(16 votes, average: 4.94 out of 5)
Loading...I have been arguing that the author of the Fourth Gospel and the author of the book of Revelation could not have been the same person, and in looking back at my posts I realize that I have left out an important point, one of the strongest arguments that we are dealing with two different people. The theology of these two books is radically different on an issue that is completely central to both of them: their understanding of “eternal life.”
It is true that in some respects these two books have similar theological views. I have already mentioned, for example, that both see Christ as the “Word” of God (no other NT author expresses this view) and as the “Lamb” who was slain (again: these two books alone use that image). But both of them are very much interested in views of eschatology, and on these views they differ radically.
The term “eschatology” means the “understanding of the end times.” Just about everyone has a view about what happens at “the end.” Some think we die and that is the end of the story (that’s my personal view); others think we die and our souls go to heaven or to hell; others think that Jesus is returning very soon to bring in the millennium here on earth; others think that we are going to blast ourselves off the planet and into oblivion, sooner or later, depending on the outcome of November 8; etc..
Both the Gospel of John and the Apocalypse of John are very much focused on questions of eschatology. But they differ significantly in…
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, you better join. THE END IS NEARER THAN YOU THINK!!!
DR Ehrman:
YOUR COMMENT:
As time went on, “the end” that was expected right away – by Jesus himself – never came. And so, to account for the non-appearance of the end, Christian story-tellers changed Jesus’ teachings, so he no longer preached the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God.
MY COMMENT:
The view that Jesus Himself taught that the end would happen in his own generation was believed by Christians who were deceived by relying on historically unreliable sources written by “christian story tellers” who themselves were not ‘eyewitnesses’ and depended on variable and contradictory documents; (i.e. Mark, Luke, Matthew, Revelation etc.)
“The gospel of “John” which we have, may have been compiled and written in the late first century, but the narratives used by the author of John had already been written by the ‘eyewitness himself, (i.e. ‘the disciple whom Jesus Loved.)
I don’t know the exact date this disciple whom Jesus loved wrote his account, but it’s obvious that he had to be alive to have written it, and that means, that the teachings in “John” were circulating immediately after the resurrection of Christ from the dead.
“John” doesn’t report that Jesus predicted that he would return in his own generation, because Jesus never taught that he was returning in his own generation… False teachers and prophets began spreading these rumors and writing them in the name of the apostles, to contradict and discredit the teachings of Christ and deliberately deceive the people.
From the beginning there were false prophets and teachers claiming Jesus said things He didn’t say, just as there are many today who do the same…
I doubt that Jesus ever taught that he was “returning.” That is among the innumerable distortions of Jesus ‘s teaching.
I believe the modern evangelical church reconciles Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13 Book of John by claiming that Jesus is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and the end of the Jewish religious system, this is also how they interpret Revelation. In the book of John a believer immediately Enters into the kingdom of God and then goes to be with Jesus at death for eternal life. A believer never exits the kingdom and is always with Jesus forever from the time of initially believing.
And in this way the books of John , revelation and the synoptic Gospel’s are all in complete agreement relative to end times.
Only the older dispensational teaching churches believe that revelation is about a future great tribulation. In a preterits view the great tribulation ready occurred and we have no need to worry about it.
Dr. E does this make any sense?
Yes, I think a lot of Christians do reconcile these books in these ways. In my view it’s a stretch!
Well, I wouldn’t say all modern evangelical churches hold this view; probably less than half. There is certainly more of an interpretive move in this direction among the more progressively minded churches these days though. The preterist view makes much more sense to me than the dispensational one. Dispensationalism is actually a relatively recent view within the church that has created a lot of problems.
Are we for certain dealing with different authors, or with an author who has changed his mind?
Sure it’s possible. But given the massive difference in writing style, it really does look like a different author.
Wow! I did not realize that the Gospel According to John tones down the apocalyptic message. It’s nice to still be learning stuff from this blog at my age.
Put me in “the blast ourselves off the planet” category. There have been several periods of extinction on earth and, at some point, the human species will find some way to do itself in.
Dr. Ehrman, Plato talks about the soul being punished or rewarded after death (cf. Phaedo) in a way that is also spatial rather than temporal. Is it possible that when the Gospel of John was written, the Greek philosophical ideas of the afterlife had already started to unravel some Jewish Christians’ notion of a temporal eschatology, and so the community that composed and copied John had already established a set of beliefs that was not totally Jewish and not totally Greek, but was already some admixture of both (cf. Philo)?
Yup, it’s possible. Other platonists had similar views, and John does appear to buy into some platonic ideas (the dualism, e.g.)
Any evidence that the author of John (or later books) were influenced by Paul?
Mark appears to have been; John and Paul have some similarities, but probably not enough to think one influenced the other.
Re: Jesus as a failed apocalyptic prophet.
Don’t many Christians believe that the death and resurrection of Christ is the fulfillment of that prophecy? You know the rationale: a new (spiritual) world order is ushered in by the resurrection. Jesus’ resurrection produces an infinite amount of grace and salvation for believers, etc. What do you think?
My sense is that this idea emerged when the literal end never appeared.
What do you say of the “already but no yet” tension in the NT eschatology?
It is clearly there, absolutely, in lots of authors!
Bart, I am not one to criticize scholars, but I feel like you over simplified the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation. You know as well as I do that trained theologians completely disagree on eschatological views all over the Bible! When you say “He is referring to possibilities in the present, not the future.” I don’t see how you don’t see that he is possibly talking about BOTH.. “I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, (eternal life sounds very future) and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die” (eternal life sounds very present)(11:25–26).. I’m a Christian and I enjoy reading your blogs but when it comes to theological cluster issues, like eschatology in Revelation and John, it seems like you simplify it too much and it de-legitimizes your opinion on that topic to me. Thank you for continuing to put out material on a variety of topics though..
Yes, it’s a little hard to summarize two books of the New Testament adequately in 1000 words!! But my sense is that John thinks that a believer already has begun to enjoy eternal life int he present, to be continued after death in heaven; for Paul and the Synoptics the eternal existence kicks in at the end of this age, later.
John Chapter 6:54 has me puzzled. It reads: “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.” When is the “last day” he refers to here? In Jesus’ time or whenever the last day of doom will be? If way in the future, what happens to people who die before this last day comes?
He means at the resurrection at the end of time, whenever that will be.
Is there a sense in which both of these views could intersect? I always got the sense that Paul thought it was a bit of both, but he perhaps place more emphasis in the writings we have on the more ‘future’ aspect. If one is interpreting these two points through a preteristic lens, the end of the age spoken of here was around AD 70, in which case both could make sense. Particularly if one views Revelation as not really a prediction of the distant future, but more as a symbolised present (or soon to be) situation at the time it was written. I don’t think much of Revelation can be or was meant to be taken literally.
Maybe both texts were written by the same person, just that earlier in life the author of the gospel of John was a more positive and idealistic person, whereby later in life by the time of writing Revelations he had become more cranky and disillusioned. That would explain why, as you wrote:
“both see Christ as the ‘Word’ of God (no other NT author expresses this view) and as the ‘Lamb’ who was slain (again: these two books alone use that image).”
Or maybe the author of Revelations had read the gospel of John and simply liked and adopted the ideas of Christ as the “Word” and the “Lamb,” like the way Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark.
Yup, possible. I’m more inclined to think he was someone living in the same community.
I wanted to share how modern Christian churches handle The inconsistency between end Time teaching in revelation and John.(we never discuss meaningful issues)
I am a long time member of a mega church. Our “kingdom now” theology targets millennial’s who are college educated.
If Pressed, The pastor would say that Revelation and John were written by the same apostle before ad 70 (John).
There is no need to study revelation as our pastor believes it is symbolic description
Of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
The book of John tells us that as believers and followers of Jesus we are in the Kingdom of God now. We never speak of end times as all we need to know is that our sins are forgiven and we are going to have eternal life in heaven because we believe in Jesus.
Church also has great socially events, comfortable seating, entertainment ,coffee and donuts. Great place to network and find new friends.
I come to Dr E to learn how the Bible into existence not my church.
One reason why most churches don’t really discuss meaningful, interesting issues with what the Bible says is because if they did a lot of church goers would no longer be Christians. I am an agnostic who agrees with Albert Camus’ view that life is absurd, but does not agree with him that you have to act in a absurd way. Why make this life more absurd and meaningless. Ultimately, the fact that we struggle and live our lives with some dignity and compassion in itself has some meaning.
Yes, that sounds about right in my experience of the more progressive churches, but not in most of the more tradtional evangelical churches. Preterism is still a relative minority view in mainstream evangelicalism.
I’m not sure if I’m understanding the eschatology of the author of gJohn correctly. Do you mean that, according to gJohn, people who believe in Christ go to heaven when they die? The author of this gospel must have known that people die sooner or later, so I’m not sure what he meant by saying, “Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die.” Is it a figurative speech that those “will never die”? Does he mean that people will eventually die but live forever in the world above—heaven?
Yes, they have already started having eternal life, and when they die, they ascend to the heavenly realm for eternity.
Dear Bart,
You write: “Thus, in this Gospel Jesus’ proclamation is no longer an apocalyptic appeal to repent in the face of a coming judgment; it is an appeal to believe in the one sent from heaven so as to have eternal life in the here and now.”
You emphasize “here and now” or “in the present” several times.
To the people back then, or to Christians of the Gospel of John school/sect today, is this “here and now” like “union with the ultimate/absolute”, or ” union with the eternal now/present”, or “heaven on earth, now, in one’s heart” (or however they might characterize that experience)?
And following from that, whatever comes after death, if that is a concern at all, is not relevant or important since what matters is is now?
I think different people had different views in the time of the NT, and it’s very hard indeed to know precisely what they were thinking. Some appear to have thought that they already were experiencing the full benefits of salvation in the present, and that this would continue after their death as they ascended to the heavenly realm. It’s a bit hard to figure, since obviously they still got the flu and experienced hardship. But some people are sanguine!
Thanks! tracy
Great. Intriguing/Provocative..Enlightening.
Dr. Ehrman:
The reason later Gospel authors have toned down or eliminated Jesus’ apocalyptic message (somewhat in Luke; much more so in John; in the later Gospel of Thomas Jesus preaches directly *against* an apocalyptic view!)
Steefen:
Then, your book Jesus Apocalyptic Prophet does not have John as part of its foundation because the substance of the title, apocalyptic prophet, is not as supportive of that title?
Mark 100% supportive
Matthew 100% supportive
Luke 60% supportive
John 25% supportive
Thomas 0% supportive as you say above
Would you change the percentages?
I don’t think John is that supportive of apocalyptic teachings: there’s really just the one passage in ch. 5
Sounds to me like the two authors were living in different communities.
The evolution of the Kingdom of God from Jesus’ central message of an imminent physical kingdom on Earth to something not imminent and (in the view of some Christians) not a physical kingdom is, to me, one of the most fascinating developments of early Christianity.
Hey Bart! The blog is still going strong I see. Don’t give up because we are not! Things are going not so good in life.. But seems as if this blog makes me better! Thank you for dedicating your time it seems everyday! Your hard work it is not going unnoticed and unappreciated.Thank you very Much!
Bart, what do you believe the book of revelation is trying to communicate in regards to time and place its referring to? I have heard you talk about it relating to what was happening in the first century? Iv also heard 666 refers to the roman emperor Nero?
Yes, I think the author thought these things were to happen “soon” (from his perspective)
There is a lot to read in this post–I will return to it. One striking thing about the early writings, is that the word we translate as resurrection – originally meant “being born again in the spirit (and the light).” Like JBaptist would have been “resurrecting” people into the light by showering them with water, cleansing them of the dark side of their lives. They still do this in the Manachean (sp?) areas of the Near East where the Baptist is recognized as a savior, and devine, not only a saint, and sins are forgiven in his name. When they rise up out of the water, they have been resurrected into the light. There is also the other term “raised up” — in Jesus’ case after 3 days of being dead or assumed dead, which commonly in daily life meant “raised up” from a sick bed on the 3rd day. Gk: Anastasis, yes? rising again, ana p, stasis, stand, to rise “resurrection.” Such as common: “To rise up from a seat.” Meant “rise up to life” in some context. Get with the program. (Then rise to judgment for Gentiles and others later.) Anistemi – figuratively a moral recovery. Return to life, from exile, released from the darkness, or return from away from home. Blessed and Holy are they – Rev 20:6. In Phillipians we have “glorius body” mentioned 3:21. The really old word is Anastatoo – to turn something upside down, to sit down, not up, to turn a chair over, turn a table over, to unsettle, such as destroy a temple, then build it up – rebuild it over – put bottom to top, top to bottom. Or even to build something up at the expense of something or someone. To dislocate, confuse, confound. Anastatos – revolution. Anastatoo was not a secular word, but spreading religious confusion or even error (Galatians 5:12.) – but sometimes I think it was used to mean just leveling a table, like someone said “clear the table” faire le table rase? Descartes? maybe. Yeshua loved parables and sayings, twisting things to clarity.k
I when I was new to the Bible I always supposed the Gospel of John and Revelation were written by the same person. So I was puzzled to see that both books cite Zachariah 12:10 (“they will look on the one they have pierced”) but use them in very differet ways. In John 19:37, this verse is cited as a prophecy that was fulfilled when the soliders pierced the side of Jesus. But in Revelation 1:7, it is cited in conjunction with Daniel 7:13 as a prophecy that will be fulfilled when Jesus is revealed at his second coming. This makes perfect sense if there are two authors who had two different interpretations of the verse in Zechariah.
The other major difference between the gospel of john and revelations is that revelations depicts jesus as a human. What I mean is that although 99% of the “jesus is god” proof texts came from the gospel of john, several “jesus was a mere man” proof texts come from revelations (jesus receiving a revelation, jesus talking about the temple of his god etc).
Isn’t it true some have this view of the Bible other people than myself…? The Bible is full of these examples and maybe more things in the Bible are meant as types or ante-types (the book of Revelation is full of examples of this comparitive analogy language) and maybe some people are using the wrong interpretation of these scriptures and wrongly interpreting them as literal and that can lead to false doctrines or wrong views or misconceptions about “the end of the world.” Maybe more people should use the type-antetype approach for the systematic interpretation of the book of Revelation, Jesus parables and other certain scriptures in the Bible .
The first part of the Bible is replete with persons, places, and events which serve to prefigure things that would become realities in later times. These are typically known as biblical “ante-types”.
Were the Christians taken into Babylonian captivity like the Israelites were? Is there a parallel that most people don’t perceive?
One was a physical captivity to the Babylonian Empire, a fleshly captivity, the Christian captivity was a spiritual captivity to Babylon’s doctrines and other teachings.
Most people don’t look at it or perceive it this way.
But evidence proves that many mainstream Church teachings are so strikingly similar to Babylonian doctrines and customs it’s difficult to argue that they are not one and the same that mainstream Church teachings and dogmas did not originate from Babylon and other pagan worship.
Similar doctrines, similar holidays, the Roman Emperor Constantine’s influence on church teachings and doctrines. There is too much historical evidence that supports the claims I am saying….
Should one look at the Book of Revelation as a book that contains about some 50 Bible parallels to other Bible books or other Bible scriptures. Most people don’t study it with this in mind.
Is this the correct way to study Revelation and other Bible books that use symbolic or metaphorical language?
Yes, to study the imagery of Revelation, it helps very much to know his intertextual references, especially to the book of Daniel. That is the standard way of studying him among scholars. If you’d like a classic study of the book, see Adela Yarbro Collins, Crisis and Catharsis.
Jesus’ return is imminent. His return occurs every time someone dies. We are all under judgement without His salvation. Heaven and hell are at stake. It was urgent that everyone repent. It has always been important. John and Jesus shook them up, a revival of sorts. That is what was meant as they preaching repentance. It is time, now, to turn to God. no one knows when his soul will be required
His arrival on earth initiated the first advent which ushered in the New Covenant. A day is as a thousand years… It’s been a flash of time since He was last here in person. His kingdom was ushered in 2,000 years ago with Him as the head of the Church. All the commandments are fulfilled in Him. The Holy Spirit represents Him now here on earth, fully God, and He reigns in our hearts.
John the Baptist got it and he announced his role. He was one crying in the wilderness warning everyone about the importance of Him all set to appear. “I baptize you with water for repentance, but after me will come One more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.””His winnowing fork is in His hand.” John had no reason to present an apocalyptic preacher when after all, he was that man. Jesus was on His way and He would cleanse His followers and separate Real Disciples from all the rest.
Dr Ehrman –
Couple of questions:
1. I’ve read that the underlying gibberish Greek in Revelation has a certain Semitic-language character to it, suggestive of the author being an Aramaic (or related language) speaker, while the Greek in the Gospel of John is solid (not literary quality) Koine.
Question: On this one factor alone (putting aside the mountain of other evidence that cuts definitively against the traditional authorial ascription of John son of Zebedee), would this one dimension of the nature of the underlying Greek make it incrementally more likely that the author of Revelation is relatively more likely to be a rural Galilean than the gospel author is? Again, relative probability along that one single dimension of the quality/character of the Koine in each of these two Johannine works.
2. Question: Given his conservative leanings in faith, what was Dr. Metzger’s view of the traditional authorship ascription of the Johannine works in the NT?
Perhaps it’s in his (and your) classic Text of the New Testament, but I’m still simultaneously plowing my way through Corinthian Body, Hezser’s literacy study, and Forgery and Counterforgery (loving it) so I just haven’t gotten to Text of NT yet…
Thanks a ton!
1. Yes, it would be more likely that he was raised in Palestine. But still not likely he was from a remote rural area, since folk there didn’t get educations. So maybe one of the major cities?
2. He though they were all authentic. It’s not a topic dealt with in Text of the NT (which is about the scribes and the manuscript tradition of the NT, not about authorship)
Thank you very much
Dr. Ehrman,
What do you say to those who argue that Jesus predicted that the destruction of Jerusalem would take place within their generation, but that Jesus made a distinction between the destruction of Jerusalem and the return of the Son of Man?
For example, someone recently argued that in Mt. 24; two questions are asked: When is the destruction of Jerusalem and when is the Son of Man coming? And Jesus answers them differently. And, in Mark, he places “all these things” to refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, but the return of the Son of Man as “not knowing the day and hour.”
Destruction of Jerusalem = within their generation. (multiple “days”)
End Time = Nobody knows the day and hour (one day)
What would your response be to this “separatist” argumentation?
I think it’s a convenient argument to make — but not supported by the text. When Jesus refers to “all these things” in 24:34 he is surely referring to “all the things” that he has been discussing. That includes not just the coming war but the cosmos falling apart and the Son of Man arriving (see vv. 4-31)!