Why Is John So Different from the Other Gospels, and Why Is It So Important?

Transcript

Click here for a printable transcript (pdf file, opens in a new tab).

This introduction that was unintentionally left off the recording. 

Shirley Paulson:

 I first met Paul at a “John, Jesus, and History” seminar—a project that he founded. That’s where I learned of the depth and breadth of his knowledge of this remarkable biblical gospel. Paul currently serves as Professor of Biblical and Quaker Studies at George Fox University in Newberg, Oregon. He’s the editor of many books and author of many essays and books, including the one we’re focusing on in this Bible and Beyond Discussion: Riddles of the Fourth Gospel; From Crisis to Christ.

Dr. Anderson claims that John is the only gospel claiming first-hand memory of Jesus of Nazareth.

So we’ll have a chance to hear from him what some of this historical information is and why it matters.

The recording begins.

Shirley Paulson:

This is the August 2025 Bible and Beyond discussion, and I’m your host, Shirley Paulson, and we are welcoming back Professor Paul Anderson. The title of our topic tonight is, “Why is John So Different from the Other Gospels, and Why Is It So Important?” And I will just say that Paul’s got a lot to tell us. Paul, just welcome! We’re glad to have you, and I’m hoping you can help us with the question, why is John so different? Let’s just go there first.

Paul Anderson:

All right, thanks, Shirley, and it’s great being in contact with you, and we’ve been in touch for several years now, and always enjoy our engagements. Right, John is the most different gospel among the canonical four. Bob Kaiser, in his introduction to John, calls it “the maverick gospel.” Maybe John learned: maybe some people walk on their feet. What if somebody learned to walk on their hands? Maybe John is really different!

Well, yeah, maybe, but Matthew, Mark, and Luke are pretty similar. They have parables of Jesus about the kingdom of God. I think that’s pretty good historical information, and most scholars do too. John doesn’t have parables. John has only two kingdom sayings, one is with Nicodemus and the other is with Pilate.

Notice that instead of being illustrative, they are contrastive. The kingdom of God is not like that, but it’s like the wind. Or the kingdom of God is not like power; Jesus’ disciples cannot fight. And Pilate is presented as having no clue about the truth. So you have those real differences.

John has “I am…” sayings, which are not in the synoptics in the same way. You do have “light of the world” in Matthew, but it’s “you are the light of the world,” says Jesus. In John, “I’m the light of the world,” says Jesus. So you’d have some similarities, and each of the “I am…” metaphors or images in John, each of those is in the synoptics—like shepherd and sheep, and bread, and resurrection, and life and those kinds of things—but really do have two very different presentations of Jesus.

So scholars have wondered what to do about the fact of these differences. In the first six centuries of early Christianity—maybe the first five centuries—John was the big theological book. So you had the humanity of Jesus and the divinity of Jesus. John has the most human presentation. The word became flesh and dwelt among us. Water and blood came out of his side.

But you also have the most elevated Christologically. In the beginning was the word. The word is with God. The word was God. In encountering Jesus, the glory of God is beheld.

So you have theology and humanity, the divinity and humanity of Jesus, which then forced really three centuries of debates, from 325 to 451 and following. So the way that they dealt with that was to develop Trinitarian understandings of reality. And the Trinity would not have developed. Also, the Holy Spirit in John is sent by the Father in John 14 twice and in John 15 and 16 sent by the Son. So you have the Holy Spirit added to the Trinity because of the Gospel of John saying that God has sent the Spirit and Christ has sent the Spirit.

So scholars have looked at John and John’s differences from the synoptics (‘synoptic,’ meaning similar perspective) as, okay, the synoptics are historical and John is theological. And so that’s the way that they have kind of distinguished these two sets of writings from the 19th century on to the present. Well, I’d be fine with that, but the problem is that John has a lot of material, a lot of physical, a lot of mundane material. So as well as being the spiritual gospel, John is also the mundane gospel.

You have “going up to Jerusalem,” “going down to Capernaum.” You have “25 or 30 stadia in the middle of the lake” or “100 yards from the shore is where the

appearance in chapter 21 happens.” You also have Jesus groaning and suffering on the cross. Water and blood pour forth from his side. The synoptics don’t have nails or don’t have piercings.

So if you have looked at any painting of the crucifixion, they always include the Gospel of John. They always feature the beloved disciple who’s there with the women. In the synoptics, the men are not present, but John includes the beloved disciple who is present, and the other apostles are not. You have nails in the hands and feet of Jesus. In the synoptics, you don’t have nails, and you also have the piercing of his side. You have the breaking of legs, and archeologists have found broken legs of Roman crucifixions in Jerusalem and in Italy, which is one way of helping victims die quicker, as opposed to leaving them up there anguishing for days.

So you have five pools, or you have five porticos in Jerusalem by the Pool of Bethsaida. Well, five: is this a pentagon, or is it two pools with four porches around the perimeter, but one set of porches in the middle between two pools? How about the Pool of Siloam? They discovered just in 2004 a second pool, which is a wading pool, and they found coins that go back to the first century, so it’s been covered over for 2,000 years. Well, that detail is only in John.

So surely, one explanation is that the synoptics are historical, John is theological and not historical, so you don’t have to worry about John because it’s not historical. We just like it for theology. Well, that explanation has huge problems to it. For one, the synoptics are also theological. I mean, Mark’s theological, Matthew and Luke built upon Mark, okay? And John is also mundane. And so that whole idea of “these are historical, that one is theological” is totally problematic. So that’s just one approach.

Shirley:

Yeah, thank you for bringing all that up, Paul, because I think many of us just sort of love John for what it is, but I don’t think we’ve really thought about the differences like that and why. I mean, I was surprised when you told me that people didn’t necessarily like John for its contributions to Christian-whatever. And I was surprised because, well, I like John a lot, but I hadn’t understood that there’s such a difference, and I find it helpful to understand that there are those differences.

But then you also bring up, like in your book, some of these riddles that you identify that come from contradictory statements right in the gospel itself. So for example, doesn’t the gospel claim to have been authored by eyewitnesses while another person appears to make the same claim after the author’s death? Like, what about that?

Paul:

Yeah, so a conservative approach, which I think is wrong, is that John the Apostle wrote the Gospel of John and that he also is the final author of it, and we just notice how much he’s been transformed so that whereas he might have been a son of thunder in Mark 3.17—a thunderhead—now because of his contact with Jesus, he’s become more of a mystic and he can’t even talk about himself in the first-person language. And so to show his spiritual transformation, he talks about himself in third-person language: the beloved disciple. Jesus never said he would not die.

Well, that sounds okay. I think more historically accurate is that if the author is John the Apostle or somebody else, then he has died by the time this is finished. It seems like it’s being finished by a later editor, and I think that’s more critically plausible.

So here’s one issue or one fact, Shirley. You have second-century manuscripts and history saying there are two Johns at Ephesus that are buried in Ephesus— sleeping in Ephesus. (It’s not that they fell asleep during a lecture, at least. That’s what I tell my students, yeah.) So, and John the elder, it’s not that he’s older; it’s ‘presbyter,’ which means ‘elder.’ And so the traditions of Eusebius say that John the presbyter is the student of John the Apostle. Now Eusebius also says that John the Apostle died after [Emperor)] Domitian. Domitian died in 96 A.D. And that he died into the reign of Trajan. Trajan becomes Emperor in 98. So if John the Apostle died around 98, which he’s a very old person at that time, then after his death, John the Elder, who is author of the epistles—so the author of 2 John and 3 John calls himself “the Elder,” or “the Presbyter”—my guess is that John the Elder maybe added material to an earlier edition of John. So maybe a first edition is 80 or 85. The second gospel, it only has five miracles in it, not John 6 and John 21.

Well, how about this? These are the five miracles that aren’t in Mark. So if John, whoever, or the author of John—[I’m happy to go with John the Apostle as the beloved disciple and the evangelist, the gospel writer. Maybe he’s dictating it]. Well, how about this? What if he’s dictating it? John the Elder is taking down the notes. And so even what we mean by “author” might be different back then. So we’ll call him the evangelist.

If he produces the first edition or is writing stuff, he might be aware of Mark. And the first edition, if John 6 (the feeding of the 5,000 and the sea crossing) and then maybe John 15:16,17, so 14:31 goes into 18:1. “Let us depart.” They get to the garden, you know, three chapters later. And then chapter 21 (the great catch of fish and maybe the Christ hymn).

So what you can see I’m doing right away is solving John’s literary tensions and differences with the synoptics by means of a basic two-edition theory, which I think is more critically plausible. So if the first edition is familiar with Mark, I don’t think that John has a text of Mark that he’s reading, but maybe he hears it performed among the churches. So, Shirley, if you’ve seen Richard Burridge’s three actors reciting the Gospel of Mark, or somebody else just reciting it like an oration, well, that’s probably the way it was received among the churches.

So if John has heard Mark performed, that would explain some familiarity, but not really text-based copying. And so maybe the first edition is an augmentation of Mark. And how about this? Maybe it’s a correction of Mark!? And we can get into some of that later on. And then the later material is an augmentation and so much like the beloved disciple’s later teachings. And maybe John the Elder has heard criticisms that, “Wait a minute, you haven’t included everything here! You haven’t included the stuff that’s in Mark.” So okay, we’ll add the feeding of the 5,000 and the sea crossing and Peter’s confession, (which is also kind of different). And so as an augmentation of the first edition, with adding some stuff that’s also in the synoptics…

So the first two endings of John or the two endings of the first edition and the final edition acknowledge Mark and other gospels are—Ending number one:

“Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples that are not written in this book. I know Mark’s out there. Stop bugging me for leaving stuff out, but I’m not trying to duplicate Mark, thank you very much. But these are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ and the God of the kingdom of life in his name.”

Okay, so it’s an apologetic. Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. But here are five miracles of Jesus that aren’t in Mark. Here’s number one and number two before Mark 1. And then here’s some miracles in Jerusalem and in Bethany augmenting Mark chronologically and also geographically. So the first edition of John augments Mark. And so, Shirley,  it’s different on purpose. It adds stuff that is known by somebody that is not included in Mark. Different on purpose.

Shirley:

Okay. Okay, so if I can go that way with you, what about then the problem of sequencing that you find like in chapter 12 where Mary is the one who anoints the Lord with perfume and wipes his feet in the past tense. And then the story about it appears in the next chapter. That seems like it’s out of order there.

Yeah. Yeah, so there’s a reference in John 11. This is the Mary that anointed his feet, but that doesn’t happen until the next chapter.

Paul:

And so do we have a rearrangement of material or a disarrangement? We have a rearrangement of material or disarrangement more than rearrangement. Here’s my explanation. People probably have heard about Mary Magdalene. And you probably have oral tradition telling the story of Mary, the sister of Martha and the sister of Lazarus. So you have familiarity in chapter 11. You have familiarity with what is going to be written down in chapter 12. That, to me, suggests oral tradition before it’s gotten finalized. So it’s not that we have a rearrangement of material, but people have heard about another Mary. And so it’s a clarification. It’s not that Mary. She comes in in chapter 20, Mary Magdalene. But for now, it’s the Mary that anoints the feet of Jesus. So that suggests acknowledging some familiarity out there and explaining who this person is.

Shirley:

Okay. So many ways of guessing what’s going on. Why can’t they just tell us? Oh, my goodness. All right. So what about historical riddles? Like if Jesus of Nazareth was known for having cast out demons, why does Jesus perform no exorcisms in John?

Paul:

Could I actually continue on on the previous subject?

Shirley:

Oh, sure. Okay. Yeah.

Paul:

So one of the main explanations that some of my friend scholars are putting forward, it’s a view that I totally reject. Okay. Then again, they might be right. But here’s why I think they’re wrong.

So some of my friends, well, not just my friends, but some scholars have argued that the author of John, must know the Gospel of Luke. The Gospel of Luke in 10, 40 to 42, has two sisters, Mary and Martha. And so Richard Baucom and some other scholars have said maybe John is dependent on Luke or is familiar with Luke. And so that would be another explanation that people know about this because they know about Luke. But when you look at Luke and Luke having material that’s in John, that is not in Mark, I think the best explanation for Johannine material in Luke is that Luke is dependent on John. John is not dependent on Luke.

Can I give you some examples?

1. The right ear is cut off. Why do we add the right ear is cut off? Well, that’s only in John.
2. How about a tomb that no one has used? Well, that detail is in John.
3. Luke goes with one feeding, not two feedings, as in Mark and Matthew. Well, there’s only one feeding in John.
4. Luke puts the confession of Peter after the feeding of the 5,000, not the feeding of the 4,000, as it is in John, not in Mark.
5. So I think that Luke prefers John over Mark or adds John’s details.
6. Here’s another one, the great catch of fish. That’s in John 21, but in Luke chapter 5. Now, I don’t think that Luke has a text of John, but Luke has maybe heard that.
7. Or on the transfiguration in Luke, they beheld his glory. Oh, maybe Luke’s familiar with John 1.14. They beheld his glory.
8. So these are all—how about this? Luke moves a head anointing to a foot anointing. So the anointing of Jesus, Luke sides with John against Mark and Matthew, if he knows Matthew, which is a head anointing. And Luke puts it into a foot anointing.
9. Now, also, Luke includes a parable of a woman who is forgiven much because she’s very sinful. And in the next paragraph, he adds Mary Magdalene and two other women. So maybe Luke hears the name Mary and thinks it’s Mary Magdalene that is doing the anointing. And so he puts Mary Magdalene right after the foot anointing because he thinks it’s Mary Magdalene who’s done the foot anointing.
10. Now, that’s also the reason why some scholars across Christian tradition have wondered if Mary Magdalene is the woman who needed to be forgiven much. But that is not in the Bible. It’s the next paragraph in Luke. But Luke maybe hears the name Mary and then brings her in in the next paragraph.

So that approach to saying John 11, this is the Mary who anointed Jesus’ feet. I don’t think it needs to go back to familiarity with Luke 10. I think it’s just that people have heard that story before or they’ve heard about Mary Magdalene. And so he’s saying, this is not Mary Magdalene. She comes a little bit later.

Right.

Shirley:

Okay, well, I’m sorry I cut you off early on because that was helpful to have these other examples.

Yeah. So then, can we go to the sequencing problem then? Because I still want to…

So it just seems like we’ve got that past tense and the future. But I know I was going on to the historical riddles about Jesus of Nazareth who was known for casting out demons.

So why doesn’t he perform any exorcisms in John?

Paul:

Yeah, that’s a great question. So inclusion is easier to explain than omission as a fact. So silence is never proof of anything. So we have… Now, the second ending of John, look, Jesus did many of the signs that are not written in this book. And if we would have included everything, you wouldn’t have enough libraries, let alone enough books. So get off our case. We’re being selective here. We’re not recording everything, by the way. So that final ending then explains John’s selectivity.

So for whatever reason, the evangelist doesn’t include exorcisms. Now, it could be because you’ve already got those in the synoptics. Another explanation, or just as we’re guessing here, maybe if you’re presenting the stories of Jesus among Hellenistic society leaders in Asia Minor or Turkey, you know, maybe exorcisms are not all that prevalent there. Or maybe they’re considered, you know, kind of weird or scandalous. Or maybe it’s just not part of his own preaching ministry.

Now, here’s an interesting fact. In the synoptics, there is a disciple who complains to Jesus about other exorcists who are casting out demons in the name of Jesus. And he says, Lord, should we stop them? They’re casting out demons in your name. Should we stop them?

He said, no, no, no. If they’re not against us, they’re for us. Now, do you know who that disciple is?

John the Apostle.

Shirley:

Oh, yeah, right.

Paul:

That’s a fact.

Shirley:

Yeah. Interesting.

Paul:

What if he felt squeamish about exorcisms back then and later? Is that a personal part of someone’s selectivity? Who knows? But the fact is that John the Apostle is presented in the synoptics as feeling uneasy with other exorcists.

But who knows why he doesn’t include it? Nobody knows.

Shirley:

Well, interesting, just questions out there.

OK, so then which would have been historically true? That Jesus ministered for at least two or three years, as John tells us, or that he ministered for only part of a year, visiting Jerusalem only once, as the other Gospels tell us?

Paul:

Yeah. So now here’s a fact that requires critical explanation. Matthew, Mark, and Luke have Jesus going to Jerusalem only one time. Mentioned only one Passover. John has three Passovers and two and from Jerusalem four or five times.

Now, to me and to others, John seems more realistic. He’s probably ministered for more than just one year. Although it could be, you know, more than one year, just one Passover.

So, Shirley, let me ask you a question. Why do you think Mark has only one Passover? Is it because of chronology or does he just stack everything at the end? Nobody knows. But what do you think, Shirley?

Shirley:

Well, I had never really considered it. I’d have to really think about that. I don’t know. I really don’t know.

Paul:

Well, let me give you a guess and give you my guess. I’m happy to go also with John, Mark or somebody like that being the source, being the author of the Gospel of Mark. And Papias and other 2nd century historians cited by Eusebius later, 325, Eusebius’ church history is published. So they say that Peter’s preaching is the source of Mark or that Mark gathered Peter’s preaching into a narrative. So if Mark in Rome is gathering Peter’s preaching, he doesn’t know the order he’s stacking stuff together.

Now would you agree that Jesus died in Jerusalem? Yes, so that’s the beginning. Would you agree that beginning alongside John the Baptist? Yeah, that’s a pretty good beginning. Then he calls disciples and stuff. So Mark has a beginning and an end and a middle section.

So Mark is not knowingly chronological; Mark is stacking stuff together. He told them these parables:

1. One
2. Two
3. Three
4. Four
5. Five
6. Six

And then Matthew adds:

7. Seven
8. Eight
9. Nine
10. Ten

You know, adds to that. Luke, at the end of chapter nine, Jesus turns his face towards Jerusalem, and in the next nine or ten chapters, we have Luke adding all of his new material. Now it’s not that Jesus did and said all these things while he was on the road; Luke stacks Luke and distinctive material in those ten chapters just as a way of ordering stuff.

So let me put this out: I think John is the only chronological gospel.

Shirley:

You’re making a case; I’m beginning to understand you.

Paul:

Or let me say it another way. Eusebius quotes Papias, his writings around 150 or so, who quotes the elder. This is probably John the elder, so it’s not John the apostle, but it’s a Johannine opinion about Mark. And here’s what he says: this is Eusebius Church History 3.39. Mark in Rome preserved Peter’s preaching, but it’s not in the correct order.

So to and from Jerusalem, three Passovers. The Last Supper is the night before the Passover; it’s not a Passover meal. Jesus did not institute the Eucharist as a rite of institution on a Passover meal; it’s just a fellowship meal. I mean, John has no Eucharist in the Last Supper. Maybe that is added by Mark because Paul in First Corinthians 11 is saying, “From now on eat at home.” People are fighting in line, getting drunk, eating too much. (I mean, the kind of thing that happens at, you know, Lutheran potlucks, you know, that kind of thing. I went to a Lutheran seminary for a year.) So Paul said, “From now on eat at home,” and the night he was betrayed, the Lord took the loaves and he broke them, and he took the cup and said, “Do this.” So it’s not until 25 years after Jesus has died and resurrected that we have the move towards a symbolic meal of remembrance. And then Mark probably goes along with that and follows that, but John has it on the Last Supper as the day before the Passover.

Now also in Mark, even though it’s a Passover meal, Jesus is not killed on the Passover. And in Jewish chronology, the day starts at nine. So the beginning of Passover is at nightfall. So Mark, even though he presents it as a Passover meal, Jesus is killed the day before the Passover. So Mark would agree with John’s chronology; but doesn’t say so. He presents it as a meal before the Passover, just like John does.

How about the timing of the crucifixion? In Mark, it’s the third hour; in John it’s the sixth hour. Well, how did he get all that stuff done by nine o’clock a.m., having trials and crowds and everything? So no, so John says it happens at noon; it happens at the sixth hour. That’s when the crucifixion happens.

So those are ways that I think John’s chronology is superior, but at least it’s more opinionatedly knowing.

So that’s one disagreement with Mark. A second disagreement with Mark is that Mark is not really historical because it stacks all the sayings together. Sayings happening in conversations with people. So in John, you have an action and then a question, then a dialogue and then a discourse. So maybe the 4th evangelist, whoever he is, maybe he has an interest in connecting events with debates and sayings as opposed to stacking sayings together like a collection.

A third criticism actually affirms Mark. Mark has duplications:

• Two feedings.
• Two sea crossings.
• Multiple this and that.

But you can’t blame him, he was just trying to be conservative. He was wanting to leave nothing out. So I might guess that there was only one feeding, but we have two feedings narrated in Mark that are followed by Matthew:

1. The feeding of the 5,000 in Mark 6.
2. The feeding of the 4,000 in Mark 8.

But notice how many baskets are picked up in the feeding of the 5,000: 12 baskets. Why? 12 disciples. There are seven baskets picked up after the feeding of the 4,000. Now why seven? How about the seven deacons that cared for the Gentile believers, the non-Jewish believers? So maybe, this is only a guess, but maybe as the story of the feeding is passed around the Gentile churches in the diaspora, the seven deacons picked up the seven baskets full.

And by the time that story comes around to Mark, not coming from Peter now, it’s not Peter’s preaching, but it’s other stuff in Mark 7 and 8, which is also really weird. Now here’s an interesting fact: Luke leaves out Mark 7 and 8. It’s called the Great Omission. Maybe he leaves it out because it’s not in John, or he sides with John against Mark.

Shirley:

That’s interesting.

So anyway, Mark probably hears this stuff and it’s got its own dovetail section, like how many did I pick up the first time? How many did you pick up the second time? Okay, well, it acknowledges the earlier feeding, or the feeding of the 5,000. So that would be the reason why Mark, as a collector of tradition, would go ahead and include it, even though it’s not in the Gospel of Mark.

So Mark is stacking stuff together, stacking it in an order that he thinks makes sense, and it does make sense. But here’s a question: Did the cleansing of the temple happen as a final swan song? Well, of course they killed him. Man, that was offensive. Or was it an inaugural prophetic sign disturbing the aristocracy like John the Baptist was doing?

So John 1 to 3 has John the Baptist and shows Jesus as disrupting the Jerusalem elite by the temple incident. So I might say that John’s early temple incident is more historical.

Shirley:

Oh, very interesting.

Okay, so you know, this is hard to believe.

Paul:

I’m sorry about all this.

Shirley:

No, but you’ve got another whole bucket full of things to talk about. I know you do. In fact, I’ve got a lot more questions myself. But this is our promise to our folks here that they get a chance to talk to you.

So we’re going to pause here just a moment, and I want to remind everybody that your participation as a Bible and Beyond Patreon supporter is what helps us keep going, providing all the resources that we make available on the website. And Patreon members are entitled to a discount for all of our courses.

So just to make sure you’re aware, the next live online hybrid course begins Tuesday, September 9th. It’s the Gospel of Thomas Goes Public. So check out bibleandbeyond.courses to get details on the course.

So now I’m going to turn over the microphone to our guests here. If nobody has anything to say, I’ve got a zillion more questions, but I think we already have a hand up. So we’re going to get going here. So, Pat Nestor, you go right ahead.

Pat Nester:

Yes, I have heard that there are stylistic differences in the Greek in which the different Gospels are written. Some conclusions about it are that some writers are less educated than others. John, as I recall, was supposed to be a more polished sort of Greek. Do you have any ideas about whether the style of the language that was written can help identify who these writers are?

Paul:

Thank you, Pat. That’s a great question. In some ways, John’s is simpler Greek. John has a more limited vocabulary than Matthew and Luke do. Then again, you’re right. It’s really well written. Now, it could be that John the Presbyter might be the actual scribe who finalizes it and that kind of a thing.

Here is one fallacy, though, that scholars fall into. In Acts 4, you have Peter and John speaking, and it’s really compelling. So in 4:13, the Jerusalem leaders say, “Whoa, how could these people say such great things given that they are agramatose kai idiotae? They are unlettered and idiots. A friend of mine did his whole PhD on illiteracy. And so John and Peter must have been illiterate. Therefore, scholars might guess they could not have written anything.

Well, the point is that they were really good. How could they be so theologically educated given that they haven’t been to Pharisee schools? So it’s not that they couldn’t read or write. I mean, Jewish boys growing up in the synagogue, they’re going to speak Hebrew. They’re going to learn to read. If they’re going to learn to read, I mean, are you saying that Jews could not read scripture? No, Jews were more educated than other people. So the issue there is that they were really good despite not being educated in Pharisee schools. Answer, Rabbi Jesus. He’s the one who taught them to be so good. And so that reason for saying, well, we know that a fisherman can’t write stuff. Well, now wait a minute. His father was a business owner. Zebedee had boats. He had employees. And so it wasn’t just a guy out there with a fishing pole. He was a member of the business class. And so to say, therefore, he could not have written anything thoughtful, I think is wrong conjecture.

Shirley:

Okay, that’s very interesting. Thank you for that question, Pat.

Shirley:

I think maybe if you could talk a little bit about the big things, like the Gospel of John takes the resurrection of Jesus so seriously. So there’s no mention of his unusual birth. Like, why is that when they have such important things like that, but no birth?

Paul:

Yeah. Matthew and Luke include birth narratives, adding those to Mark. Mark has no birth narrative either. John, though, begins with, I think, echoing John the Baptist. So you have verses 6, 7, and 8. “There came a man from God. His name was John, not the light, witness to the light. He was before him, though he came after him.” And then 19 and following.

So I think that the original beginning of the first edition begins as an echo of Mark, but then correcting Mark. So like in the Gospel of Mark, John the Baptist is Elijah. He’s also the prophet. But the Jews ask John the Baptist, are you the prophet or are you Elijah? And he says, “No, I’m not.” Whoa! Now, why would he say he’s not Elijah or the prophet? Answer, Jesus fulfills those typologies, not John—in the Gospel of John. And so Jesus fulfills Deuteronomy 18, the prophet like Moses—his word comes true. Not speaking his own word, but only God’s word. So Jesus fulfills Moses. And Jesus also fulfills Elijah. The barley loaves—krithinous—these are what he feeds the multitudes with. So 2 Kings 4,  Elisha, he feeds the multitudes with barley loaves. And so Jesus fulfills Elijah and Moses, not John the Baptist.

So I think that the Christ hymn, though, is added instead of a miraculous birth. How about adding a Christological hymn? Now, here’s something that I’ve just been arguing the last couple of years, Shirley.

What do you think about this? I’m not sure that the Christological hymn—John 1:1-5, John 1:9-14, John 1:16-18—that’s a lot like 1 John 1:1-3: “What we have seen and heard at the beginning, the Word of life we have proclaimed to you, … What we have touched and seen with our hands and eyes.” I think, or I wonder, if the Christ hymn was actually composed by John the Elder, not John the Apostle. And like 1 John 1:1-3—”What we have seen and heard from the beginning,” or like the new commandment is now the old commandment. So it functions as… so 1 John echoes what the Beloved Disciple has preached on for several years. And so maybe the Christ hymn, first of all, is an echo and a confession of what the evangelist has been preaching over the years. And maybe it’s been added as a transformative introduction to the final edition.

So in answer to your question, instead of birth narratives, how about in the beginning, cosmological divinity narratives? So it deals with the divinity of Jesus in a preexistent Jewish kind of way, going back to Heraclitus. Heraclitus was a Greek philosopher, 5th century, who taught that the order of nature comes from a spark, the Logos of God. And everybody has access to this. It’s a divine principle that is at least within every person, and that everything is created by this divine spark. It’s the Logos of God. So you combine that with God creating through his Word, and then Philo of Alexandria is calling the Logos of God. He mentions it 1300 times. So you have a Christ hymn composed by John the Elder that has been added as a new beginning to the final edition of the gospel.

So that’s why the Gospel of John has so much divinity stuff. But despite the fact that it begins with a Christ hymn celebrating his divinity and humanity—the Word became flesh and dwelt among us—that’s not the first stroke of the quill. And that’s a mistake that scholars make. It begins with a preexistent Christology, therefore there’s nothing historical here. No, no, no. That originates as a response to seven decades of preaching, and it’s a confessional response that Jesus is the Son of God, not Caesar. So it’s anti-imperial in its function.

Shirley:

Wow. Oh, that’s very, very interesting. Well, you certainly do move passages around faster than my mind is following you, but I get the idea where we’re going with this. Very, very helpful.

Looks like Diana has come back again.

Diana Austin:

My understanding about the Gospel of John is that it’s organized around the seven sayings, seven I am sayings, and that the healings are examples of these I am sayings. I’m the light of the world, you know, whatever. It’s like the healing is related to these I am sayings, and it is basically giving a view of Jesus that’s more than just a person. He’s not just a he’s the concept, an idea that the Messiah, the Messiah is so much greater than just a person, and I think that’s what the Gospel is trying to tell us that he represents so much more in terms of the revelation of not only who he is, but who God is.

Paul:

Yeah, thank you very much, Diana. And Jesus says that I come representing the Father. So it’s not my words, it’s the Father’s words. And that gets interpreted as blasphemy, but he’s actually just doing authorization. So Jesus heals on the Sabbath in the Gospel—also in the Synoptics—he heals on the Sabbath, but when he gets challenged, he says, “This is not my doing, I’m commissioned by the Father,” Deuteronomy 18.

And you’re right, Diana, that the signs will lead into a discourse. Sometimes the discourse leads into a sign. So like, especially the bread of life. So he feeds the multitude, and then, “I am the bread of life, come down from heaven.” In chapter 11, though, “I’m the resurrection and the life.” And then he, after that, he goes and raises Lazarus from the tomb. So yeah, a lot of connectivity.

Diana, if I’m going to guess about how that happens, I think it really is a part of the evangelist’s preaching and teaching over the years. So notice that he’s holding the miracles or the signs and the sayings together. And so I think that this is a part of his own construction.

Now, Shirley, even though I think that John is pervasively historical, I think that the “I Am” sayings are probably not quotations of Jesus. They’re probably the evangelist’s sayings about Jesus. Again, like in Matthew and Luke, you have the shepherd that looks for the sheep. John says, yes, … and Jesus says, “I am the good shepherd,” and “I’m also the gate” as well. And so I’m going to locate that as paraphrased memory. Rather than quotations of Jesus, I think those are theological, Christocentric expansions, which are rooted in historical memory, but also kind of the evangelist’s preaching over the years.

Diana:

Well, you don’t think that Jesus would have a concept of himself that would be conveyed to his students? I mean, his own sense of who he is. I think that’s what he’s conveying to his students. One thing is that I thought it was, you know, because a lot of the reason we have the Gospel of John is due to the work of Origen, who was a Christian theologian, I guess, at the end of the 2nd century, and that he was, by heritage, a student of St. Ignatius, who along with Polycarp, were considered the two outstanding students of the Apostle John. In other words, besides the ones, the saints, so-and-so and Saint Ignatius and Saint Polycarp.

But the thing is, he doesn’t talk about Jesus being God, which is one reason he later on became not authorized. But he talks about him being the reflection, and, you know, more like expression or expression or the reflection of divine wisdom. So to me it’s like there’s more to this Gospel … we always interpret it in terms of the way the other three Gospels are presented to us. And I think it’s really much more than that.

Paul:

Yeah, and Origen also, and he’s got a huge commentary on John, was the one who introduces also homoousios, of the same essence of the Father.

Diana:

Yeah, but it’s more like an expression, you know, expression of the Father. Like wisdom is, you know, when God expresses wisdom or mind, that is sort of like what Jesus is. And “let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.” In other words, we should be expressing the same concept in our own lives.

Paul:

Yeah, thank you.

Okay, do you have any comments about that or do we want to go on to another question? I’m happy for another one.

Shirley:

Okay, all right. So I’m going to go back to this idea about the signs then. So he is performing signs that lead to belief, and then he criticizes people for depending upon signs. That seems like one of your riddles.

Paul:

Yeah, that’s really strange. I was looking for a sign there in chapter 4, and then he speaks the word and the man’s son is healed in Capernaum. Oh, and here’s an interesting fact: you have a healing from afar in Capernaum in Luke and Matthew. It’s the centurion’s servant, not the royal official’s son.

Shirley:

Right, yeah.

Paul:

I might guess it’s the same event, but I might see John as being more innocent and primitive as opposed to a royal centurion. And Luke says, “And he commands and it happens. Ain’t that something?” Luke presents it in a more embellished way, whereas John’s, I think, is more innocent of development. So John’s might be more historical in that sense.

Okay, but then you’re right. Now,what do you think about this fact? In John 6:26, he says, “You seek me not because you saw the signs, but because you ate and were satisfied.”

Shirley:

Yeah, right.

Paul:

And ate and were satisfied is the result of the feeding miracle in all five synoptic feeding accounts. Does that show Jesus in John as saying, “The synoptics are totally wrong. But that point was not food for your stomach. It was revelation for your soul.” So do we have dialogue between the gospels about the meanings of miracles? Isn’t that interesting?

So now Rudolf Bultmann, he argued—this goes back to your first question—where did John’s stuff come from? Bultmann, his huge…I have written and said, Bultmann’s commentary on John is the most important New Testament book in the entire 20th century. Maybe a runner-up would be Schweitzer’s The Quest of the Historical Jesus in terms of its impact. It’s also totally wrong in certain ways.

But Bultmann and other scholars have tried to figure out ways that John could have been written without going back to an eyewitness. They base this on a totally flawed essay in 1888 that John the Apostle died early, the early death of the son of Zebedee. A scholar, whose name is DeBoor, wrote an essay in German that there is a statement—there are two statements, 5th century and 9th century—that James and John were killed by the Jews. James is killed in 44 A.D., Acts 12:2. Therefore, John must have been killed in 44. And so John cannot have written anything pertaining to him. Therefore, people must have a confusion of Johns. John the Elder, they thought actually was John the Apostle because he’s a great hero. And so we know that the Gospel of John could not have been written by John the Apostle because he died early.

Well, Bultmann, now my problem is that I actually looked up what Philip of the 5th century—Philip of Side—and George Hamartolos, 9th century—what they say. They don’t say that he died at the same time. They’re just following church calendar which celebrates their martyrdom in the Syrian martyrology on the same day of the church. And Jesus says to James and John, in Mark 10, “Are you willing to drink my cup, be baptized in my baptism?—Yes, then you shall be.” So they celebrate their martyrdoms on the same day, but that doesn’t mean that they died on the same day.

And then thirdly, if you read Philip and George, they both follow Eusebius saying John the Apostle died after [Emperor] Domitian, who died in 96 AD.

So because of the view of the early death of John, scholars went in several directions:

1. British scholars, well, American also. Bacon at Yale, 1910: John is a spiritualization of the synoptics.

B.H. Streeter, 1924, The Four Gospels, built on Bacon and said that the fourth evangelist, and we know he can’t be John (btw, because John died early! Therefore, there’s nothing historical in John. It’s totally theological! So John is in the category not of history, but in the category of devotional literature written by a Jewish Greek mystic.)

And so we have our mystical imaginations about what Jesus must have done and said, because we know this cannot have been written by an eyewitness. Therefore, the Gospel of John is dependent on Mark and secondarily Luke.

So that’s where British scholars go.

2. Now, Bultmann said, no, no, John is not dependent on the synoptics, but maybe we have a signs source, a collection of miracles that are Jewish apologetic. And maybe we have Gnostic revelation sayings. Maybe the evangelist put these together with a passion narrative. Maybe it fell apart. And Bultmann put it together in different order. So you get Gnostic sayings and the revelation sayings source, and then the redactor added material which explains other theological tensions.

Well, in my dissertation at Glasgow, I examined all of Bultmann’s evidence. There’s no evidence. There’s no evidence for any of these sources. So I think that threw me back then to say that I think we have a theologically developed historical Jesus tradition, which developed in its own way alongside the synoptics but not dependent on them.

Shirley:

Wow. Okay, so now we have like three minutes left and we have several comments here, questions.

In the chat we have from MJ Richardson:

MJ Richardson:

Yeshua is a prophet, rabbi, master, and mystic. Could you speak to Yeshua being shown as a mystic in John especially and also relate how we can become comfortable with that terminology for him and ourselves as well as others who preceded him?

Paul:

Right. It’s not that Jesus was a mystic, it’s that the evangelist was a mystic. But John’s Jesus is, I think, a Jewish eschatological prophet, and he speaks God’s word like Deuteronomy 18 is talking about.

Shirley:

Okay. All right. That’s helpful. And then Helen

Helen:

Just really quickly, the Apostle John isn’t even mentioned in the Gospel of John except for the brothers of Zebedee in the last chapter, which is not supposed to be historically original to the Gospel. And the listing of the “disciples” in the first chapter of John doesn’t mention John, and it mentions a whole different bunch of disciples that don’t really match up to the “apostolic twelve.” And I also thought that the Epistle of John has a very different theological stance than what you get in the Gospel of John. So I don’t see how – I see the relationship that might have been like a second generation, maybe a third generation, but I just don’t see the – I don’t see somebody related to the Epistle of John actually being behind the Gospel of John. So those are my two cents.

Paul:

Yes. Very quickly, a question about John the Apostle being connected with the Gospel – and John the Apostle is never mentioned. Those of Zebedee are mentioned in 21.2. So that would be James and John. But so what does – now is it anonymous or is it simply non-named? I think it’s non-named. So if somebody isn’t named, does that mean they can’t be someone? How about this? This is a fact. The mother of Jesus is not mentioned by name. That proves it cannot be Mary.

Helen:

That’s a big stretch.

Paul:

If you say the non-mentioning of John the Apostle proves the Beloved Disciple can’t be John the Apostle, John the son of Zebedee, well, you must then be consistent and say the mother of Jesus cannot be Mary. Now, I think that’s ridiculous. Everybody does too. But why might Mary not be mentioned by name?

We all know her and love her and we respect her. And so it’s somebody special.

Well, how about the Beloved Disciple? He was the special one. Jesus loved him best, not Peter, okay? So favoritism and honor for the mother of Jesus and the Beloved Disciple.

How about a second thing?

Helen:

But that doesn’t mean the beloved disciple is the Apostle John.

Paul:

Second point. It’s the relationship with Jesus that’s the important thing. So “mother of Jesus” /  “the disciple Jesus loved.” That would be the parallel. It’s the relationship with Jesus—that’s the main thing, not the name.

Third possibility. Why is Mary not mentioned as her name? There are three Marys in the text. Mary Magdalene, Mary wife of Clopas, Mary sister of Lazarus. And so you’re always having to clarify, “Which Mary are we talking about?” Just cut to the chase: the mother of Jesus. So when you look at the Gospel of John, there are three other Johns in the text or in the background. You have John the Baptist, John the father of Peter, and you have John the presbyter.

So if you’re trying to not use a name and have to be redundant and say “John, the Beloved Disciple,” that might suggest that the non-named appellation points to somebody named John, whoever he was. How’s that, Helen?

Helen:

It’s convoluted.

Paul:

No, no, it’s very clear.

Helen:

Respectfully, respectfully.

Paul:

Helen, if you’re going to say, not just you, but scholars all around the worldteach this to the students. I’m saying they’re totally wrong in this. That the non-named, that the beloved disciple not being named shows that the last disciple not being named shows it cannot be John the Apostle, then you must be consistent and say the mother of Jesus proves it cannot be Mary. That’s ridiculous. Look for another explanation.

Helen:

Well, the mother of Jesus is a direct statement of who she is, whereas the Apostle John, there’s no direct statement about him. But anyway, I don’t want to be contrary, but I’m just in a very different place.

Paul:

Well, I’ve just published an essay on this that’s up on my Academia page. Anyway, have fun with it if you want. But actually, Helen’s position is dominant within the field. And I’m saying it’s totally wrong, and here’s why.

Helen:

And great for you.

Paul:

So we’ll see what happens.

Hey, I’ve got tenure. I’ve got tenure, alright? (Hahaha!)

Anyway, Shirley, these are just some of those riddles, and I’ve listed 36 in my introduction to John. I think you’ll like the book. Think about a dozen literary, historical, theological problems, and then here’s some answers.

Shirley:

Well, Paul, I want to thank you so much for stretching us in lots of different directions, giving us food for thought. Maybe some things we’re not ready to go with, maybe some new things that are opening our eyes, but that’s the point: it’s to help us to think and to keep on growing and to reconsider all these questions. Very, very important for us. And I think you’re talking to an audience who already loves this gospel, so we’re going to keep on cherishing it with you and keep on listening.

Paul:

I really do appreciate that. Shirley.

One more thing: I think we have to interpret the Gospel of John as it is, whoever the author was or wasn’t.

Shirley:

That’s a very good point, whoever it was or wasn’t.

That’s right. Well, thank you, everybody, for your participation. This was the August 2025 Bible and Beyond Discussion titled,” Why is the Gospel of John so Different? with our guest scholar, Dr. Paul Anderson. And thank you for being with us for our monthly Bible and Beyond Discussions today. We usually meet on the fourth Monday of the month from 8 to 9 p.m. Eastern Time. So our next meeting will be Monday, September 22nd. Each Bible and Beyond Discussion is led by a knowledgeable scholar who provides a thoughtful overview of some early Christian text. For the last half hour, participants have a chance to ask their own questions.

And before we wrap up, Patreon members, remember to ask for your discount when you enroll in our next course, The Gospel of Thomas Goes Public. Or if you’re not a member yet, head on over to patreon.com/bibleandbeyond. And now who’s coming next month? Dr. Robert Miller is going to talk to us about biblical prophecy on September 22nd.

And so right now I want to give a special thanks to Paul for coming to be with us tonight and helping us to decide what we’re going to do about the Gospel of John. Thank you so much for being with us, Paul. Thank you. Great being with you. Thank you.