Loading...What is the Gospel of John all about, in a nutshell? It’s worth knowing: John continues to be one of the favorite books of the Bible and is the (only) source of many of the well-known sayings of Jesus:
- For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16)
- I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep (John 10:11)
- I am the Way the Truth and the Life: No one comes to the Father except through me (John 14:6)
It is also the Gospel that gives us some of the most memorable miracles of Jesus:
- Turning water into wine (ch. 2) (the favorite miracle of college students everywhere)
- Raising Lazarus from the dead (ch. 11)
Have you read John’s Gospel all the way through, or even studied it? If so, try to summarize it in one sentence of fifty words. If you don’t know the Gospel well (or at all): keep reading! In fact, keep reading regardless…
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!
Hey Bart, I have a question! Thanks in advance for answering it. First my thoughts on John as a layperson nonbeliever and experience with it. Feel free to skip to my question.
After listening to your other talks on the gospels even as a nonbeliever who grew up in a non christian household (I was raised in a strange cult, strange but harmless.) it’s fascinating how the american culture of christianity polluted even my first readings of the bible. I didn’t realize till you pointed out that Jesus does not claim to be god in matthew, mark and luke. I saw apocolyptic prophet rhetoric and given I had already assumed the bible MUST portray jesus as god, of course all that stuff is some esoteric bible speak for “Jesus is god”! I’m just too unschooled in the bible to get it! Now i read it and John seems to reflect the emerging theology of christianity, a product of it’s time and useful tool.
My question, again for my graphic novel script.
Is it fair to refer to John 7:53–8:11 as a forgery?
Is the consensus in scholarship that it was “never” part of the original gospel but added later by scribes?
I’d say no. The term “forgery” is a technical term to refer to a writing whose author claims to be someone (a famous person) knowing full well he is not. the passage is certainly not that. I think you’re asking if it is a “fabrication,” that is, a made up story. Yes, it is certainly that. There’s not any real debate: it was added by later scribes. That does not mean that someone simply lied about it though. Millions of stories are told about famous people (and about each of us) that did not actually happen, and often the stories just kind of appear as gossip/rumor.
Off topic question: Many Christians find theological continuity between the OT sacrificial system and Jesus’ death as permanent/final once-and-for-all atonement. If Jesus’ teachings didn’t emphasize atonement, and His death was not intended to make atonement, then please help me understand why God might have provided the sacrificial system.
Are you asking me why God really did it? I wouldn’t have any idea (since I don’t have any access to what God had in mind!). If you’re asking why there is a sacrificial system in the OT, I’d say that there are lots of ideas about many things in the Bible, not just one consistent idea about everything. Many parts of hte Bible emphasize the importance of repenting so God will forgive (that’s Jesus’ view and the view of much of the Psalms and prophets in the OT); other parts emphasize the need for atoning sacrifice instead (that’s Paul’s view, and the view of the Law in the OT). These are different views by different authors about how God deals with sin.
Thank you, Dr. Ehrman. Yes, the tension between atonement and forgiveness is something very new to me. Such a critical point. And you are the first person I’ve heard draw attention to the difference between the two especially as it relates to Christian doctrine(s). You’ve definitely given me something to think about.
Thanks.
I have always had a problem with identification of ‘logos’ or ‘word’ with Jesus/God as a ‘person’. I know that trinitarian belief claims this to be the identification of Jesus as God, but I don’t see it. To me, ‘logos’ is more akin to ‘intent’ or ‘plan’ or ‘order’ of God. In that view, ‘the Word/Logos became flesh and dwelt among us’ would not mean God became flesh (in the form of Jesus) but rather that the ‘plan’ or ‘intent’ of God became flesh. This would then separate Jesus and God, and more closely identify Jesus as a representation of the will of God, or maybe (as in Mark) selected to carry out the will of God. There are just so many places in the gospels where Jesus clearly says he is not the Father, that my view seems to eliminate the conflicts with the trinitarian position. Would you agree, or am I on the wrong track?
It depends which books you’re looking at. IN John Christ is the Logos who is an actual entity apart from God who is also a divine being through whom the universe came into being who then became a human (Jesus). The other Gospels don’t have that view. So if you’re just thinking about John, I’d say that he does seem to think of the Logos, before the incarnation, as a divine being of some kind that is both God and with God. The other Gospels, not at all.
Q: Has anyone attempted to try to claim “Q” as a source for ANYTHING in John’s gospel? I suppose the opposite statement: Has anyone tried to show that “Q” could NOT be a realistic source for any of John’s gospel, would be another way to look at it… I would probably try to tackle it from the latter perspective…
Your colleagues Mark Goodacre and Hugo Mendez both have books coming out this summer on John’s gospel. Based on your past practice I anticipate interviews to come.
How about the three of you sit down on somebody’s couch, turn on the video, and together have a nice, looong discussion (not a debate) about issues like authorship and dependency on the synoptics, etc.
As a non-specialist who is more interested in understanding the arguments than in having an ” opinion” I think it would be fantastic to hear you all hash out what the actual issues are.
That would be fun!
Since John is different from the Synoptic Gospels, was this to show the readers how early Christianity had evolved since the synoptics were written? Christianity continued to evolve after the first century (or so it seems) to eventually get to a place where it was dominate in the Roman Empire. Was John being included in the New Testament just part of the process to build the bridge (or links) to later Christianity?
It was mainly included becuase it was thought to have been a more spiritual undersanding of Christ written by one of his closest disciples. It certainly does have a different understanding than the other Gsopels.
The Gospel of John was written circa three decades after the Gospel of Mark (c. 65CE). Did John have access to the Synoptics? Most probably, yes. Are we really to believe that “John” had never heard the stories in Mark’s Gospel even if he didn’t have a written copy of it? I suggest the following using the principle of Occam’s Razor:
-Mark, a Pauline Christian, wrote a biography of an early first century messiah pretender named Jesus who had been crucified by the Romans; whom Paul believed to be the messiah. Mark invented most of his stories out of thin air, in particular, the Empty Tomb Story.
-Mark’s Gospel was the only Jesus Story in town for two decades. Then Matthew wrote his blockbuster, full of wild embellishments, to the Jesus Story. It was a best seller in the Christian community!
-Matthew’s Gospel triggered “Luke”: “I can do that, but even better!” I’ll rearrange Matthew’s fantastic embellishments and cut out the too fantastic (dead saints coming back to life due to an earthquake.)
-And a decade or so later, John upped the ante. He took the core story in the Synoptics and completely reinvented the central character, Jesus.
Mark’s gospel doesn’t begin with the baptism of John. It begins with its own prologue – “I will send my messenger ahead of you who will prepare your way”.
And John’s gospel ends with its central message “by believing you may have life in his name”. Which is the same message as Mark 13:13 “you will be hated by all because of my name but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.”
Dr Bart Ehrman, was the author of the Gospel of John trying to speak with authority? Or, trying to start say a new doctrine of Christianity or explanation of how to believe in Jesus since Christ had not returned in that first century? In other words, something to counter apocalyptic beliefs, to keep the faith going?
Thanks, RD
We don’t know what he was thinking when he wrote, but I would assume he wrote in part because he believed his account was correct and true in some sense – that is, authoritative. We can’t say whether he wanted to change the views of other accounts that were out there.
How much of John’s difference can be attributed to the influence of Greek thought or philosophy?
It’s debated, but I don’t think on the whole Greek philosohical thought is the major influence on his thinking..
Dr Ehrman, your second post on book of John answered my question on the why the author wrote the book of John. I tend to think that some of these early Christian people had some nefarious motives. However, now I think that many times if not most were not motivated by ill means, perhaps, they just didn’t know what to think. I’m still mystified why the authors didn’t sign their names to these gospels like Paul did.
Randolah
Biblical narratives never have authors names attached (OT or NT) interestingly enough. My hunch is that the NT authors were imitating the narratives of their Scripture (OT) because they saw Jesus as continuing the history of Israel recounted there.
Dr. Ehrman, Do Jesus’ prayers in John 17 seem post-resurrection? Specifically, vs 11-12: “I am no longer in the world … While I was with them …”
Yes, I definitely think so.
The strength of divinity proclamations in John must not have occurred in a vacuum, suggesting a political struggle of some kind. Can we know what, or who, the author was struggling against?
Non-Christian Jews certainly.
This is a great summary presenting the differences between John and Mark, Matthew, and Luke. I am especially appreciative for learning about John 20:30-31; “Now 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.” (NRSV). I have found the contrast between atonement and redemption interesting but now there is a third way to eternal life; i.e. believing. Dr. Bart: Is that a fair conclusion?
I’d say the third option John presents is believing a particular thing, namely that Jesus is the one sent from God to reveal the truth. In other Xn circles we get other ways, e.g., Gospel of Thomas: correctly interpreting Jesus’ secret sayings.
Hi Bart,
A question: In the 27 books of the NT, Which book most explicitly portrays Jesus as being totally submissive to God?
I am assuming the answer is the Gospel of John, but please do correct me if I am wrong.
If the answer is John, then the second question: which is the second most book in the 27 that explicitly portrays Jesus as being totally submissive to God?
I am assuming here that this question is going to be difficult, but regardless of this book, the gap between it and John is going to be very large.
If this is the case, then saying that John portrayed Jesus as divine is only a partial analysis. Scholars must also clearly acknowledge that John portrayed Jesus as being totally submissive to God. These two factors should both be included in the equations and should both be analyzed together.
I’m not sure how we would decide this. Do you mean which books most often state explicitly Jesus’ submission or which ones are most emphatic? Not the same. 1 Corinthians 15 is emphatic. All the Gospels indicate that Jesus is submissive to God. And Hebrews. Etc.
Do you think that Mark (for example) or 1 Corinthians have similar submissive verses as the following:
#John 5.30: By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment. is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.
#John 7.16: Jesus answered, My teaching is not my own. It comes from the one who sent me.
#John 8.54: Jesus answered, If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.
#John 12.49: For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken.
#John 14.28: You heard me say, I am going away and I am coming back to you. If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
# Etc.
The above are very explicit submissive verses in John, and I am asking if there is any book among the 27 of the NT that has more verses the are more explicit in portraying Jesus as being submissive to God?
1 Corinthians 15:27-28 is pretty explicit, but in a different way given the topic being discussed.
So, you presented one sentence (“the Son himself will also be subjected to him”) that even doesn’t match John 5:30. And John has many other sentences.
So, we return to the main argument: John is the most book in the NT that explicitly portrays Jesus as being submissive to God, and the NT Scholars shouldn’t ignore this fact, and they need to include it in the analysis.
Now … The submissive verses in John don’t seem to fit properly with the divine verses, and I have discussed here (in your posts dated May 8, 2024 & August 21, 2024) about the possibility that John 1:1-34 was inserted later into the original Document, and I have now more data to discuss.
However, I am not discussing if John 1:1-34 was inserted after the circulation of the Gospel. This is not my point. My point is that the Author of John 5:30 is not the same as the Author of John 1:1, regardless if this happened before the circulation of the Gospel or after.
The argument here is that the general themes and stories of Jesus in John don’t portray Jesus as divine, but some verses there do that.
——>
——>
So, the proposition here: There was a document for this Gospel, then the divine verses were added to it later, and this happened most probably before the mass circulation of this Gospel.
Now … I found two posts for you (Ref-1 & Ref-2) saying something that is not very far from this, but I need first to give credit to Robert: in one of his posts in the forum here (Ref-R), he discussed the Gospel of John and highlighted some references of your posts in the blog, and following the thread of them I found these two references.
In Ref-1 you presented an analogy of few fabrics that were stitched together, and you regarded the Gospel of John to be the same: few sources that were joint together. In Ref-2, you discussed the Prologue (John 1:18) and you clarified that it might be a later edition and you clearly said that “whether the same author was responsible for all the editions is a matter of dispute”.
This isn’t very far from the presented proposition … is it!
Ref-R (March 7, 2021): https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-new-testament-gospels/johns-familiarity-with-the-synoptic-gospels/
Ref-1 (March 31, 2020): https://ehrmanblog.org/the-most-intriguing-evidence-that-john-used-sources/
Ref-2 (February 22, 2013): https://ehrmanblog.org/the-christ-poem-in-john-for-members/
I have read that a Gnostic named Cerinthus was somehow connected to the gospel of John. Irenaeus wrote that the gospel was written by John in order to correct Cerinthus’ heresy. However, another church father Epiphanius wrote of people (called the “Alogi”) who rejected the gospel of John (and the “logos” doctrine) because they thought it had been written by Cerinthus. Randel Helms in his book suggests that an early version of the gospel may have had a more Gnostic flavor, but that revisions were made to have it more conform to a more “orthodox” Christian view.
The Gnostics certainly made use of the John gospel; they shared concepts with it like logos, light of the world, spirit of truth, etc. John arguably portrays the most lofty Jesus of all. Perhaps the proto-orthodox thought they had to keep a version of the gospel, otherwise they would be abandoning this most lofty Jesus to their Gnostic enemies. What do you think of that, Bart?
I think John was popular among proto-orthodox at the same time it was popular among the Gnostics, not just afterward. Elaine Pagels has a book on the Gnostic use of John, btw.
BDEhrman wrote: ” Elaine Pagels has a book on the Gnostic use of John, btw.”
Many years ago I read a book by Pagels on the Nag Hammadi texts in which she said the words “Holy Spirit” were originally feminine in Koine Greek (and in Coptic?), and the Gnostics believed there was a Father, a Mother Spirit, and a Child. Later, when the NT was translated into Latin, Spirit became masculine.
Is this correct? And did the early Christians believe the Spirit was feminine? If so, that would seem to explain a great deal.
The word for “spirit” in Greek (PNEUMA) is neuter, not feminine.
Paul and the author of John appear to stress faith/belief alone for salvation rather than works, e.g., Romans 10 and John 3. Did this idea originate with Paul or did it develop earlier in Christianity? Could the author of John have been influenced by the writings of Paul?
I think belief in Jesus’ death and resurrection was around before Paul – it’s probalby why he was persecuting the Xns. Some scholars ahve thought John is dependent on Paul, but his views on just about everything — including belief and the nature of Christ — that it seems unlikely to me.
I am not sure what you mean when you say:
“Jesus does not deliver the same teachings in John as in the other Gospels … he does not deliver astounding one-line statements“
It seems to me that Jesus has plenty of astounding one-line statements in John. For example: “This is indeed the will of my Father, that all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day.”
But I’m guessing that you have something specific in mind? Is there a particular type of one-line statement found in the Synoptics but not in John?
Yes, there are a lot of one-sentence statements in John, but they almost always funciton as part of very lengthy discourses, tied into them thematically and in terms of vocabulary, rather than really punchy sayings that end a passage. I dn’t think these in John pack the punch of “Sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath, therefore the son of man is Lord of the Sabbath” or “You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill cannot be hid” or “Judge not that you not be judged” or … Or read the Sermon on the Mount on one hand and then, say, John 14 on the other.
Is it fair to claim John portrays *all* Jews negatively?
John makes positive comments about Jews who believed in Jesus (John 8:31-32, 12:11).
He depicts some Jews harshly, but in the context of specific conflicts between Jesus/Jewish leaders(e.g.,Jews who call Jesus demon-possessed: 8:52).
It’s essential to consider the regional distinctions made within the Gospels(e.g.,Judeans and Galileans). The term “Ioudaioi” can be translated “Jews” or “Judeans,” leaving ambiguity about whether criticisms are directed towards all Jews or those from Judea. Given the accounts of Jesus’ clashes with religious leaders and that Jerusalem/Judea was the hub of Second Temple Judaism, it’s plausible that John’s negative comments were targeted specifically at Judean religious leaders rather than all Jews.
The Gospels affectionately call Jews “Children of Abraham” (Luke 19:9, Matthew 3:9, John 8:33, 39), and never criticize all “Children of Abraham” collectively. John 8:39, Jesus challenges his listeners’ claim to be children of Abraham, not because of their Jewish heritage/religion, but because their actions contradict the values of Abraham. They’re seeking to kill Jesus, which is at odds with the principles of their faith. Jesus’ criticism is aimed at their failure to live up to their religious ideals, rather than their ethnicity/religious identity itself.
I said I like the Gospel of Luke the best, but I had a rough time going through all those blogs.
Maybe because this is the 1st one on “John” but as I began reading the letters, I felt a weight lifted off my brain [In the past we would call that the Holy Spirit (which I never had experienced like that)]
I read 30 years ago, homeless folks, enjoyed the Gospel of John & could relate