John was written between AD 90–100.[7][8] The gospel is anonymous, although it identifies a "disciple whom Jesus loved" as the source of its traditions and perhaps author.[9][10][11] Twentieth-century scholarship interpreted the gospel within the paradigm of a "Johannine community",[12][13][14] but this has been increasingly challenged in the 21st century,[15] and there is currently considerable debate over the gospel's historical context.[16] As it is closely related in style and content to theJohannine epistles, most scholars treat the four books, along with theBook of Revelation, as a single corpus ofJohannine literature, albeit not by the same author.[17]
The majority of scholars see four sections in the Gospel of John: aprologue (1:1–18); an account of the ministry, often called the "Book of Signs" (1:19–12:50); the account of Jesus's final night with his disciples and the passion and resurrection (13:1–20:31);[18] and a conclusion (20:30–31), as well as an epilogue (Chapter 21).[19] John displays a literary unity throughout its text, and the current scholarly tendency is to approach the work as a coherent whole.[20] The gospel is notable for its highChristology.[21]
The Gospel of John is traditionally attributed toJohn the Apostle. Many modern scholars continue to affirm the traditional attribution,[22] first found inIrenaeus (c. 130 – c. 202 AD), but the gospel is internally anonymous, and most either reject or hold this hypothesis tentatively.[23][24][25] John 21:22[26] references adisciple whom Jesus loved and John 21:24–25[27] says: "This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true".[12] Most scholars believe the verses claim the beloved disciple was the author of the gospel, but others argue the author is claiming to be someone else recording the disciple's testimony.[28][b][29][c] There is a consensus among Johannine scholars that the beloved disciple was a real historical person,[30] but there is no consensus on who the beloved disciple was.[31] John 1:14 also switches to a first-person narration, saying “And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth,” revealing himself as a participant in the events narrated.[32] The scholarly consensus dates the writing of the gospel between AD 90–100.[8][7] Most modern commentators, as well as early Christian tradition, argue the gospel was likely composed in Ephesus.[33]
Recent scholarship has tended to turn against positing hypothetical sources for John.[34] While a few scholars support old ideas about debated sources like the "signs source" and the "sayings source",[35] or develop new theories, it is widely considered that John incorporated synoptic traditions into his own composition instead.[36] For much of the twentieth century, the consensus was that John was independent of the Synoptics, but most scholars now accept the Synoptics as sources for John.[37][38][38][39] The Hebrew scriptures were an important source,[40] with 14 direct quotations (versus 27 in Mark, 54 in Matthew, 24 in Luke), and their influence is vastly increased when allusions and echoes are included,[41] but the majority of John's direct quotations do not agree exactly with any known version of the Jewish scriptures.[42] The author may claim to be a witness in John 21, 1:14, and 19:35.[43][44][32][45][46] Most scholars agree the Gospels are not direct eyewitness accounts, though this may partly be the result of dubious assumptions based onform criticism.[47][48] Tom Thatcher argues that while the beloved disciple did not write the current form of the gospel, this does not entail reconstructions that put the author multiple stages or generations away from the disciple. Instead, he argues that the Fourth Evangelist was a companion of the beloved disciple who was either an amanuensis or used an earlier source attributed to the disciple shortly after his death.[49]René Kieffer [sv] notes the possibility that there may have been a first and then a second edition.[50]
For much of the 20th century, scholars interpreted the Gospel of John within the paradigm of a hypothetical "Johannine community",[14] meaning that it was held to have sprung from a late-1st-century Christian community excommunicated from the Jewish synagogue (probably meaning the Jewish community)[51] on account of its belief in Jesus as the promised messiah.[52] This interpretation, which saw the community as essentially sectarian and outside the mainstream of early Christianity, has been increasingly challenged in the first decades of the 21st century,[15] and there is currently considerable debate over the gospel's social, religious and historical context.[16]
The majority of scholars see four sections in the Gospel of John: aprologue (1:1–18); an account of the ministry, often called the "Book of Signs" (1:19–12:50); the account of Jesus's final night with his disciples and the passion and resurrection, sometimes called theBook of Glory[19] orBook of Exaltation (13:1–20:31);[18] and a conclusion (20:30–31); to these is added an epilogue that most scholars believe was appended later by either the author of chapters 1–20 or by somebody else (Chapter 21).[19][53] Disagreement does exist; a growing number, such as Bauckham, andMark Goodacre,[54] argue that John 21 was part of the original work.[55][46][39][page needed]. John displays a profound coherence and unity throughout, and the view of the gospel as a communal product of multiple editions is today in retreat, as literary critics approach the work as a unitary text.[20]
The prologue informs readers of the true identity of Jesus, the Word of God through whom the world was created and who took on human form;[56] he came to the Jews and the Jews rejected him, but "to all who received him (the circle of Christian believers), who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God."[57]
Book of Signs (ministry of Jesus): Jesus calls his disciples and begins his earthly ministry.[58] He travels from place to place informing his hearers about God the Father in long discourses, offering eternal life to all who will believe, and performing miracles that prove the authenticity of his teachings, which creates tensions with the religious authorities (manifested as early as 5:17–18), who decide he must be eliminated.[58][59]
The Book of Glory tells of Jesus's return to his heavenly father: it tells how he prepares his disciples for their lives without his physical presence and his prayer for himself and for them, followed by his betrayal, arrest, trial, crucifixion and post-resurrection appearances.[59]
The conclusion sets out the purpose of the gospel, which is "that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name."[5]
The structure is highly schematic: there are seven "signs" culminating in theraising of Lazarus (foreshadowing theresurrection of Jesus) and seven "I am" sayings and discourses, culminating in Thomas's proclamation of the risen Jesus as "my Lord and my God" (the same title,dominus et deus, claimed by the EmperorDomitian, is an indication of the date of composition).[4]
Scholars agree that while the Gospel of John clearly regards Jesus as divine, it just as clearly subordinates him to the one God.[61]Joseph Ratzinger highlights the link of the Gospel with theOld Testament,[62] while according toJames Dunn, this Christology does not describe a subordinationist relation but rather the authority and validity of the Son's "revelation" of the Father, the continuity between the Father and the Son. Dunn sees this as intended to serve the Logos Christology,[63] while others (e.g.,Andrew Loke) see it as connected to John'sincarnation theme.[64] James Barker argues that important aspects of Trinitarianism are present in the New Testament and that an economic Trinity "stood ready-made in the Gospel of John."[65]Larry Hurtado argues that while the developed doctrine of the Trinity is not explicit in the books that constitute theNew Testament, they possess atriadic understanding of God[66] and contain a number ofTrinitarian formulas.[67][68] John's "high Christology" depicts Jesus as divine and preexistent, defends him against Jewish claims that he was "making himself equal to God",[69][21] and talks openly about his divine role and echoingYahweh's "I Am that I Am" with seven "I Am" declarations of his own.[70][d] At the same time there is a stress like that inLuke on the physical continuity of Jesus's resurrected body, as Jesus tellsThomas: "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."[78][79]
In the prologue, the gospel identifies Jesus as theLogos or Word. InAncient Greek philosophy, the termlogos meant the principle of cosmic reason.[80] In this sense, it was similar to the Hebrew concept ofWisdom, God's companion and intimate helper in creation.[81] TheHellenistic Jewish philosopherPhilo merged these two themes when he described the Logos as God's creator of and mediator with the material world. According toStephen Harris, the gospel adapted Philo's description of the Logos, applying it to Jesus, theincarnation of the Logos.[82]
Another possibility is that the titlelogos is based on the concept of the divine Word found in theTargums (Aramaic translation/interpretations recited in the synagogue after the reading of the Hebrew Scriptures). In the Targums (which all postdate the first century but which give evidence of preserving early material), the concept of the divine Word was used in a manner similar to Philo, namely, for God's interaction with the world (starting from creation) and especially with his people. Israel, for example, was saved from Egypt by action of "the Word of the LORD", and both Philo and the Targums envision the Word as manifested between the cherubim and the Holy of Holies.[83]
The portrayal of Jesus's death in John is unique among the gospels. It does not appear to rely on the kinds of atonement theology indicative of vicarious sacrifice[84] but rather presents Jesus's death as his glorification and return to the Father. Likewise, the Synoptic Gospels' three "passion predictions"[85] are replaced by three instances of Jesus explaining how he will be exalted or "lifted up".[86] The verb for "lifted up" (Ancient Greek:ὑψωθῆναι,hypsōthēnai) reflects thedouble entendre at work in John's theology of the cross, for Jesus is both physically elevated from the earth at thecrucifixion but also, at the same time, exalted and glorified.[87]
John's Gospel intimately links the crucifixion with themes of new birth and eternal life. Jesus' statement in John 3:14-15 likens his being "lifted up" to the bronze serpent in the wilderness, indicating that belief in the crucified Christ confers eternal life. Hence, the cross inaugurates a new covenantal reality and the possibility of spiritual rebirth. This emphasizes the life-giving rather than punitive aspects of Jesus' death.[88]
Scholars disagree on whether and how frequently John refers tosacraments, but current scholarly opinion is that there are very few such possible references, and that if they exist they are limited tobaptism and theEucharist.[89] In fact, there is no institution of the Eucharist in John's account of theLast Supper (it is replaced by Jesus washing the feet of his disciples), and no New Testament text that unambiguously links baptism with rebirth.[90]
Compared to the synoptic gospels, John is markedly individualistic, in the sense that it places emphasis more on the individual's relation to Jesus than on the corporate nature of the Church.[91][92] This is largely accomplished through the consistently singular grammatical structure of various aphoristic sayings of Jesus.[91][e] Emphasis on believers coming into a new group upon their conversion is conspicuously absent from John,[91] and there is a theme of "personal coinherence", that is, the intimate personal relationship between the believer and Jesus in which the believer "abides" in Jesus and Jesus in the believer.[92][91][f] John's individualistic tendencies could give rise to arealized eschatology achieved on the level of the individual believer, but this realized eschatology is not to replace "orthodox", futurist eschatological expectations, but to be "only [their] correlative".[93]
John's account of John the Baptist is different from that of the synoptic gospels. In this gospel, John is not called "the Baptist."[94] John the Baptist's ministry overlaps withthat of Jesus; hisbaptism of Jesus is not explicitly mentioned, but his witness to Jesus is unambiguous.[94] The evangelist almost certainly knew the story of John's baptism of Jesus, and makes a vital theological use of it.[95] He subordinates John to Jesus, perhaps in response to members of John's sect who regarded the Jesus movement as an offshoot of theirs.[96]
In the Gospel of John, Jesus and his disciples go to Judea early in Jesus's ministry before John the Baptist was imprisoned and executed byHerod Antipas. He leads a ministry of baptism larger than John's own. TheJesus Seminar rated this account as black, containing no historically accurate information.[97] According to the biblical historians at the Jesus Seminar, John likely had a larger presence in the public mind than Jesus.[98]
In the first half of the 20th century, many scholars, especiallyRudolph Bultmann, argued that the Gospel of John has elements in common withGnosticism.[96] Some scholars still claim such tendencies in the gospel, but given that the oldest text certainly known to be Gnostic, theApocrypha of John, is from the mid-second century, such a paradigm is likely flawed,[99] and most scholars consider the Gnosticism question closed.[100][101] Christian Gnosticism did not fully develop until the mid-2nd century, and so 2nd-centuryProto-Orthodox Christians concentrated much effort in examining and refuting it.[102] To say the Gospel of John contained elements of Gnosticism is to assume that Gnosticism had developed to a level that required the author to respond to it.[103] Bultmann, for example, argued that the opening theme of the Gospel of John, the preexisting Logos, along with John's duality of light versus darkness, were originally Gnostic themes that John adopted. Other scholars (e.g.,Raymond E. Brown) have argued that the preexisting Logos theme arises from the more ancient Jewish writings in the eighth chapter of theBook of Proverbs, and was fully developed as a theme in Hellenistic Judaism byPhilo Judaeus.[104] The discovery of theDead Sea Scrolls atQumran verified the Jewish nature of these concepts.[105]April DeConick, as well as some 19th-century theologians,[106] suggested reading John 8:44 in support of a Gnostic theology and that the natural reading would be "ye are of the father of the Devil",[107] but this has been disputed.[108]
Gnostics read John but interpreted it differently from non-Gnostics.[109] Gnosticism taught that salvation came fromgnosis, secret knowledge, and Gnostics saw Jesus as not a savior but a revealer of knowledge.[110] The gospel teaches that salvation can be achieved only through revealed wisdom, specifically belief in (literally beliefinto) Jesus.[111] John's picture of a supernatural savior who promised to return to take those who believed in him to a heavenly dwelling could be fitted into Gnostic views.[112] It has been suggested that similarities between the Gospel of John and Gnosticism may spring from common roots in JewishApocalyptic literature.[113]
The Gospel of John is significantly different from thesynoptic gospels in the selection of its material, its theological emphasis, its chronology, and literary style, with some of its discrepancies amounting to contradictions.[114] The patterns of variation found in the gospels are typical of ancient biographies about actual people and history.[115] The following are some examples of their differences in just one area, that of the material they include in their narratives:[116]
In the Synoptics, the ministry of Jesus takes a single year, but in John it takes three, as evidenced by references to three Passovers. Events are not all in the same order: the date of the crucifixion is different, as is the time of Jesus' anointing in Bethany and thecleansing of the Temple, which occurs in the beginning of Jesus' ministry rather than near its end.[117] Ancient compositional practices involved chronological displacement and compression, with even reliable biographers likePlutarch displaying them.[118]
Many incidents from John, such as the wedding in Cana, the encounter of Jesus with the Samaritan woman at the well, and theraising of Lazarus, are not paralleled in the synoptics. Scholarship has turned against positing hypothetical sources for John,[34] with the majority of scholars today agreeing that the existence of a single source for the miracles in John is highly unlikely.[119] Some believe the author drew these from an independent source called the "signs gospel", the speeches of Jesus from a second "discourse" source,[120][38] and the prologue from an early hymn.[121] The gospel makes extensive use of the Jewish scriptures:[120] John quotes from them directly, references important figures from them, and uses narratives from them as the basis for several of the discourses. The author was also familiar with non-Jewish sources: the Logos of the prologue (the Word that is with God from the beginning of creation), for example, was derived from both the Jewish concept of Lady Wisdom and from the Greek philosophers, John 6 alludes not only tothe exodus but also to Greco-Roman mystery cults, and John 4 alludes toSamaritan messianic beliefs.[122]
John lacks scenes from the Synoptics such as Jesus's baptism,[123] the calling of the Twelve, exorcisms, parables, and the Transfiguration. Conversely, it includes scenes not found in the Synoptics, including Jesus turning water into wine at the wedding at Cana, the resurrection of Lazarus, Jesus washing the feet of his disciples, and multiple visits to Jerusalem.[117]
In the fourth gospel, Jesus's motherMary is mentioned in three passages but not named.[124][125] John does assert that Jesus was known as the "son ofJoseph" in6:42.[126] For John, Jesus's town of origin is irrelevant, for he comes from beyond this world, fromGod the Father.[127]
Jesus is identified with the Word ("Logos"), and the Word is identified withtheos ("god" in Greek);[133] the Synoptics make no such identification.[134] In Mark, Jesus urges his disciples to keep his divinity secret, but in John he is very open in discussing it, even calling himself "I AM", the title God gives himself inExodus at his self-revelation toMoses. In the Synoptics, the chief theme is theKingdom of God and theKingdom of Heaven (the latter specifically in Matthew), while John's theme is Jesus as the source of eternal life, and the Kingdom is only mentioned twice.[117][131] Lindars argues that the “I am” sayings were concerned with issues of thechurch–synagogue debate at the time of composition).[135] In contrast to the synoptic expectation of the Kingdom (using the termparousia, meaning "coming"), John presents a more individualistic,realized eschatology.[136][g]
In the Synoptics, quotations of Jesus are usually in the form of short, pithy sayings; in John, longer quotations are often given. The vocabulary is also different, and filled with theological import: in John, Jesus does not work "miracles", but "signs" that unveil his divine identity.[117] Most scholars consider John not to contain anyparables. Rather, it containsmetaphorical stories orallegories, such as those of theGood Shepherd and theTrue Vine, in which each element corresponds to a specific person, group, or thing. Other scholars consider stories like the childbearing woman[138] or the dying grain[139] to be parables.[h]
According to the Synoptics, Jesus's arrest was a reaction to the cleansing of the temple; according to John, it was triggered by the raising of Lazarus.[117] ThePharisees, portrayed as more uniformly legalistic and opposed to Jesus in the synoptic gospels, are portrayed as sharply divided; they frequently debate. Some, such asNicodemus, even go so far as to be at least partially sympathetic to Jesus. This is believed to be a more accurate historical depiction of the Pharisees, who made debate one of the tenets of their belief system.[140]
In place of the communal emphasis of the Pauline literature, John stresses the personal relationship of the individual to God.[91]
The Gospel of John and the threeJohannine epistles exhibit strong resemblances in theology and style; theBook of Revelation has also been traditionally linked with these, but differs from the gospel and letters in style and even theology.[141] The letters were written later than the gospel, and while the gospel reflects the break between the Johannine Christians and the Jewish synagogue, in the letters the Johannine community itself is disintegrating ("They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out..." - 1 John 2:19).[142] This secession was overChristology, the "knowledge of Christ", or more accurately the understanding of Christ's nature, for the ones who "went out" hesitated to identify Jesus with Christ, minimising the significance of the earthly ministry and denying the salvific importance of Jesus's death on the cross.[143] The epistles argue against this view, stressing the eternal existence of the Son of God, the salvific nature of his life and death, and the other elements of the gospel's "high" Christology.[143]
Jesus's teachings in the Synoptics greatly differ from those in John. Since the 19th century, scholars have almost unanimously accepted that the Johannine discourses are less likely to be historical than the synoptic parables, and were likely written for theological purposes.[144] Nevertheless, they generally agree that John is not without historical value. Some potential points of value include early provenance for some Johannine material, topographical references forJerusalem andJudea, Jesus's crucifixion occurring prior to the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and his arrest in thegarden occurring after the accompanying deliberation of Jewish authorities.[145][146][147]
Recent scholarship has argued for a more favourable reappraisal of the historical value of the Gospel of John and its importance for the reconstruction of the historical Jesus, based on recent archaeological and literary studies.[148][149][150][151][152] The works of the John, Jesus, and History Seminar have contributed to the overthrow of the previous consensus that the gospel of John was of no historical value, and many scholars now see John as a source for theHistorical Jesus.[153]
Parts of the gospel have been set to music. One such setting isSteve Warner's power anthem "Come and See", written for the 20th anniversary of the Alliance for Catholic Education and including lyrical fragments taken from theBook of Signs. Additionally, some composers have made settings of thePassion as portrayed in the gospel, most notablyJohann Sebastian Bach'sSt John Passion, although some of its verses are fromMatthew.
^The book is sometimes called theGospel according to John (Ancient Greek:Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ἰωάννην,romanized: Euangélion katà Iōánnēn), or simplyJohn[2] (which is also its most common form of abbreviation).[3]
^Reddish says these verses imply that the core of the gospel relies on the testimony (perhaps written) of the "disciple who is testifying", as collected, preserved, and reshaped by a community of followers (the "we" of the passage), and that a single follower (the "I") rearranged this material and perhaps added the final chapter and other passages to produce the final gospel. He acknowledges that this scenario could be a forced or simplistic understanding of the text.[12]
^Attridge: The final reference (John 21:24) makes the claim that this figure is "the one who wrote these things." Most scholars construe the verse to claim that the Beloved Disciple authored the text, or at least chapters 1-20. Some, however, have argued that the passage merely claims that the Beloved Disciple is the authoritative witness who caused the work to be written, or who perhaps wrote an early account of Jesus on which the final gospel was based.
^Bauckham 2015a contrasts John's consistent use of the third person singular ("The one who..."; "If anyone..."; "Everyone who..."; "Whoever..."; "No one...") with the alternative third person plural constructions the author could have used instead ("Those who..."; "All those who..."; etc.). He also notes that the sole exception occurs in the prologue, serving a narrative purpose, whereas the later aphorisms serve a "paraenetic function".
^Realized eschatology is aChristian eschatological theory popularized byC. H. Dodd (1884–1973). It holds that the eschatological passages in theNew Testament do not refer to future events, but instead to theministry of Jesus and his lasting legacy.[137] In other words, it holds that Christian eschatological expectations have already been realized or fulfilled.
^Neirynck, Frans (1991).Evangelica II: 1982-1991 : Collected Essays. Uitgeverij Peeters.ISBN9789061864530.
^Matkin, J. Michael (2005).The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Gnostic Gospels. Penguin.ISBN9781440696510.but there is no consensus as to the Beloved Disciple's actual identity
^abGoodacre, Mark (2025).The Fourth Synoptic Gospel: John’s Knowledge of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Eerdmans. p. 237.ISBN978-0802875136.
^Anderson, Paul (2024).John, Jesus, and History Volume 4. SBL Press. p. 2.ISBN9781628376074.
^Goodacre, Mark (2012).Thomas and the Gospels: The Case for Thomas's Familiarity with the Synoptics. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. p. 175.ISBN978-0802867483.
^Mendez, Hugo (2020). "Did the Johannine Community Exist?".Journal for the Study of the New Testament.42 (3):350–374.doi:10.1177/0142064X19890490 – via Sage.
^Thompson, Marianne (2015).John: A Commentary. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 432.ISBN978-0664221119.Taken together, these features-the plausible ending of the Gospel at 20:30-31; the unanticipated narrative elements introduced in chapter 21; the focused articulation of the distinctive roles of Simon Peter and the beloved disciple, and the anticipation of their deaths-have led some interpreters to regard John 21 as an extended epilogue to the Gospel, added after it was essentially finished, either by the author of the earlier chapters or by someone else.
^abKeith 2020, pp. 132, 155: "Placing myself in a growing minority of Johannine scholars, I presently consider John 21 a constituent part of the early text of the Gospel of John. I am not blind to the narrative and vocabulary curiosities of John 21 that cause most scholars to view it as a later addition. Yet, in light of the fact that linguistic style is an unreliable indicator of authorial origin, the fact that one can equally read John 21 as a planned epilogue to the Gospel, and, most important, the absence of any early manuscript or patristic evidence that the Gospel of John circulated without John 21, I view it as original until further evidence emerges."
^Eve, Eric (2014).Behind the Gospels: Understanding the Oral Tradition. Fortress Press. p. 135.ISBN978-1-4514-8753-4.
^Thompson, Marianne (2015).John: A Commentary. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 432.ISBN978-0-66422111-9.Taken together, these features-the plausible ending of the Gospel at 20:30–31; the unanticipated narrative elements introduced in chapter 21; the focused articulation of the distinctive roles of Simon Peter and the beloved disciple, and the anticipation of their deaths-have led some interpreters to regard John 21 as an extended epilogue to the Gospel, added after it was essentially finished, either by the author of the earlier chapters or by someone else.
^Goodacre, Mark (2025).The Fourth Synoptic Gospel: John’s Knowledge of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Eerdmans. p. 223.ISBN978-0-80287513-6.I am treating the gospel as a whole and do not share the common view that John 21 was a later addition.
^Januariy, Archimandrite (2013) [2003]. "The Elements of Triadology in the New Testament". InStewart, Melville Y. (ed.).The Trinity: East/West Dialogue. Volume 24 of Studies in Philosophy and Religion. Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media. p. 100.ISBN978-94-017-0393-2. Retrieved21 December 2021.Trinitarian formulas are found in New Testament books such as 1 Peter 1:2; and 2 Cor 13:13. But the formula used by John the mystery-seer is unique. Perhaps it shows John's original adaptation of Paul's dual formula.
^Vytlačilová, Magdalena (2023). "Jesus, the Gospels, and the Galilean Crisis by Tucker S. Ferda (review)".Neotestamentica.57 (1):197–202.doi:10.1353/neo.2023.a938405.
^Runesson, Anders (2021).Jesus, New Testament, Christian Origins. Eerdmans. p. 644.ISBN9780802868923.
^"Historical Criticism".The Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus. Routledge. 2008. p. 283.ISBN978-041588088-6.
^Davies, W. D.; Sanders, E.P. (2008). "20. Jesus: From the Jewish Point of View". In Horbury, William; Davies, W.D.; Sturdy, John (eds.).The Cambridge History of Judaism. Vol. 3: The Early Roman period. Cambridge Univiversity Press. p. 620.ISBN978-0-52124377-3.
^The Jesus Handbook. William. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 2022. pp. 138–140.ISBN9780802876928.
^Blomberg, Craig (2011).The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel: Issues and Commentary. IVP Academic.ISBN978-0830838714.
^Massey, Brandon. "The Quest for the Historical Jesus, 2000-2023".Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus.21 (1–2): 64.
Keith, Chris (2020).The Gospel as Manuscript: An Early History of the Jesus Tradition as Material Artifact. Oxford University Press.ISBN978-0199384372.
Kovacs, Judith L. (1995). "Now Shall the Ruler of This World Be Driven Out: Jesus' Death as Cosmic Battle in John 12:20–36".Journal of Biblical Literature.114 (2):227–47.doi:10.2307/3266937.JSTOR3266937.
.jpg)
_recto_John_18%2c_31-33.jpg)
.png)
.jpg)
