Loading...I have devoted two posts to major features of the Gospel of John, one that lays out its major themes and emphases, the other that deals with who wrote it, when, and why.
Now I can provide some suggestions for further reading, important works written by scholars for non-scholars. The list is annotated to give you a sense of what each book is about and so help you decide which, if any, might be worth your while.
I have divided the list into three sections:
- Books that provide important discussion of John in general or with respect to a particularly key topic
- Commentaries that give lengthy introductions to all matters of importance about the Gospel and then go passage by passage to provide more detailed interpretation, where you can dig more deeply into what does a particular word actually means; that the real point of a passage is; how the passage relates to what John says elsewhere or to other parts of the New Testament; where you can we find similar ideas expressed in other writings in the Greek and Roman worlds, whether pagan or Jewish; and so on.
- Online resources. These are always tricky: whenever you turn to other materials online, caveat emptor. And since online there is no emptoring (all free!) you need to caveat (beware!) with particular diligence.
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
There is also a strong Eucharistic theme in John. Many take it as a theological exposition of the Christian sacrament.
I am curious about the Siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE influencing the Gospels, or in this case, the Gospel of John.
For instance, did the Siege of Jerusalem influence any of the claims of the divinity of Christ? Maybe after a tragic event the writers tried to make sense of it all.
Was someone like John (or whoever the author was) who wrote his gospel in, let’s say, 100 CE compelled to write John 1:1 in order to fully separate Christianity from Judaism and give Christ full legitimacy as the Messiah.
Another instance could be adding Matthew 24 to legitimize Jesus’ prediction.
Basically, how did the Siege of Jerusalem affect the writing of the Gospels?
It’s hard to tell if it influenced the Gospel writers. One view is that Xns thought that it was the beginning of the end, and when the end never did come, they wrote the Gospels knowing that the world would be around for a while and they needed to get the gospel message out there more broadly. Or they wanted Jesus to be shown as knowing it would happen. Or that they wanted to explain why God had made it happen in response to the JEwish rejection of jesus. Lots of ideas out there, none of them easy to demonstrate.
Dr. Ehrman,
When conversing with Christians and I’m trying to get a sense of what their faith entails (their Christology, how one achieves “salvation,” etc.), John 3:16 is an easy reference point for most. I sometimes use the Nicaean Creed but most Protestant Southerners I encounter (I lived in North Carolina for many years and now live in South Carolina) do not accept this.
While it may be seen as cliché, do you think it is an accurate summary of what would become the orthodox Christian faith?
The Nicene Creed? Yup. (Though the later orthodox perspectives, e.g., in Christology, could obvously not be incorporated into it).
In the book “The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings” it is noted that “some of the traditions of John’s Gospel may ultimately go back to the preaching of one of the original followers of Jesus”. Does this mean that these earliest traditions in John may have originated from an eye-witness and may therefore be historically more accurate where it differs from Mark?
No, not necessarily. It must means that some of John’s traditions may go back to what the first followers of Jesus were saying. In each case you still have to figure out if what htey were saying was historically right and whether htese traditions that “ultimately” started with these followers had been changed by the time they came into the hands of John. And in none of the cases is it a contest between Mark and John, since in virtually every case where they tell the same story, Mark appears to have has the older version of it.
Speaking of John, in Revelation 3:12 Jesus refers to his “new name.” Any ideas of what that means?
It appears to be referring to Isaiah 62:2, and I assume means that when Jesus becomes the actual ruler of earth he’ll have a correponsing title “King of All” “Sovereign of Earth” or some such thing, and that his people will be associated with that yet more exalted name.
Hey Bart, the helpful work of Fletcher-Louis who has written a magnificent 900+ pg monograph on the Christ Hymn (Phil 2:5-11) may be of help here.
One of his many interesting arguments was regarding the Kyrios Iesus Christos in v. 11. He suggested that this, among many other fascinating things, is the reveal of Jesus as being the pre-existent Christ in the one being of God from eternity. That this is about an epistemic reveal—not an ontological change of roles of divinity—could have an implication in how we understand Rev 3:12, since this “new name” may not be a sign of a change of Jesus adopting a new identity (like an apotheosis in imperial religion) but instead a *reveal* of who Jesus always was.
Not sure if you have engaged with Fletcher-Louis, but if not I cannot recommend this text enough.
One of the major problemsis how to deal with the verb “God has HIGHLY EXALTED him.” If he was already on the level of God, at one with him, I don’t think the verb makes any sense. Nor what follows, that at that point “God gave him the name that is above every name.” That surely means he didn’t have the name before, otherwise God would not have given it to him.
This is precisely what Fletcher-Louis works to show is not what meets the eye, but which is only understood fully when the Primary Narrative of the Incarnation in the first few verses is taken into account. The high exaltation is the reveal of the status he always had but humans (who were said to have found him a man earlier in the hymn) did not recognize when he was on earth. Again, this is a 900+ pg meticulous dealing with the Hymn so it’s hard to summarize any one part of his findings since they lead into one another.
The name above all names is precisely what it says in v. 11, Kyrios Iesus Christos, Kyrios=short form of Ywh; Iesus= the human identity of this person; Christos=the representative role of Jesus as Messiah and a honorific cult identification (partly following Novenson and Litwa). As he makes the case for further in the book, this is the Second Person (yes that language) in God.
In Revelation chapters 2 and 3 it doesn’t necessarily seem that these “churches” (the people) are to be “raptured” rather remain on earth though-out the ordeal. What say you?
Revelation doesn’t have an idea of a rapture. Everyone suffers through the cataclysmic events to come. (The idea of a rapture was not invented until the 1830s. I deal with this in my book Armaggedon.)
Agreed, when I use the popular term “rapture” I am referring to 1 Thes. 4:17 [ ἁρπάζω ] of which I don’t find this “rapture” event “idea” happening there either. Either people are spared (protected) of the wrath to come or they not (Revelation.) I have read your book Armageddon, but I am a bit confused now, as to what you are saying. Are you saying after “ Everyone suffers through the cataclysmic events to come” the End just never came. Or it is still future, still asking of your opinion.
I mean that in Revelation Jesus’ followers are not taken out of the world so as not to experience the horrors that hit the planet.
Thanks for the list! Thought on Bultmann’s commentary? How has it stood up over time?
It’s brilliant but dated in almost every way and so closely tied to his own theological interpretations of the NT that it is not used normally as a reference tool so much these days.
I have procured a 3rd edition copy of your textbook. I know the 8th edition is the most up to date. Is there anything about the third edition that is significantly outdated?
The co-author of my 8th edition, Hugo Mendez, would definitely say that my discussoion of the Synoptic Problem and of the Gospel of John are outdated. I, as the dinosaur in the field, would beg to differ. 🙂 For the kinds of things you seem interested in, though (judging from your comments), it would be fine. It did improve each time, I think ,but the basics are all there.