A deviant account

The Gospel of John is strikingly distinct from the other gospels. In the first three Gospels, Jesus appears human, even though an enigmatic one. In the Gospel of John, he appears godlike. The Gospel of John is more recent than the other gospels and biblical scholars believe Christians had deified Jesus by that time. Only, that is not correct. Christians worshipped Jesus as a godlike creature very early on. In the Epistle to the Philippians, Paul cites a poem stating Jesus is in the form of God (Philippians 2:6-11). Scholars believe it is an older poem dating from the earliest days of Christianity.¹

Other scholars believe there had been a separate Johannine community in Syria, with the Gospel of John and the letters of John as its scriptures. These writings point to an intense devotion to Jesus as the definitive revelation of God with whom they were in close contact through the Holy Spirit. Only the Johannine scriptures use the phrase born of God indicating God could be a Mother. Scholars think the Odes of Solomon, which include the Ode 19 with the feminine attributes of God the Father, relate to the Gospel of John and the Dead Sea scrolls. The author might have been an Essene convert to the Johannine community. That does not appear a mere coincidence

The Johannine community was distinct from the Jewish Christians and its writings reflect anti-Jewish sentiments. To Jews, it is strange and blasphemous to say that God is a woman, Jesus is godlike and that they married. To people from the surrounding cultures, such as Greek, Roman and Egyptian, it is not unusual to worship female deities, deify humans and believe that gods mate with humans. To his non-Jewish followers, Christ was godlike, not a human Jewish prophet. Otherwise, they would not have followed him. What business would they have had with a human Jewish prophet?

At first, most Christians were Jewish. Their religion would not have permitted them to see God as a woman and Christ as a godlike figure. But Christianity had non-Jewish converts very early on. And educated Hellenistic Jews were often open to innovation because of their contact with surrounding cultures. Around 42 AD, a group of Christians founded a church in Antioch in the Roman province of Syria where the Johannine community supposedly was located. They were thrown out of the synagogue and became refugees fleeing persecution, possibly because of their views concerning God and the godlike nature of Christ.

The author of the Gospel of John wrote in good Greek and used a sophisticated theology with seven signs and Jesus seven times saying, ‘I am.’ He might have used several sources, such as the Gospel of Mark and Luke, and documents that do not exist any more. It is unlikely that a disciple compiled the final version. But one of the primary sources could have been much older, possibly an insider account written by a disciple. Alternatively, the gospel developed inside a tradition that understood the nature of the relationship between God and Jesus as the eternal marriage of Eve and Adam. There is not much certainty as arguments run into contradictions. For instance, the Gospel of John indicates Jesus’ ministry lasted three years, suggesting more detailed historical knowledge of the original author. But the number three has theological significance as it is the heavenly number. And so, the author may have rearranged the story accordingly. The Gospel of John also says a disciple wrote it, which could be a remnant of a source. The other Gospels do not say that, and Luke notes that his account was handed down to him by others. But the last chapter of John featuring this statement could be a later addition, as the previous chapter already has a closing.

Hence, the close relationship between God and Jesus, and Jesus believing himself to be eternal, likely has a historical origin. It agrees with Jesus being Adam, the everlasting husband of God, the Alpha and the Omega. It would make him both human and godlike. Jews had difficulties with this because of their religion, but others did not have that limitation. The Gospel of John probably has undergone several redactions. If one of the sources is an insider account or the Johannine community did not have the theological restrictions of Judaism, the Gospel of John could reveal more and be more historically accurate than the other gospels or represent the earliest beliefs more accurately, most notably after identifying and eliminating these redactions. John could thus be the most revealing about the nature of the relationship between God and Christ. It is not what most biblical scholars believe, but it could explain a few things. And that is why it might be so.

Platonic birth

The beginning of John tells us nothing about the early life of Jesus. Instead, it gives a creation myth in abstract wording. Why write an alternative creation story? Does Genesis not suffice? Not if Jesus was Adam, and Adam the Son of Eve, who was God and the Mother of All the Living. The following phrases are noteworthy, ‘In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind,’ and, ‘He gave the right to become children of God -children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.’

Jesus gave us life and the right to become children of God. If he was Adam, he fathered humankind, and because his wife was Eve, we are all children of God, at least if you believe that we all descend from Eve and Adam. The Quran says, “Truly, the likeness of Jesus, in God’s sight, is as Adam’s likeness, He created him of dust, then said He unto him, ‘Be,’ and he was.” (Quran 3:59) We can speculate that the beginning of John might at first have started with Eve giving birth to Adam and taking him as Her husband.

That did not agree with the account of Creation in Genesis. The scribes may have devised this Platonic formula to obfuscate the details. And Platonic thinking is abstract. It is about ideas, not facts. That was convenient indeed. Apart from the theological controversy, there may have been another reason. Eve marrying Her son Adam carries a lewd suggestion. That may have caused problems in early Christian communities.

In the first epistle to the Corinthians, Paul writes, ‘It is reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. And you are proud!’ (1 Corinthians 5:1-2). The scribes may later have watered down this controversial fragment so this man may have slept with his mother. After all, it is sexual immorality that even pagans do not tolerate, so it was one of the worst possible sins. And the Christians in Corinth were proud of it, which is a remarkable response. Perhaps this man believed he followed the example of Christ.

And so, under the influence of Platonic thinking, the Word became flesh in the form of Jesus (John 1:14). The phrasing born of God suggests the original author knew God was a Mother. The author affirms this by expounding on that birth. When arguing with Jesus, the Pharisee Nicodemus noted that you cannot enter a second time into your mother’s womb to be born again (John 3:4). Nicodemus may have correctly understood what Jesus meant, which is that Christians are figuratively born of God’s womb and that God is a Mother. Jesus gave it a spiritual meaning in his answer, ‘No one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.’ (John 3:5)

The wedding

There was a wedding in Galilee (John 2:1-10). Jesus was there, as were his mother and his disciples. When the wine was gone, his mother told Jesus there was no more wine. That would not have been his concern unless he was the Bridegroom. Then Jesus answered, ‘Woman, why do you involve me? My hour has not yet come.’ It could mean that Jesus was not the Bridegroom and was about to be married too. He called his mother ‘woman’. The reason might be that he considered God his Mother. Jesus started doing miracles at this wedding by turning water into wine. Perhaps he became the Christ through this wedding. Hence, it may have been his wedding, and the scribes may have changed the narrative to make it appear that it was not.

Then John comes with a statement not found in the other Gospels, “A person can receive only what is given them from heaven. You yourselves can testify that I said: ‘I am not the Messiah but am sent ahead of him.’ The Bride belongs to the Bridegroom. The friend who attends the Bridegroom waits and listens for him and is full of joy when he hears the Bridegroom’s voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete. He must become greater; I must become less.” (John 3:27-30) Jesus was the Messiah because he was the Bridegroom in a heavenly marriage. The other Gospels also indicate Jesus was the Bridegroom (Matthew 9:15, Mark 2:19 and Luke 5:34).

I and the Father are one

Jesus called God Father, making himself equal with God, so the Jews wanted to persecute him, the Gospel of John says (John 5:16-18). Jesus made other claims in this vein. If the Gospel of John is a redacted insider account, these assertions may reflect Jesus’ words. If Jesus believed himself to be Adam, he could have said, ‘Before Abraham was born, I was.’ And not, ‘Before Abraham was born, I am.’ (John 8:58). The wording ‘I am’ in this phrase implies the godlike nature of Christ and existence before creation. It refers to God saying to Moses, ‘I Am Who I Am [Who Always Has Been And Will Always Be],’ and, “This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I Am has sent me to you.'” (Exodus 3:14) The wording in John implies that Jesus is God, always existing, the alpha and the omega.

Then comes an intriguing assertion, ‘I and the Father are one.’ (John 10:30) Jesus claimed to be a god, so the Jews wanted to stone him for blasphemy (John 10:33). But Jesus may have meant something else. Marriage is a way to become one with another person (Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:4-6). If Jesus had implied that he was married to God, it would still have been blasphemy to the Jews. If Mary Magdalene had remained in the background to let Jesus do Her bidding, and Jesus believed himself to be Adam from whom all of humanity descends, Jesus may have said, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Mother except through me.’ (John 14:6)

Jesus’ claims caused conflict among the Jews. On the one hand, he did miracles, but on the other hand, he offended the Jews by making outrageous claims. The Jews lived under Roman rule. The Romans did not care about someone claiming to be God’s husband or any other particularity that offended the Jews. For Pilate, it was hard to bring up a charge against him (John 19:4). The way to get Jesus convicted was by claiming he was a rebel leader. Claiming to be a son of God implies being King of the Jews. And that was the offence for which the Romans convicted him (John 19:19).

Love is a central theme, ‘As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.’ (John 15:9-12) That is an unusual amount of love. If Jesus was God’s husband, you can see why he said it. That brings us to the loving and intimate relationship that Mary Magdalene and Jesus may have had. The Gospel of John features the anonymous beloved disciple who at the end of the gospel claims to have written it. There has been speculation this disciple was Mary Magdalene.

The beloved disciple

The mysterious, beloved disciple appears only in the Gospel of John. So, why is it so secretive about the beloved disciple? If the scribes had removed the marriage between Mary Magdalene and Jesus from the Gospel, they might have changed Mary Magdalene’s role to the beloved disciple. To become the beloved disciple, She had to take over Simon Peter’s role, who was Jesus’ favourite disciple. Hence, they created this separate disciple from thin air by extracting him from Simon Peter. That might be why this disciple acted like a shadow of Simon Peter throughout the story, except for the scene at the cross. If the beloved disciple had been Mary Magdalene, that would still raise questions regarding the nature of their relationship or raise women to a position of authority. So, in a later redaction, the scribes may have made the beloved disciple an anonymous person separate from Mary Magdalene and suggested he was Jesus’ brother.

This perspective proves to be illuminating. Look at the following fragment, “Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother there and the disciple he loved standing nearby, he said to her, ‘Woman, here is your son,’ and to the disciple, ‘Here is your mother.’ From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.” (John 19:25-27) If you take the text literally, the beloved disciple was Jesus’ brother. Jesus’ mother was also his mother. That might also explain why he took her into his home. The confusion becomes all the greater as Jesus supposedly had two apostles named James. One was Jesus’ brother, while the other was John’s brother.

The fragment also says four women were near the cross, suggesting no men were present. And so, the beloved disciple must be one of these four women. The most likely candidate would be Mary Magdalene. Like John, Mark and Matthew suggest only women followers were near the cross (Mark 15:40, Matthew 27:55–56). Luke is less specific and says all who knew him, including the women (Luke 23:48). That contradicts Mark and Matthew stating that all the disciples had fled (Mark 14:50, Matthew 26:56). John does not mention the fleeing of the male disciples but does not note their presence either.

Perhaps Jesus said to Mary Magdalene, ‘Mother, here is your son.’ And then to his birth mother, ‘Here is your Mother.’ A few arguments could support this view. First, it is odd not to say mother but, ‘Woman, here is your son.’ Second, it is more likely that Mary Magdalene took Jesus’ birth mother into Her home than a male disciple, unless he was Jesus’ brother. The Gospels mention a group of female disciples travelling with Jesus (Luke 8:1-3). And they were a separate group led by Mary Magdalene, and they probably took care of each other. Third, how could Jesus tell a disciple, ‘Here is your mother.’ After all, it was Jesus’ mother. Fourth, by all accounts, Simon Peter was Jesus’ favourite apostle. For instance, Jesus had asked him to care for the sheep (John 21:15-18). Only he supposedly had fled the crucifixion scene and was not present.

According to Paul, Simon Peter saw the resurrected Jesus first, and then Jesus appeared to the other disciples (1 Corinthians 15:4-6). It probably is a statement of faith handed over to Paul. It was an early belief dating only a few years after Jesus’ death. And it agrees with Simon Peter being Jesus’ favourite disciple. The Gospel of John tells a different story. It claims that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw the stone removed from the entrance. She then ran to Simon Peter and the beloved disciple and said, ‘They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have put him!’ So Peter and the beloved disciple went to the tomb. The beloved disciple came there first but did not go in. Then Simon Peter arrived and went into the tomb (John 20:1-6).

Then the beloved disciple also went in and saw and believed (John 20:8). The beloved disciple saw and came to faith, but two men were inside. Remarkably, it is not Simon Peter who saw and believed, even though he was the first to go inside. The beloved disciple could be a later addition. If so, Simon Peter probably saw and came to faith first. An empty tomb alone would not have made him think Jesus had risen. He may have seen Jesus there, apparently alive. The beloved disciple acts as a shadow of Simon Peter. The Gospel of John now tells Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene first (John 20:11-18). The following steps of editing seem plausible:

1. In the original story, Mary Magdalene told Simon Peter, who was the disciple Jesus loved, that Jesus had disappeared from the tomb. Simon Peter went in, saw Jesus there, and believed, just like Paul says.
2. Mary Magdalene became the beloved disciple, so Jesus had to appear to Her first. And so, Simon Peter saw and believed. The scribes only had to remove the word Jesus there. Jesus then appeared to Mary Magdalene in a newly added section.
3. Mary Magdalene and the beloved disciple became separate persons. So, Mary Magdalene spoke to Simon Peter and the beloved disciple, and both went into the tomb, and the beloved disciple saw and believed. Mary Magdalene remained the one who saw Jesus first.

After this episode, Jesus appeared to the disciples (John 20:19-23). Paul tells the same in 1 Corinthians 15, suggesting this reconstructed account reflects the earliest beliefs. Mary Magdalene may have set in motion the resurrection beliefs by inviting Simon Peter to the tomb, and if She was God, She knew what he was about to find there.

The beloved disciple enters the story at the Last Supper when he asks Jesus who is about to betray him, “After he had said this, Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified, ‘Very truly I tell you, one of you is going to betray me.’ His disciples stared at one another, at a loss to know which of them he meant. One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him. Simon Peter motioned to this disciple and said, ‘Ask him which one he means.’ Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, ‘Lord, who is it?'” (John 13:21-25) Simon Peter was the one who wanted to know. And so, he may originally have been the disciple who asked Jesus who was about to betray him.

The final chapter of the Gospel of John mentions a rumour amongst believers that the beloved disciple would not die. Jesus believed some of his disciples would die while others would live to see his return (Mark 8:34-38, 9:1). In John, Jesus said, ‘Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death.’ And so, other explanations are possible than the one that follows now. The wording is most peculiar (John 21:20-23):

Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the Supper and had said, ‘Lord, who is going to betray you?’) When Peter saw him, he asked, ‘Lord, what about him?’ Jesus answered, ‘If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.’ Because of this, the rumour spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, ‘If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?

The text implies the rumour was the beloved disciple would not die at all, not merely until Jesus would return. Otherwise, the gospel would not note it so explicitly. Why might this disciple not die at all? Why only the beloved disciple? And why mention the rumour and try to dispel it? The rumour makes sense if Mary Magdalene was God and had become the beloved disciple in an earlier redaction. Simon Peter might have discussed Mary Magdalene’s immortality with Jesus. After all, Simon Peter probably was Jesus’ favourite disciple. But the last chapter of John, where this scene takes place, could be a later addition as the previous chapter already has a closing.

Here again, the beloved disciple appears as a shadow of Simon Peter, as he did at the Supper and the entering of the tomb. The beloved disciple allegedly wrote this document (John 20:24), but that is at odds with the third-person usage and the supposed modifications. It is, however, possible, or even likely, that an insider wrote parts of the original text or that someone put the testimony of a disciple into writing. But whatever position you take, you run into contradictions. The reason probably is that the history of the text is complicated with many redactions.

The validity of the Gospel

The resolution of the contradictions comes with another conclusion. Without the supposed redactions regarding the beloved disciple, John agrees with the statement of faith handed over to Paul (1 Corinthians 15:4-6). Thus, the source of the Gospel of John might correctly reflect the earliest beliefs regarding the resurrection. That might make the Gospel of John the most reliable account of what transpired. Jesus appeared to at least some of his disciples shortly after the crucifixion. They may have altered the story for religious reasons, for instance, by making Jesus appear after three days to all disciples. But one cannot imagine Christianity without Jesus appearing to some of them. On the issue of resurrection, the Gospel of John is true insofar as it reflects those earliest beliefs.

Historians and biblical scholars doubt the resurrection and the miracles Jesus performed because they cannot assume they happened. These miracles go against the laws of nature, while many parts of the Bible are inaccurate or fictional. In virtual reality, miracles can occur. And a physical body is as virtual as a ghost appearance. If the Gospel of John is a redacted insider account, it can be more accurate or more telling than most biblical scholars and historians nowadays assume. John could also be more accurate or more telling than the other gospels as they probably are not insider accounts and may come from a tradition hostile to the idea of God being a woman who married Jesus.

Remarkably absent in John is the story of Jesus’ transfiguration. It is present in Mark, Matthew and Luke. If John is more accurate, the transfiguration could be a myth and the resurrection a fact. To Christians, the transfiguration is evidence of the divinity of Jesus. The reason for inventing the transfiguration story may have been to make Jesus fulfil an earlier prediction of the prophet Malachi. But there was no prophecy indicating the resurrection of the Messiah. The Christians had to make something out of it. After all, they saw it as evidence that Jesus was eternal and Adam as he claimed, so this unbiblical event proved that Jesus was the Messiah.

John does not mention breaking the bread and sharing the wine during the Last Supper. The body and blood of Christ, representing the new covenant, are part of the sacrificial lamb imagery that Paul may have introduced. Perhaps Jesus never said, ‘Take it; this is my body,’ nor, ‘This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.’ It is outside the Jewish tradition and part of the sacrificial lamb imagery. John is the most outside the Jewish tradition. If it had happened, John more likely would have mentioned it, and the other gospels more likely would have left it out.

It may be impossible to uncover all the redactions. The original text could date from decades before 70 AD if a disciple had been the author. The final version of this Gospel dates from around 100 AD, so it has the perspective of that era. After the Romans had destroyed the Jewish temple in 70 AD, Christians realised that Jesus might not return anytime soon. The character of Christianity changed accordingly, from expecting Jesus’ return with power and glory to having a personal bond with Jesus that gives access to eternal life. The Gospel of John reflects this change in outlook.

Figuratively speaking

In the Gospel of John, Jesus does not always speak in clear and precise terms. For instance, ‘I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you.’ (John 16:12-14) Muslims see these words as a prediction of the coming of Muhammad. But to make that argument convincing, the wording should have been more precise.

Chapter 16 of the Gospel of John excels in vagueness. It contains a remark that appears insignificant between all the obscurity but might be there for a reason, ‘Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father.’ (John 16:25) Why should Jesus not speak plainly about God? In the other gospels, he speaks plainly. The scribes who modified this gospel may have known what they were doing and realised the truth would come out one day. And that day may have come.

Latest revision: 11 November 2023

1. How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher. Bart D. Ehrman (2014). HarperCollins Publishers.