place in which the Jews who believed in Jesus were excluded from the synagogue. There is no indication of exactly what led to this exclusion, but it is not difficult to paint a plausible scenario. First-century Jews by and large rejected any idea that Jesus could be the messiah.
Steefen, Personal Essayist: There is an indication of exactly what led to the exclusion from the synagogue: John 6: 53. Once Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
Now, at least one devout Jew will recall Leviticus 17: 10: “Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood—I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.”
John 6: 53 forced Jesus followers out of the synagogue and set Temple Authorities to have Jesus turned over to the Romans for execution. This occurs early enough in the Gospel of John, before the Last Supper where the Synoptics place the outrageous cannibalistic statement. John 6: 53 is far worse than Jesus calling himself the Messiah.
Prof Ehrman
1.In your opinion did “John” know the synoptic gospels?
2.Do you think it’s possible this community could have actually traced its origins back to one of the first generation of Jesus’ disciples? Specifically that the “Beloved Disciple” might actually have been one of the Twelve?
3. Why did the Johannine community refer their opponents as “the Jews”? Even though they seem to be Jewish converts and participated in the synagogue did they no longer regard themselves as Jews?
4. My impression as a layman is that of all the gospels John seems to be the one that shows the most evidence of having been worked over by multiple hands. When you say the “oldest stories of the Fourth Gospel” care to speculate how old that might be?
Thanks for your time and your opinion.
1. I doubt it, but it’s debated. 2. It’s possible, but I don’t think he would have been one of the Twelve. 3. Becuase the local Jews were the author’s enemies. 4. Some of the stories go back to Jesus’ Palestinian followers (note the Aramaic in 1:35-42).
Did synagogues exist in Galilee at the time of Jesus or were they only a post destruction of the temple institution?
Apparently they did, though none has been discovered.
I always felt the book of John espoused a view of Jesus’ divinity more so than even the other synoptic Gospels. Are you saying that the Johanine community itself did not have this view or simply that the Signs Source did not have this view? Is the deity of Christ something that we simply read into the text of John?
Thanks!
No, I think they did believe in Jesus’ divinity. But the view came to be more heightened with the passing of time.
Do you think that the letter 1 John was written by the same author/ community?
I did a basic Greek module at uni where we translated John’s gospel together in class. In the exam the unseen text was a passage from 1 John. I was able (with dictionary provided) to get a really good mark. So thinking I was a Greek scholar I turned to one of Paul’s letters but I found I was clueless! I assumed it was because John and 1 John were so similar in vocab, style and themes that if you could read one you could read the other. This to me seemed good evidence of the same author.
It was definitely written in the same community. But the historical situation it assumes is completely different from that assumed by the Gospel of John (it’s no longer the opposition from teh synagogue that is the problem, but a schism within the community); I htink it was written by a later Johannine Christian. The classic study of this is Raymond Brown,
The Community of the Beloved Disciple
Dear Ehrman
As you know, at the end of the Gospel of Luke, Jesus appears to all the Apostles, while at the end of the Gospel of John he appears to the Apostles except Thomas. A week later he appears with Thomas to all the Apostles.
What is the reason for this difference between Luke and John? Is it because the stories are told and chang in the oral tradition that we come across the Skeptical Tomas story? (And Jesus appears to his Apostles twice in a week’s interval?) Or is the Gospel writer or writers doing a literature?
As I recall, According to Raymond Brown, The author or authors of Gospel of John desinging to Skeptical Tomas, for making a literature. As I recall, Brown said here that an addition was made by the authors to make the story more effective.
Dear Ehrman, what is your view on this? Do you think it is an evolution in oral culture or author’s a literature?
Kind regards.
My view is that there were lots of different stories about Jesus’ resurrection appearances that were being told in various times and places, and Luke and John are simply incorporating some of the ones they happened to hear.
Dear Ehrman,
Thank you for your answer. As you know, we can say the same thing for disciple whom Jesus loved. At the Passover meal, after Jesus announced that someone was going to betray him, according to the Synoptic Bibles, everyone asked “Is that me?” In John, however, Peter asks this question through the disciple whom Jesus loved.
What do you think about this story? Are the author(s) of the Gospel of John making literature or are they trying to tell what really happened in Passover Meal? I think some names in the academy argue that they do literature. What are you thinking about this subject?
Thank you
We don’t know what was in their heads, but I think the usual assumption is that they are changing the story in order to put in the way they imagine it, so that they are both “making literature” and telling what they thought “really happened.” On the whole, John makes lots and lots of changes like this, altering stories in light of the author’s own theological/literary agenda.
Thank you for your answer. But at one point I got confused. You wrote something like:
“On the whole, John makes lots and lots of changes like this, altering stories in light of the author’s own theological/literary agenda.”
It is certain, then, that the author(s) of the Gospel of John changed the story in their hands. Most likely they did this with good intentions or to send a message. But at the end of the day, they changed the story.Is it not immoral for the author(s) of the Gospel of John to do such an act? Were the author(s) of the Gospel of John immoral? For whatever reason, they changed the information they had. What can you say in the context of ancient literary ethics?
The difficulty is that “immorality” is not an objective judgment. We don’t know what the author had in mind. Many people change stories because they think they are improving them, or correcting them, or stating them better; sometimes people knowinly alter a story knowing that they are changing it away from the “original.” But is that immoral? The problem is that in many contexts it is perfectly moral even to deceive a tell a lie. So the question is: what is morality and who decides?