Loading...So far in this going-to-be-substantial thread on the Johannine Writings (Gospel of John;1, 2, and 3 John) I have shown how John is very different from the other Gospels in numerous ways, argued that it’s account is not based on those of the others three (whether or not the author knew of their existence), yet maintained that he must have had other sources at his disposal that provided him with his stories. Before detailing what scholars have said about these other sources I need to give the argument that seems most convincing that his account is indeed based on earlier written accounts that he has taken over. It also happens to be the argument that is most intriguing, at least for my money.
The other two argument I gave may not seem in isolation to be convincing. This one is meant to be. There are inconsistencies in John’s narrative that are easiest to be explain if he is compiling various sources together; these sources didn’t all say the same thing or have the same view; and when they were combined, the combination created some internal inconsistencies.
It’s possible to explain these in other ways, if you work hard enough at it; but I’m going to argue that the they make the most sense if the author has spliced other sources together. The idea is kind of like this: if I were to sew two pieces of cloth together, well, it wouldn’t go well because my skills in sewing are about as good as my skills in three-dimensional math. You would *see* that two pieces have been stitched together, both because my stitching isn’t good (that might be the first sign) and because when you look closely you can see it’s not all the same piece of cloth.
So too with some literary texts. You can see the seams and that makes you notice the different pieces that have been put together. That’s how it is with John. I should stress, again, that this is not just some crazy idea that a liberal biblical scholar who teaches at UNC Chapel Hill came up with. This is fairly standard fare among biblical scholars — the arguments have been around for a very long time. I just happen to buy them. And if you want to buy them at well, the best news is that they won’t cost you a dime.
Here is how I put the matter in my Introduction to the New Testament. After using my sewing skills as an example, I say this:
***********************************************************
I do not mean to say that the Fourth Evangelist was a sloppy (literary) seamster. But he did leave a few traces of his work, traces that become evident as you study his final product with care. The following are several illustrations. (I am giving these in very brief form: most of them would require a bit of unpacking — but they are enough at least to give you the idea)
If you want to see what I have in mind, keep reading! Do do that you will need to be a blog member. It’s easy to join, and the small fee lines no one’s pockets: it goes straight to charities dealing with those in need. So why not jump on the band wagon?
You mentioned modern translations that “mistranslate” to remove an apparent inconsistency. Personally I have found a number of examples of this in the NIV, both OT and NT (which is why I now use the NASB). I assume you rub elbows with people who work on such translations. Do you think this is a deliberate attempt to cover up an inconsistency, or rather that their doctrinal or theological views cause them to filter out the straightforward translation and bend it to fit their preconception? In other words, more subconscious than conscious changing of the text?
I’d say more subconscious, or rather, their honest attempt to say what the text *really* means so as not to mislead someone (I guess that makes it conscious, but it’s almost certainly not a conscious desire to deceive)
Gee, when you point out these seams, they seem (no pun intended) so obvious. I would expect some of the sharp-eyed theologians in the 2nd-5th centuries to have pointed these out and to have come to the same conclusion that you advocate. Is that the odor of a pious coverup that I detect?
Nope — they read it like sharp-eyed people do today, not noticing the problems unless someone points them out.
Regarding the plot hole that they then went into he land of Judea (John 3:22), I just checked Strong’s Concordance #1093, gē (hence the Greek mythical figure Gaia, and also our word Pangaea), and everywhere else in the New Testament, it is translated as “earth” or “land” — never countryside!
I’ve seen “gē” as “landscape” when Socrates mentions “a beautiful landscape” in the Synposium, and Revelation does mention the “beasts of the earth” which I guess could be “beasts of the countryside” but that’s a lot of work to cover up what is more simply explained as a discrepancy left over from weaving sources!
In John 20 16-18, Jesus tells Mary to go back and inform his disciples that he is going back to the Father as if he wasn’t going to appear to them himself and then in verse 19 he appears to them anyway, would this be an example of different sources being stitched together?
As I read these interesting posts of the fourth Gospel, I kept reminiscing of all the people in my past who tried to convince me that the Bible is the inerrant and infallible word of God. It begs the question, are they blind ? Maybe shifting to living a Christ like example would be more accepted/plausible than telling people the Bible has no mistakes. In a sense it weakens the Bible and God of his perfect wisdom. Excellent !
Question, is it true that the apocalypse of peter almost made it into the NT canon but didn’t make the cut? If so, why is that? And why is it that the apocalypse of John made it in just barely?
Btw, enjoyed your post! Look forward to your next one about John’s sources!
Yes, it’s true. It is the subject of the chapter I am now writing for my scholarly monograph on Tours of the AFterlife. So I’ll hold off explaining it here. The Apocalypse of John was not thought by many people to have been written by an apostle, but by some other John, and its apocalyptic views were seen to be a bit … excessive. Once they were convinced Jesus’ own disciple wrote it, it made it in.
Prof Ehrman,
On point ‘a’, my view is that it plays out ok if we view the signs relative to the respective locations they are mentioned. The first miracle is performed in Cana, Galilee, then he goes into Jerusalem – Judea where according to John 2:23 people come to believe because he performs other signs. However, John 4:54 ( This was the second sign Jesus performed after coming from Judea to Galilee) reflects the second sign ‘oblivious’ of that which took place in Judea. It situates the second sign relative to Galilee and not Jerusalem. In that sense, I believe a second sign in Galilee will be in order.
Your thought please.
I don’t read it that way. I should think that if he wanted to say that he would have said, Now this was the second sign he did in Galilee. Instead, as I read the Greek, it says soemthing more like this is “the second sign he did; he did it after coming to Galilee”
As reflected in the story of the Samaritan and woman and how eventually many more Samaritans come to believe. My question is: Historically, did some Samaritan Jews come to accept Jesus in the 1st Century as portrayed by John. Do they have a Samaritan movement that accepts the Messiahship of Jesus?
Secondly, please do we have any of the disciples of Jesus attested in any other ancient document outside Christians sources?
1. That’s usually thought to be what lies behind the passage, that it is accounting for Samarians coming to believe. There are Samarian conversions also in the book of Acts. 2. Nope. But there’s no attestation of 99.99% of the population at the time generally, so one wouldn’t expect any. (THe one exception: Josephus does mention James, the brother of Jesus; he was not, of course, one of the disciples)
Prof Ehrman,
Why would Jesus drive out the sellers and money exchangers in the Temple court. Was this a forbidden practice in the Jewish faith. How else were they going to achieve what was spelt out in Deut 14:25-26 (then exchange your tithe for silver, and take the silver with you and go to the place the Lord your God will choose. 26 Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the Lord your God and rejoice) or their sin was to have taken the space reserved for the Gentiles in offering their prayers (Temple Court)?
Ah, very long story. In the Gospels he does it because he thinks people have turned the worship of God into a money-making enterprise.
Why do you think John has Jesus disrupt the temple at the beginning of his ministry as opposed to near the end of his ministry in Mark?
I think it’s to set teh stage in John for Jesus long-standing controversy with Jews over the correct understanding of what it means to worship God properly: so it happens at the outset.
The splicing together of two different accounts gives this ancient document a modern feel to it. I guess we’ve all done that at one time or another to save ourselves some tedious paraphrasing. Plus ca change ….
Due to the length of the material you have addressed there are a multitude of issues to contend with here. Please bear with me:
1) The Muratorian Fragment attests to the fact that the construction technique of Gospel 4 was well understood so your key point is unchallenged there, nor is it something new therefore.
2) You omitted the seam, John 2:13-22, which interrupts the seam of days,1:29- 2:13, noting that v.13 is dualistic. Gospel 4 uses this technique of mergence in crafty ways, looking at the best known example, 3:13-15.
3) To explain 2:13, this seam is the only place in the authentic original form/draft of John where the chronology moves to contrast the end with the beginning, otherwise John is completely sequential and gives us our only calendar of his ministry. In fact there is a chiastic structure formed from 2:1-22 which manifests itself under scrutiny, although I am not the first to notice this much. The cleansing appears chronologically in the Synoptics. Anyone having heard the Synoptics mid-1st Century would have been aware of the incident, and of where it fitted in proximity to the Passion.
4) In c. you write: “How could he go to the other side of the Sea…..? In fact, he is nowhere near the Sea of Galilee — he is in Jerusalem of Judea.”
No, he is supposed to be in Jerusalem if it is Pesach (6:4). Hence the seam is in fact the insertion of 6:4. This verse has been examined more intensely in 2019 by N. Gordon et al, and one of the associates is doing further study regarding the textual history therein. The conclusion is that this verse is a forgery, to cut a long story short.
5) John 6:4 blatantly contradicts Luke’s reference to the Acceptable Year to יהוה (Luke 4:17-21), where Yeshua violates the Pharisaic three verse halakah. The 2019 study indicates that all early patristic references were to a ministry of just over 1 year. Looking at the Gospel calendar it was a Mosaic Leap Year. Eusebius seemingly muddied the waters mentioning both, as I recall from a brief examination.
6) I think you may have done well to combine your points d-e. In your discussion of 13:36 vs 14:5, I do not find issue therein given that his disciples rarely had a clue what he was talking about, being a condition which persists to this day.
Thanks.
Has anyone ever considered the idea that John’s author simply died while still editing this patchwork?
Oh sure. People have suggested every single option you can imagine, and many you can’t. The question is always: what’s the *evidence”? (Especially when there are other explanations with tons of similar examples from antiquity)
Hello, you mentioned that John used a different source(Version) of the same discourse in John 15 to 17 from John 13-14 based on the inconsistency of the Narrative. Which version is more Likely to be more Authentic or Earlier in your opinion? Thank you
There would be no way to tell. I don’t think either is “authentic” if by that you mean “accurate about what Jesus really said on the occasion. THere would have been no record of his final discussion with his disciples fifty years later….
I thought Maybe that John 15 to 17 may Represent an Earlier Form of the discourse since John 17:3 has a Jewish Christian Proclamation that might go back to Jesus, what do you think about this?
I still dont’ think there’s any way to know. Jewish Christians were around for centuries. (THe still are!)
What I Meant, is that in John 17:3 Jesus denies that he is God Explicitly. That’s why I think it is very Early. And John wouldn’t have made it up. This is why I think John 15 to 17 is Probably closer to Jesus’ actual saying. Thoughts?
I don’t think the historical Jesus delivered the Farewell discourse in John 13-17.
If you read John 15 & 16 it seems Jesus is describing a man to come but in John 14 the descriptions are more appropriate for holy spirit and he’s called holy spirit. John 16 says “He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come”. That sounds like a man- very similar to prophet of Deut. 18 “I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him.” Also in Deuteronomy 18 a test of prophecy is given after so that prophet is to tell people what is yet to come. Gospel of John (John 1:21 for ex) portrays Jerusalem jews as waiting for the prophet of Deuteronomy 18- someone philo & dead sea scrolls were also awaiting. Seems 1st century jews were interpreting Deuteronomy 18 as future prophet. Perhaps there were two traditions- one of prophet like Moses and other of holy spirit. Doesn’t seem christians would make up that a man with job greater than jesus would arrive (to guide unto all truth) but i can see them developing holy spirit tradition (especially since jesus hadn’t returned). Thoughts?
Some Jews did expect a prophet like moses (Deut 18, as you point out), and Xns said it was Jesus; in fact John suggests it is. Jesus though is referring to the Spirit as a different person, who is beig personified and presumably “speaks” through humans, not as a human himself.
Why do you think john suggests it was jesus? john i think suggests the opposite because he clearly sees elijah, the messiah, and the prophet as 3 different figures. The pharisees are confused as to how come john the baptist isn’t one of the three, and the jerusalem jews argue about if jesus is the messiah or the prophet. In John’s view, they are separate figures. It is in the book of acts where the prophecy is applied to jesus- but john suggests the opposite. Even john the baptist doesn’t correct the jews when they ask him about if he’s the prophet- apparently affirming the belief. The connection to the holy spirit only works when you read john 14 which says he’s the holy spirit. If you ignored john 14, you wouldnt think its the holy spirit because the natural reading of the text is that its a man without metaphor- especially when u do connect it to the verses in Deuteronomy. And according to the language of john, the term spirit and prophet are synonymous ” believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world”.
That’s probably what John is saying in John 5:45-46. One of the best NT scholars of modern times, Wayne Meeks, wrote a book on it, called The Prophet King.
I Read from a German Scholar’s work named “Hermann Sasse” and he presents some convincing evidence that John 15-16 is an Earlier source than Ch 14. Jesus says in Jn 16:5 “None of you ask me ‘Where are you Going?’ But Peter and Thomas actually asked him in Jn 13 and 14. The only possible explanation he says is that John 14 attempts to displace the negative Presentation of the disciples in Jn 16:5 with a more positive one. I see that very plausible. Especially how even Matthew Changes Mark’s portrayal of the disciples in His Gospel with a More Positive one.
I think it makes most sense to see that as John having Jesus say Moses wrote about him in typology because the NT authors see Jesus everywhere in the bible- as typology. John has Jesus make a general statement here which would seem to be in line with the new testament authors saying Jesus is everywhere in all the prophetic writings- here it means he’s foreshadowed all over torah. One would expect him to quote deuteronomy 18 if he was referring to a straight-up prophecy like he does with zachariah 9. That is interesting though- that John refers to Jesus riding on a donkey because the only passage in the “torah” that is seen as being directly about messiah is genesis 49:10, and that speaks about the shiloh having a donkey, like in zacahriah 9. Perhaps John had that in mind, not deuteronomy. That would make more sense because John portrays Jesus as the messiah- and on multiple occasions distinguishes the character of the messiah & the prophet. If jesus is the messiah- then it makes sense that the passage being referred to is the one in the torah about the messiah (gen 49:10), not the one about the prophet.
Muslims say the paraclete in John’s gospel is a prophecy of Mohamad. But in John’s gospel 14.26 the paraclete is equated with the holy spirit. To get around that, they claim Jn 15-17 is the more trustworthy text and that Jn 14 isn’t. How do you rate this argument and does John’s paraclete really refer to a human prophet compatible with Mohamad?
I don’t know what “more trustworthy text” means. ch. 14 is in John as much as chs. 15-17 are. Do they mean more like what Jesus actually said? How have they established that? Is it because it’s more useful for them to think so? That’s scarcely a helpful interpretive strategy. My view is that none of chs. 14-17 is historically accurate. But the question is not so much what Jesus says, but what John says, and John says all of 14-17.
Thanks for responding. Muslims would argue it’s the earlier text, hence more ‘trustworthy’. That way they maintain Mohamad is prophesies in John’s gospel. What are the strongest points of evidence that it’s impossible to know which speech if any is the earlier one?
Trustworthy in what way? Do you mean more like something Jesus said? One would then have to establish reasons for thinking it is something like Jesus once said; there are good arguments against it. Ch. 16 has numerous overlaps with ch. 14 — basically it is covering the saame material in different words. Scholars have long thought that the two chapter represent two different versions of an earlier source; I don’t of any grounds for thinking one is much earlier than the other or more reliable. But I”m open to learning!
I guess they’d argue John 15-17 is earlier because they don’t like the Paraclete is equated with holy spirit in John 14_26. The take over old arguments from Sasse
“Hermann Sasse is another scholar who noted this. Peter and Thomas ask, “Where are you going?” in 13:36 and 14:5 but Jesus says, “None of you asks me “Where are you going?” in 16:5. Sasse said that the only possible explanation is that John 14 attempts to displace the negative presentation of the disciples in John 16:5b”.
I don’t think this makes sense in light of John 16_16 and on.
They say “Another thing is that in John 16:32, the disciples fall away and leave Jesus all alone (another negative behavior) while in the Parallel in John 14:29, there is no negative behavior reported from the disciples”.
This looks like a particularly weak argument from silence. You can see their argument here. I don’t think it makes much sense, but I’d love to hear your thoughts.
https://quranandbibleblog.com/2021/06/01/easy-paraclete-nyk-info-who-is-the-paraclete/
I guess their connecting of the paraclete and prophet is misleading as well.
Hi Bart,
Not sure if my questions got lost. Please forgive me for restating.
What do you make of these points – do you think it’s good evidence for John 15-17 being earlier than 13-14 and if so why?
What are your thoughts on John’s paraclete is really Mohammed?
Thanks a lot
Sorry — I thought I answered. John 15-17 and John 13-14 are almost certainly jsut about contemporaneous with one another, two accounts of the same tradition; and John is certainly not thinking about Mohammed.
Thanks prof. Ehrmann. Can you elaborate why you feel the two argument of Sasse cited that John 15–7 is earlier than John 13-14 are unconvincing?
I haven’t read it, but I’ll be happy to reply if you tell me what the evidence is that you find convincing. My view is that it is very, very difficult to date two roughly similar accounts of the same event in relation to one another, to say that one is likely earlier than the other, especially when they did not actually *use* each other.
I guess they’d argue John 15-17 is earlier because they don’t like the Paraclete is equated with holy spirit in John 14_26. The take over old arguments from Sasse. Here are two of the arguments that John15-17 is earlier:
1) They state that “Hermann Sasse is another scholar who noted this. Peter and Thomas ask, “Where are you going?” in 13:36 and 14:5 but Jesus says, “None of you asks me “Where are you going?” in 16:5. Sasse said that the only possible explanation is that John 14 attempts to displace the negative presentation of the disciples in John 16:5b”.
I guess my objection is that this makes no sense when looking at John 16_16 onwards.
2) They also say: “Another thing is that in John 16:32, the disciples fall away and leave Jesus all alone (another negative behavior) while in the Parallel in John 14:29, there is no negative behavior reported from the disciples”.
I guess my objection is that this looks like a particularly weak argument from silence.
What do you think of these arguments?
https://quranandbibleblog.com/2021/06/01/easy-paraclete-nyk-info-who-is-the-paraclete/
They show that the sources were different, ,but they don’t show which one was necessarily earlier.
It’s funny how, on the one hand, the author of John left behind evidence of seams between sources, yet on the other hand, given that his Jesus and his narrative voice are sometimes indistinguishable, he also erases distinctiveness (between voices rather than between sources) that ought to be there!
Does the blurring of John’s Jesus with John’s narration occur in only one source, or in more than one?
It’s a good point. The blurring in the *words* of Jesus occurs throughout, so much so that you can’t tell in some places who is doing the talking (famously: is John 3:16 being said by Jesus or the narrator?); and almost none of these dialogues sounds at all like the sayinys of JEsus in the synoptics, in passages that can be accepted as probably oging back to him. These speeches therefore I being composed in the terms that Jesus is thought to speak in the author’s community and sources. But splicing things together is a different enterprise: it’s not molding the words of Jesus put cutting and pasting the soruces. Why the final author didn’t do it more carefully is an intersteing qeustion. My guess is that he didn’t notice, just as authors today don’t recognize inconsistencies and contradictions (as anyone who directs PhD dissertatoins can tell you!)
Dear Dr. Ehrman,
What is your analysis that since there are two “seams” in the narrative here, that Ch. 15-17 are actually the Injil of Isa – as mentioned in the Qur’an, and this is all that is left of it; thus, the Paraclete in 15 & 16 actually refers to Muhammad?
Said another way: Muslims pick up on there being two narratives here, and hypothesize that Ch. 15-17 are actually part of “Jesus’s” lost “Gospel” – that is mentioned in the Qur’an, and thus see Jesus predicting the Paraclete in Ch. 15 & 16 as Muhammad. Do you think Ch. 15-17 are “Islamic”? Do you think the Paraclete in Ch. 15 & 16 applies to Muhammad?
Nope, don’t think there is any reason to think sofrom the text itself. Quite the contrary. TExts can’t be interpreted in light of later history, but in light of what the author was saying to readers in his own context.