Who Really Wrote the Gospel of John?

Visit www.bartehrman... to shop from Bart Ehrman’s online courses and get a special discount by using code: MJPODCAST on all courses.
Almost everyone assumes that Jesus' disciple, John the Son of Zebedee, wrote the Gospel of John. But is there any compelling reason to think so? In this episode we look into many of the issues that most people have never thought about. Most, for example, do not realize that the author of this book never mentions John, let alone calls himself John. There is a person called "The Disciple Jesus loved" (mentioned in none of the other Gospels). But who is he? Why would anyone think he is John? Is it possible he's not a real person at all? Is, as often claimed, the author implying that it is he himself? (Bart will explain: No.) Apart from that, is it even possible that the historical John -- an Aramaic-speaking peasant called "illiterate" in the NT itself (Acts 4;13) -- could have written such a magificent book? Could he possibly have used a secretary. And if not John ... who did write the book? Tune in and see!
-As a quick recap for those listeners who may have missed our other episodes on the gospel of John, could you tell us roughly when and where it was written?
-The gospel of John doesn’t actually name its author - this isn’t terribly surprising, none of the other synoptic gospels do, either. Which “John” is attributed with its authorship, and when did this attribution first start?
-How does John, son of Zebedee, relate to the figure called “the Beloved Disciple”?
-Who are the other possible identities for the Beloved Disciple?
-Why was it decided that John, son of Zebedee, was the author?
-What do we know about this John historically?
-If John couldn’t write, could he have dictated his account to a secretary?
-Are there segments of the gospel itself that give any clues as to its authorship? (19:35, 21:24)
-Could you give us a little information about those passages?
-If we have little to no explicit information about the author preserved in the gospel itself, or in any other of our sources, is there anything about the literary style in which it was written that can be helpful in trying to answer this question? (multiple sources used to construct the gospel, not the unedited work of a single writer).
-What evidence do we have for the sources used to construct the gospel?
-In a previous podcast, you interviewed your colleague Hugo Mendez who argues that the Gospel of John is actually a forgery. What are your thoughts on that argument?

[@TerriKash-NEO]

Years ago I read Misquoting Jesus and it was a real page turner. In fact, though I wasnt religious but had been raised in the SDA church, I was interested. My parent had really suffered with religion going in and out of the church several times, and it was always tramatic and fulled with guilt. I never really believed since I was able to reason even a little bit maybe at the age of 8 or 9. I kept it to myself and didnt make waves. My parent is now 87 and though I would love for her to read Misquoting Jesus, I dont want to disturb her peace that there is an after life. However, for me that book changed my life and has allowed me to live without the fear and suffering that religion brought to my family. I was prety much there already, but I loved the scholarship and the logic that explained maybe why I just couldn't buy into religion. Thanks Doc.

[@markrossow6303]

[@Ididntaskforahandleyoutube]

Way to handle that with your parent. That's incredibly classy. Cheers

[@mr.c2485]

Kudos to you!

[@IQ_ImmortalQadi]

Yeah, i feel you it could be a lot sometimes. Perhaps you should consider reading the Noble Quran. I bet you will find it interesting, too.

[@bdwon]

Classy? Well, maybe. But I say lucky for Terri that her parents weren't so intrusive so as to interrogate her!@@Ididntaskforahandleyoutube

[@portalarizona]

Short answer: Nobody knows.

[@mooshei8165]

Now that is a true story. It’s the truth than whoever is writing the four gospel.

[@colinmilton8823]

The Roman Imperial Cult wrote it all originally to stop the Jewish messianic wars.

[@sinan_islam]

Imagine on the day of Judgement, you discover that the gospels were written by the Ancient Egyptian Polytheistic Pagans. Their faith is 99% same as Christianity. The only difference is the names of the characters.

[@vhawk1951kl]

spot on, not only does nobody know, it is a fool question because no body cares; it is a classic example of an utterly futile question, and a foolish use if the interrogatory 'who'.

[@ellenyoung9223]

I started out a huge fan of Bart, from decades ago, and now I’m also a huge fan of Megan. This is a great channel, so interesting.

[@Darisiabgal7573]

And she has her own channel, where she's been known to spin a few tales.

[@exaucemayunga22]

​@rayoshima3362 What's her channel called?

[@Darisiabgal7573]

@@exaucemayunga22 Digital Hammurabi

[@user-tf9no4yb2n]

Bart;Megnan,scholars &you will never know only guessing. Whatever your believe you will always wonderr why you are on earth. If you ask people who they are, they answer im a eg plumber had a wife 2 children ect thats not who are. Who are you and your life purpose(besides the bible and other religious beliefs and customs)& when you die what will your destination be, turn to ash/sand. ❤😅

[@martifingers]

Indeed. She asks all the questions you would like addressing and then some. Yet another example of these two smart people having an interesting discourse.

[@frankiee252]

Love your work Bart. Being a native North Carolinian, buckle of the Bible Belt, and knowing how hard it is to express your religious views here. I love that you teach, do your research here, and are able to bring more accurate historical views to a state that needs it greatly where the Bible is usually taught by a preacher who paid $15 buck online for a license, and just teaches what “he” thinks the Bible says to gain a pay check because that’s all the congregations want to hear. Again, thank you for your work and sharing it to the buckle and the world. It has educated me so much where I was totally wrong on what I thought I knew, or rather what I was indoctrinated to know. 👍👍

[@compositioncompilation]

Wasn't the Christian church under attack from Rome? John would perhaps have kept thst document close to him...but not wishing to alert the Romans who he was..the writer or author.. he disclaims authorship by saying he who says it is true ( referring to himself in a cryptic way to throw the potential Roman captors off the scent . For example..these days algorithms pick up on trigger words..if one wants to avoid alerting the algorithm for fear of discovery by agents , one will encrypt or use a code..to throw peering eyes or ears..off track.

[@nostalja77]

You have a low opinion of preachers, there are plenty of them from the liberal mainstream fold, but thats no excuse there are good sound Evangelical Bible based churches, thats where the TRUTH is. Its certainly not Bart Ehrman spewing his nonsense and making wild claims, attacking the Diety of Christ and so on. His heart and mind are darkened he can t see the light of Scripture. There is an afterlife, that is one thing you can be sure of, and only the Saviour can deliver us from damnation.

[@jeffreylehman1159]

@@nostalja77 It seems at least once a week that we hear of a preacher involved in sexual abuse of parishioners, often underage. Catholics of course also have issues there. I hear more hateful talk from so called Christian’s than I ever do from atheists. And if god loves us, why does he want to send everyone to hell? The whole thing stinks.

[@KaitlynBurnellMath]

I look forward to reading the gospel according to Bart!

[@leedoss6905]

😂

[@lawsonj39]

Me, too. So glad Megan commended the idea.

[@Ulyssestnt]

Me too,maybe in a 100 years someone misunderstands it and Bart becomes a new Messianic figure haha.

[@KaiHenningsen]

@@Ulyssestnt He's the famous founder of the Bartist religion. I can certainly see that, but I've trouble coming up with a belief system.

[@Ulyssestnt]

@@KaiHenningsen Sign me up as a church father;)

[@bluerineimb1148]

Loving your teachings bart listened to 5 in past two days. I'm an ex fundamental Christian was for over 30years helped plastor 3 churchs was the main teacher in two of the 3 to cut a long story short I left the system I was part of 8 years ago but I'm heart let it about 10 and over past 5 years have realy discovered that what I was part of and gave up my life for is fake and after spending over 30 years in now means nothing to me but a waste of those years I'm so glad there is people like you were people like me can equip them selves with the truth and facts to help others come out of the bondages of fundamental Christian beliefs

[@getasimbe]

I understand how you feel but I don't think you should look at it as a complete waste. For me the best part of being a believer was the community, and the memories we made/had together. Those to me can never be a waste. But otherwise I commiserate with you

[@bluerineimb1148]

@@getasimbe all of that so called community so called Christian family have disowned me because I'm no longer like them they use out of context scripture to label me with they truly are are fake people who only expect you if you are like them my whole family are fundamental Christian and only have contact with me if they have no choice ie fuanaral or weddings I have learned much over the past years that I couldn't have while a believer I renounced all of what I was and part of 5 years ago being out of the church,faith for just over 4 years to the point of doing that and felt a massive relief lifted from me I cauld talk all night on this realy

[@JonathanMartin884]

There is no such thing as wasted time, whatever you did as a believer has led to the amazing person you are now. Don't stress about what you believed or did as a believer, just make the most of the time in front of you. Stoic philosophy teaches that one should never concern themselves with things that are impossible (ie. "fixing" the past), but only to concern oneself with things that are possible (ie. the life in front of you). That is all you can do. :)

[@dancahill9585]

You should know that if you were a pastor, and you helped comfort or aid your parishioners, especially in non-theological ways, you weren't wasting those years.

[@leonyelrom7035]

Similar history. If you showed kindness, love and support to your congregation then it was all worthwhile.

[@williamlewis9350]

Unless I missed it, I never heard what I think would be the most logical argument against this being John the apostle. If this was written about +- 90 CE, that would make John the apostle well over 100 years old.

[@interpretingscripture8068]

If John was in his 20s or 30s during the life of Jesus then add 60 years to that....how does that make John over 100 in 90AD?

[@cainebarrettduggan5337]

Exactly

[@cainebarrettduggan5337]

@@interpretingscripture8068we don’t know how old he was during the time of jesus

[@Stormspinner]

Megan is so good at this; her clean voice is great to listen to as well :)

[@cicco5833]

Another great episode. But I think you two should switch glasses during each episode 😊

[@markrossow6303]

pffft

[@shawncampbell1939]

I learn something from Bart every week and I always look forward to Bart provoking my thoughts. However it is also worth listening to hear Megan whose klangfarber and diction are exquisite. Thank you both.

[@georgesparks7833]

Great job! Always good to hear from the doctor. You got to love his laugh. Just so many angles to the gospels and epistles. John was not written by John but the book of Revelation was written by John. 😮 The disciple that Jesus loved is not actually mentioned. Nice to know. Thanks for your time and all your effort.

[@AlexanderSunder-ko2gk]

I was homeless, I had nothing to offer, always sleeping on the street, until Jesus sent me a friend who helped me... I got a job & was managing till I melt a friend who helped ... She changed my life and now I have a home, a wife, a lovely daughter and a new identity... HALLELUJAH

[@AlexanderSunder-ko2gk]

It's Renee Marie Harrison doing, she's changed my life.

[@AlexanderSunder-ko2gk]

She's helped countless individuals transform their financial situations.

[@AlexanderSunder-ko2gk]

There is her line!!!! under this comment!!!!👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

[@AlexanderSunder-ko2gk]

+1947

[@AlexanderSunder-ko2gk]

218

[@MusicalRaichu]

From what you've said, it sounds like (a) by elimination the beloved disciple is the apostle John, that (b) the author was not John but a native Greek speaker, and (c) the author likely knew John personally and was recording John's testimony.

[@jeffreylehman1159]

As to c), he CLAIMS (indirectly) to know him.

[@choptop81]

I buy the argument that the Beloved disciple is supposed to be Lazarus and the Lazarus story in John is a reaction to the one in Luke

[@BlakeClass]

Objectively speaking, if you’re willing to believe that why not believe it’s Gabriel who was sent to earth to announce Jesus’s birth? It’s not much of a stretch to suppose his task on earth includes guarding and guiding Jesus until Gods will is carried out. If you’re able to make that leap then the line “if I should have him stay alive until the end of days what’s it to you?” Makes a lot of sense. And if you’re able to make that leap then Islam is basically the continuation of the real gospel of Christ since they believe Gabriel gave Muhammad the Quaran as the word of god and this happened because the word of god Gabriel gave Jesus had become lost/corrupted/became something different. Objectively There’s a foundation of logical reasoning that the argument could be made that we’re waiting for the followers of the word of god spoken by Christ ‘real Christian’s’ so to speak, to go to the Muslims and say something to the extent of “hey since yall know the truth and we’re finding the truth you need to help us find our lost truth. We believe there is no god but God. Jesus was his messenger.” This may sound like blasphemy but it’s not, as simple as I can put it, I’m just a guy, don’t do eternity for me. Anyone who prays 5 times a day and calls on God as both “the most merciful” and the master of judgement day” 5-17 times a day and then feels then need to condemn someone searching for THE TRUTH has bigger problems than me; I’d direct you to reflect on “no man is a true believer unless he desires for his brother what he desires for himself.” And also 2:62. It’s possible we discover this was a group exercise all along. “When two become one, there I am.”

[@Rob17kLiebermann]

But Lazarus wasn't part of the twelve disciples

[@alanpennie]

​@@Rob17kLiebermann John never says that *The Beloved Discipline* was one of The Twelve. We shouldn't be misled by later tradition.

[@julianllew]

The Gospel of John should have been heavily edited before getting into the canon of the New Testament. The 2nd half of it has Jesus looking like a raving lunatic IMO. Been a while since I looked at it but that’s how I remember it.

[@jeffreylehman1159]

@@BlakeClassIt’s a big leap to identify an unknown author as a specific person, to accepting… any of the supernatural claptrap you propose. You need to show that angels exist before you can say a specific one did a specific action. You have a lot of work to do.

[@Kholdaimon]

I do not see a reason to disagree with Bart on many things he says, since I am not knowledgeable on the subject at hand, but I would have to disagree with his idea that we get our modern ethics from Jesus. Before Jesus the classical ethical system was not what Bart portrays it as. To proof this I can give two easy examples: 1. Roman Emperors (and other high officials) went out of their way to appear giving and caring to the lower social classes, clearly it was deemed ethical to care about strangers and people worse off. 2. Alexander did some truly bad stuff at times, allowing his soldiers to murder and rape entire cities after conquering them and even ordering massacres. There were later Greek and Roman historians that discussed these events and it is clear that they are appalled by them, some try to justify Alexander's actions (which means they know it is bad, but they are big fans of Alexander so they have to stick up for him) and other just say it was horrible and wrong. At other times, especially as he got older, Alexander recognized that his treatment of others led to uprisings and thus he became (a bit) less harsh and this was lauded. So the bad stuff he did was considered bad and the good stuff he did was considered good, then and now, very little change in how we perceive those things. As a further point I would like to raise that the ethical system hardly changed after Europe was converted to Christianity: slavery was around, murder, torture, war, etc were all rampant as much as before. The people might have been worried about their souls for doing so, but it didn't change their actions, just that they went to repent afterwards, which is no different than in the Roman or Greek times, people felt guilt for doing horrible things and they also had concepts much like karma, that a god or fate would punish them for their misdeeds. Everyone at any time became angry when their friends, family, parts of their tribe or nation were attacked, because they all knew that was wrong. The problem isn't knowing it is wrong, meaning your ethics are skewed, it is acting on this knowledge or adhering to your ethics. It wasn't until the Humanist movement came about that we actually started to slowly, bit by bit, do a bit more what our ethics had been telling us all along: recognizing the pain we cause in others with our actions and trying to minimize it. Jesus didn't change our ethics, he pointed out what we already knew, he said that you should listen to and act on your feelings of empathy for strangers, but he didn't create those feelings, they were already there. Empathy is the basis of our ethics, in the past humans have tried to discard their feelings of empathy or manipulate those of others, the tales of the PTSD-suffering soldier are as old as armed conflict. And the story of the demonizing of others by people in a position of authority to make their followers see the opponent not as human and thus reduce the empathy they have for them is also as old as time. Empathy is a result of evolution, it is beneficial to recognize pain and suffering in others to move you to help them, because for the vast majority of Human existence this person would be a family or clan member and your fitness is increased by you caring for and being cared for by them. We are still the same Humans that existed 2000 years ago or 12,000 years ago, that hasn't changed, not because of Jesus or because of Humanism, but because of Humanism we have started to force ourselves to recognize our empathy for strangers as a good thing and act upon it...

[@tracyavent-costanza346]

happy new year bart and megan. you both give me hope for a world better than the one I am already familiar with.

[@stevebeeney9022]

I want Rabbi Bart's book, Origins of Altruism. I'm an ex fundi, ex atheist, ex prof of humanities who quit to write, will teach univ again. I want that book!

[@princephrog]

Love the talk as always, although I can't stop looking at Megan's glasses! Those are wicked cool!

[@markrossow6303]

+ strong Rx ! look at the line of her cheek -- stronger than mine ! (I have boring Nylon-framed sorta "GI-Issue" glasses, U.S.-made Cris brand with size in Inches + No-Scratch tempered glass lenses...

[@riossumbayak6600]

I still believe in Jesus Christ as The Saviour of my life...hehe.... :) ... John testimony about The Gospel give me the answer about why craziness happened in history of humanity....:) .... The testimony of john give me reasons for believeng why Love One ANother,forgiving each other,help one another...is good for health and simple happiness ... :) ... Praise God..

[@user-Hedsjodt]

"Praise GOD." Indeed, let us praise something that is just a thought; and has absolutely no evidence in reality. god (n.) Origin and meaning of god also God; Old English god "supreme being, deity; the Christian God; image of a god; godlike person," from Proto-Germanic *guthan (source also of Old Saxon, Old Frisian, Dutch god, Old High German got, German Gott, Old Norse guð, Gothic guþ), which is of uncertain origin; perhaps from PIE *ghut- "that which is invoked" (source also of Old Church Slavonic zovo "to call," Sanskrit huta- "invoked," an epithet of Indra), from root *gheu(e)- "to call, invoke." The notion could be "divine entity summoned to a sacrifice." But some trace it to PIE *ghu-to- "poured," from root *gheu- "to pour, pour a libation" (source of Greek khein "to pour," also in the phrase khute gaia "poured earth," referring to a burial mound; see found (v.2)). "Given the Greek facts, the Germanic form may have referred in the first instance to the spirit immanent in a burial mound" [Watkins]. See also Zeus. In either case, not related to good. Popular etymology has long derived God from good; but a comparison of the forms ... shows this to be an error. Moreover, the notion of goodness is not conspicuous in the heathen conception of deity, and in good itself the ethical sense is comparatively late. [Century Dictionary, 1897] Originally a neuter noun in Germanic, the gender shifted to masculine after the coming of Christianity. Old English god probably was closer in sense to Latin numen. A better word to translate deus might have been Proto-Germanic *ansuz, but this was used only of the highest deities in the Germanic religion, and not of foreign gods, and it was never used of the Christian God. It survives in English mainly in the personal names beginning in Os-. I want my lawyer, my tailor, my servants, even my wife to believe in God, because it means that I shall be cheated and robbed and cuckolded less often. ... If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. [Voltaire] God bless you after someone sneezes is credited to St. Gregory the Great, but the pagan Romans (Absit omen) and Greeks had similar customs. God's gift to _____ is by 1931. God of the gaps means "God considered solely as an explanation for anything not otherwise explained by science;" the exact phrase is from 1949, but the words and the idea have been around since 1894. God-forbids was rhyming slang for kids ("children"). God squad "evangelical organization" is 1969 U.S. student slang. God's acre "burial ground" imitates or partially translates German Gottesacker, where the second element means "field;" the phrase dates to 1610s in English but was noted as a Germanism as late as Longfellow.

[@beastshawnee]

Good one Bart. Thanks for sticking well with the subject. The Demons episode should be fun.

[@Jd-808]

Calling for the immediate release of the secret Ehrman-Mendez fight footage!

[@dreaxuslordofdecay]

Agreed!

[@youwhat491]

If Mark Is right that ALL the disciples forsook Jesus and fled then the mysterious beloved disciple, unique to the fourth gospel cannot be John son of Zebedee, as he would be included among the remaining 11

[@paulhaanen4718]

The most delightful, lovely and best wishes for 2024 to you, Bart and Megan! Thank you so much for the blogs you made so far. I love them so much!

[@EddyAlex2009]

A fantastic lecture! I am deeply impressed with this man!

[@AnnNunnally]

Could “according to John” mean that John could be telling his story to someone who later wrote it down?The scribe could have written a novelization in Greek.

[@alanpennie]

I think the natural reading is the the author is a disciple of *The Beloved Discipline*, who was the founder of his/her church. Obviously other readings are possible, as Bart says.

[@larsulrich2761]

Yes, it would be very interesting to listen to the post recorded debate between Bart and Hugo.

[@crimony3054]

How could he have become such an important disciple and theologian if he did not know how to read or write? If Bart accepts that he was a fisherman because it says he was a fisherman, does he accept that Jesus rose from the dead because it says Jesus rose from the dead? If not, one reason might be because Bart thinks that fishermen are unskilled. That is especially not true for fishermen two thousand years ago. Fishermen two thousand years ago were very, very skilled, at making and maintaining nets, and also at making, maintaining, and piloting boats. And then of course there is the business of finding, catching, transporting, and selling fresh fish, which is today still a challenging occupation (even with ice).

[@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111]

I am also skeptical of the claim that the disciples were illiterate peasants. In Acts 4, the word commonly translated “illiterate" (agrammatos) can also be understood in a broader sense to indicate Peter and John's "lack of formal education” in the sense of their lacking of a formal scribal literacy of the kind possessed by the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem. For example, the Greek writer Epictetus uses this in a non religious broad sense when he speaks about a man "writing in an illiterate way" (graphein agrammatos). See Discourses, 2.9.10). As the footnote to the New English Translation states: “ “Uneducated does not mean “illiterate,” that is, unable to read or write. Among Jews in NT times there was almost universal literacy, especially as the result of widespread synagogue schools. The term refers to the fact that Peter and John had no formal rabbinic training and thus, in the view of their accusers, were not qualified to expound the law or teach publicly. The objection is like Acts 2:7.” Church tradition is that John came from Bethsaida, as a church was described by a traveler in the 700’s as being built upon the place of his early home. That area was an urbanized mixture with hellenic influences (Josephus). It is interesting that back in August of 2023, Bryan Windle reported the following: “The El Araj Excavation Project recently completed its summer dig season and uncovered more evidence showing that the site was a first-century fishing village, possibly the New Testament town of Bethsaida. This year the team excavated in Area D and continued to find evidence of occupation in the first century. These finds included coins, pottery, fishing weights, and stone vessels. In addition, an inkwell was discovered in a home that also contained numerous fishing weights. This would seem to indicate that first-century fishermen could be literate. Some scholars have suggested that fishermen like Peter and John could not have written New Testament books because they were merely illiterate fishermen. The discovery of an inkwell in a fisherman's home challenges this assumption.”

[@EnglishMike]

Being skilled at a trade 2,000 years ago has absolutely no bearing on whether they knew to read and write.

[@crimony3054]

@@EnglishMike 🤣 Unless of course, they knew how to read and write, but couldn't find work because they were on the outs with the Sanhedrin.

[@EnglishMike]

@@crimony3054Well anything is possible, if very unlikely....

[@crimony3054]

@@EnglishMike What could be more unlikely than a carpenter in a remote section of the Roman Empire becoming the leader of a religion that has grown to dominate the globe and is practiced by about 2 billion? As for the fisherman, Peter, 2 Peter is considered an exceptional example of high Greek, and the source that says Peter was a fisherman also says Jesus was on the outs with the Sanhedrin, the local Jewish leadership. The Sanhedrin were advocates of the Hebrew Old Testament, not the Greek Old Testament. Hmm. Some dots just can't be connected, if you plan to fit in.

[@ireland1953]

Why is the Bible called the "Holy Bible" since the Gospels were written 40+ years after Jesus' death.

[@wmoates6029]

Part of the confusion in the New Testament, for me at least, is the interchangeability between the words "disciple" and "apostle". The disciple that Jesus loved could, essentially, be any one of his followers.

[@lunarwuffy5299]

Yeah, you'd think the divinely inspired word of an all knowing god wouldn't screw up minor details like that. It's almost like it was all make up and a complete work of fiction.

[@origamitraveler7425]

It's not that deep. The words _were_ interchangeable, insofar as they implied each other. The distinction of apostle as a higher grade of disciple (the twelve, Paul, etc) is a Roman Catholic traditional distinction.

[@wmoates6029]

@@origamitraveler7425 A disciple means "follower" while Apostle means "one who is sent"

[@carveraugustus3840]

Yes. The opening of the gospel of John is bonkers and I love it

[@nadzach]

It is tradition in Hebraica to title a work of literature by the first words. This is usually the subject. The word john/יענה is a Hebrew word meaning "the beginning of the response of God." You can find ענה in your Strong's Concordance under "reponse." The prefix is "Jah," for the most high God. So, you can see that "the beginning of the response of God or "john" is a perfect title". This book is about portion of faith for those closest to Jesus. Jesus describes this as "the good part." Our walk begins with salvation. We should grow from grace to grace including righteousness, holiness and then the good part. Most people don't have the eyes or ears to understand the book. Faith isn't necessarily found in universities. Bart has education. John is teaching faith.

[@jeffreylehman1159]

@@nadzach Strong’s concordance is not a reliable or useful tool.

[@jeffreylehman1159]

@@nadzach And faith is what people use to justify belief when there is no evidence to support that belief. As in “I have faith in the belief that Mohammed is the true prophet, and that Christ was not divine”. Faith is not a reliable path to truth.

[@k.c.8658]

Thanks, as always, for these.

[@nigelmansfield3011]

What a great interview. I love listening to Bart and have learned a lot from him. I'm a believing Catholic who has never been a bible literalist, I think I get that from St. Augustine's writings which opposed taking the bible literally. Ascribing a work to an author was a common practice in the ancient world. Consider the great art from the Renaissance. Many of the works that we love, such as Raphael, are perhaps only 5% to 10% painted by Raphael. Raphael prepared the concept, the design and some parts of the finished work but the 'work' was finished by his school of painters. The other famous painters were the same. I think we have to consider the Gospels the same way.

[@AlanCanon2222]

3:22 discussion of John begins

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

The Gospel contains so much that is clearly literary invention, incidents for which there were no eyewitnesses and long speaches that could not possibly be verbatim records.

[@chadgarber]

Doesn't it sound like the author is saying that the source or the info written in the gospel of John was "the one who Jesus" loved who was probably referring to John? In other words, the author seems to be saying that the source he/she was using was John, not that the author was John?

[@RealTrentertainment]

"The Origins of Altruism" wow, that is quite a bold title. I'm eager to see how much Bart's thoughts have changed since he debated Glen Scrivener on the topic about a year ago on Unbelievable. I really don't buy the ideas, like those pushed by Tom Holland and Christian apologists, that morality and reason are solely products of Christianity. But, I'm happy to be educated.

[@FollowPaul1Lord1God]

Learned 60 years to late...and 100"s of books later that The titled "gospel of John" is a fascinating anonymous book that wasn't quoted by any church leaders until the end of the second century. It's a memoir, meaning the untitled apostle of which Jesus allegedly loved was long dead. Mary, Zacchaeus nobody's quite sure? If it was John, then why didn't he mention the "mount of transfiguration"? Anonymous scribe, reiterates the reason they wrote this Memoir. “Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah,🫴 the Son of God, and that by believing you may have Life in His name” [John 20:30-31] “This is the disciple who testified to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written” [John 21:24-25] An unknown community of believers finished the book for someone titled" apostle Jesus loved"? Scholars note the Gospel of John came with multiple authors, unfortunately addition/dates ect... is ALL unknown. Top best conclusions I've come to understand about that unusual prologue, it was an early church Psalm as follows: In the Beginning there was Wisdom/Reason All things were made by it etc and Then John 1:14 Wisdom dwelt among us. It was was an Just an early Christian Psalm, however since "Wisdom is Feminine", yet word is neutral. In my research, the “disciple” wasnt much historical relevance since this heroic apostle, differs "several times"-standing under Jesus’ cross with several women (chapter 19, verses 25-27) running with Peter to Jesus’ tomb (chapter 20, verses 3-10). But when you look at all those same scenes in other gospels, there’s no trace of the character. In Luke, only women stand under Jesus’ cross (chapter 21, verse 49); and in Luke, Peter runs to the tomb alone (chapter 24, verse 12). It’s as if the character has been invented and inserted into those scenes to give the book the air of eyewitness credibility, who knows? As scholars, we’ve been so certain that the texts have different authors that we’ve overlooked something very basic about them: they all seem to construct a common implied author. They all state or imply that they were written by an “eyewitness”-the same eyewitness-and they show extensive signs of copying, as we would expect in area attempting to promote their own agenda. we’ve never found a trace of this Johannine community-no mentions in ancient texts, no archeological evidence. In my research, I suggest a reason for this. I assemble evidence that the texts in question are ancient pseudepigrapha.

[@craigfairweather3401]

There is no necessity for the Beloved Disciple to be one of the 12 disciples. Other people were disciples in Jerusalem and had come to Jerusalem in the Jesus party. An obvious possibility is the host at the last supper, who owned the house with a ‘large upper room’ and who allowed two of the 12 to ‘make ready’ the room. We already have heard of a young man carrying a water jar who led these two disciples to the location on request. This looks prearranged so Jesus is known and respected by the owner beforehand. Normally, servants come in and out with trays of food in a large feast in a large house. Who controls the servants and kitchen staff? Obviously there would be a host and his place would be beside the guest of honour, Jesus. At the crucifixion in ‘John’ it says from that moment the Beloved Disciple took Jesus’ mother ‘into his house’ and yet Mary is presented for weeks afterwards as in a house inside Jerusalem. The obvious inference is that this is the large house of the last supper, and the Beloved Disciple is the owner of this large Jerusalem house. Just because he is the disciple Jesus ‘loved’ (showed goodwill towards) does not mean he was one of the inner three of the 12. Jesus is said to ‘love’ Lazarus, and his sisters: how does he show it? He travels to their house and has meals with them, teaches them and lets Mary get physically close to him. These are similar marks of honour (‘love’) for the Beloved Disciple if he is the host of the Last Supper.

[@barbellenoregon]

Pastor David Reid of YT channel "Columbus Bible Church" did a thorough (he's always thorough) and quite compelling teaching on the authorship of the Book of John, and he suggests the author to be Lazarus, "the disciple Jesus loved". If you've not heard of Pastor David Reid, I highly recommend you listen to his teaching because, he's not only a solid Biblical scholar but also an attorney - hence, he's thorough, and proves out his assertions as does an attorney. Others you may appreciate are Pastors Paul Lucas and Donnie Holt, to name a few. I appreciated reading your comment...well done!

[@craigfairweather3401]

@@barbellenoregon Lazarus disappears from the record after 30 CE but John Mark is presented in the NT as an active preacher in the Anatolian provinces even 30 years later and his house is the first place Peter runs to in Jerusalem in 41 CE when he escapes from prison.The readers of Acts are told lots of details about John Mark. Why? Because they knew him or of him 60years after 30 CE.

[@douglasfur3808]

The "who wrote" arguments are still alive in the "who wrote Shakespeare" contretemps. I think the amswer to allof these is "No one". In modern theater terminology the plays of Shakespeare were "workshopped", developed by his players and compiled from his drafts by the editor of the First Folio. The gospels came about similarly, as several communities try to sort out what they had just witnessed. The events of Jesus life turned their world upside down and gave it s good shake. It took several decades to sort out and get written down. At that there sre many places where things are still incomprehensible.

[@andrelegeant88]

Everyone in antiquity dictated. Writing - especially something long or formal - would have been done by a professional scribe. This is partly why even elites were not often specifically educated in writing. Even being able to read was relatively unimportant because people read aloud, and an educated slave would often read to an elite and then take dictation. Dictation shorthand would then be copied into longhand. That doesn't mean John as an illiterate fisherman could have dictated the Gospel of John, but I've seen Dr. Ehrman consistently talk of writing/reading/literacy using modern expectations of someone sitting down and writing out their thoughts and/or reading silently to himself. I'm confused at the point that we don't have "any" examples of people getting reports in one language and writing a narrative in another. Herodotus presumably does this with his accounts based outside of Greece. There is presumably reliance on Etruscan text in Livy. Numerous Greek histories on Rome translated original Latin texts and (again, presumably Latin) oral reports into Greek when constructing their narrative. There are numerous examples of Roman localizations of Greek drama into Latin (not quite the same, but the same concept, which is taking stories and making them approachable to a certain audience). Luke reports specifically to have spoken to people, presumably in Aramaic, when writing his gospel. I would think it extremely likely that anyone who cared about disseminating information to a Greek-speaking world would want their accounts and views written in Greek.

[@Stonefalconetti]

New Year, new hair! 😂. Happy New Year! Best wishes. 😊🎉

[@Kaddywompous]

I’m just here for the glasses.

[@Gengd]

John was written by Lazarus whom Jesus loved (see John 11:5, 21:20-24)

[@comparedtowhat2719]

No! John was written by John Lennon with comments by Yoko.

[@barbellenoregon]

@@comparedtowhat2719 🤣

[@timcarbone007]

Another banger! Love the podcast

[@alirowan1999]

In the "suffering servant" question, has Dr Ehrman considered the evidence in the Thanksgiving Hymns of the Dead Sea Community, where the author (the True Teacher/Teacher of Righteousness?) makes a strong allusion to his own self-identifying as this Messianic figure who will suffer as an efficacious sacrifice?

[@dingokidneys]

It always seemed to me that the "According to" attributions simply meant "the story as told by Matthew/Mark/Luke/John". I.e. someone is now writing down the story as it came down - perhaps verbally - to him, or this is the way the story goes as John used to tell it.

[@Apostate1970]

Except none of Jesus's disciples would have written the gospel of John. The language and thoughts would be alien to them. Indeed most of them probably couldn't have written at all.

[@dingokidneys]

@@Apostate1970I'm not saying that any of them did write. It's like "Great Grandad used to tell a funny story" then you go on to describe an event that may or may not have happened in words and idioms that Great Grandad would never have used and probably came down to you via a family game of telephone - morphing as it traversed the generations. Some of the central elements may have remained though that's not certain as different people telling the same story over time may emphasise, augment or skip different parts. What ends up being told is nothing like what Great Grandad said and he may not even recognise the story though it's always attributed to him.

[@marckinsonangervil1349]

I love……….. these series!! I mainly use them to debate Bible thumpers! lol thanks for y’all works !

[@craigfairweather3401]

We can see that the author of ‘John’ was an authority rival to the writer of ‘Luke’ (if we agree with Dr Paul Anderson on ‘John’ being earlier). I would add my current view that the author of ‘Luke’ is writing later than ‘John’ and several times has been mildly influenced by details and passages he has read in John, or remembers from hearing in an audience, read from ‘John’. These details include some taken from extended narratives (so not from common oral traditions) such as John’s arrangement of the denials of Peter interspersed with the witness of Jesus, and aspects of order in the Last Supper. Yet ‘Luke’ appears to have deliberately (moderately) but systematically downgraded John’s particularly favoured personages Mary Magdalene (I.e. she had ‘seven devils’)and Mary, Martha (why won’t Mary help me in the kitchen?’)and Lazarus (a beggar whose sores are licked by dogs’)of Bethany. This would suggest a degree of rivalry of viewpoints, or reputation, of the author of Luke against the author of John.

[@MichaelYoder1961]

Happy New Year. Bart, Megan and the team! Looking forward to more fascinating episodes.

[@user-tf9no4yb2n]

Keep on guessing....Bart

[@DigitalHammurabi]

Happy New Year, Michael! I hope 2024 is kind to you :)

[@terryfox9344]

I wonder whether there are multiple "authors" to what we now call the Gospel according to John. One reason that I suspect this is the fact that there are multiple endings to the story.

[@chriswilcocks8485]

I have read many of barts books and still have many christian beliefs. Eg i believe in God and that jesus is a revelation of God for christians in the same way that the Torah is a revelation of God for Jews. Why do i believe. Because i think i experience the transcendemnt presence of God. I read the bible in a historicsl critical way. Love this video. Bart helps me understand more. Blessings to all.

[@fallingphoenix2341]

Have you ever read anything by Richard Carrier? Did you get something out of it? I really don't like his tone. As I'm not a historian I have to rely on the judgement of his peers, which is that he's at the fringe of academic history if not beyond it. Also he is clearly ideologically motivated. All this said, I find it interesting to learn what someone who doesn't believe in any of it, makes of the same material Bart Ehrman studies.

[@chriswilcocks8485]

@@fallingphoenix2341no .have read a lot of marcus borg and dom crossan . they combine a faith perspective with critical analysis. I recommend. Thankyou for replying

[@tracyavent-costanza346]

@31:00 so upon what basis, if any, is there reason to think that "john of patmos" and "john son of zebedee" are the same person. up to now I pretty much presumed they were DIFFERENT PEOPLE but I do not now recall why I concluded that. Are we SURE that john-son-of-zebedee, lived as long as john-of-patmos?

[@stavroskarageorgis4804]

John of Patmos, presumed author of Revelation, is the kookiest presumed NT author of them all.

[@tracyavent-costanza346]

@@stavroskarageorgis4804 i'd say he is strong evidence that people dropped shrooms or peyote back in the day. the puzzling part is how the other "johns" are somehow attributed to the same guy. I am not sure how the "scholars" got there but I guess they have their own stories.

[@frmrchristian8488]

This has quickly become one of my favorite shows!

[@fepeerreview3150]

Dr. Ehrman mentions scholarly consensus for a date of around 90s CE. The Muratorian fragment is roughly 100 years later. It mentions John as the author of a gospel but does not provide any detail such as the length or number of chapters. It simply asserts its existence and tells a story about how it came to be written. According to the "List of New Testament Papyri" on Wikipedia, the surviving fragments of John from the 2nd century (there are none from the 1st) consists of only a few verses. We have to get well into the 3rd century before we have enough miscellaneous fragments from various sources to start putting together something that begins to resemble the John we know today. So it's a good 150-200 years after 90CE, before we have something beginning to resemble what we know of as John today. We are also moving into the period where there was a consolidation within the widespread Christian communities and an attempt to establish a unified theology. All this leaves me wondering to what extent the John we know of today resembles whatever might have been written in the 90s. It seems to me there is the strong possibility that significant changes might have filtered in during the 2nd and early 3rd century. This same basic scenario plays out with the other gospels as well.

[@mrnarason]

Meghan became orange

[@billyhw5492]

Cray cray.

[@a5cent]

Megan is on fire! 😂

[@GabrielEddy]

The fourth gospel is a twenty-chapter spiritual treatise which was authored to combat the heresies of Cerinthus and Merinthus that were prevalent near the end of the 1st century.

[@lawsonj39]

Interesting. Where can I find more information about those heresies and John's relevance to them?

[@jessie4696]

I'm starting to become an atheist

[@Ephesians-yn8ux]

Pump the brakes a bit, that isn’t logical either.

[@mrnarason]

Good.

[@sunshowerpainting1]

Don't throw the baby Jesus out with the bath water. Keep studying everything you can and try not to worry. Some things will not ever be fully explained. Breathe to relax.....

[@a5cent]

​​​@@Ephesians-yn8uxOf course it's logical. If you consider nothing but logic (not in the colloquial sense, but as the word is actually defined), atheism is necessarily where you end up. That being said, having a more accurate and realistic understanding of the new testament isn't what will lead you to atheism. At most because it might make you question the more dogmatic christian "teachings", but that still provides no direct path to non-belief.

[@Cloudryder]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/eILQYWuDj7hoiNUsi=on2UKh_VedJfBEM_

[@Bronco541]

Sounds like a realy exciting book! I might pick this one up when its published, be good to hear thoughts on this from a non-biased person.

[@golove3204]

Irenaeus was trained by Polycarp, who was directly trained by John. If I asked my dad a question about my grandfather, I should get the truth fairly reliably. Bart admittedly said much of this is guesswork 1900 years later. So who would more likely be accurate? To be clear, I think John used a secretary.

[@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111]

The collective memory process is documented in the oral history written down in the 2nd century Muratorian canon. The canon states John’s Gospel, composed by John to be spiritual, was reviewed by others. That likely involved witnesses (e.g. Andrew, Simeon) & relatives of Jesus who lived till Trajan’s rule. The canon notes are likely testimony based. So that’s like us having heard eyewitness accounts of the Holocaust.

[@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111]

@MikeJJJ ok let’s run with your hypothetical example. At what point could or would eyewitness accounts from the Nazi era be able to point to secret existence of alien (extraterrestrial) technology? As the writer Arthur C. Clarke once pointed out: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

[@VulcanLogic]

There is literally nothing from Polycarp that suggests he was trained by John. It's entirely church tradition with zero contemporary accounts to back that up, including nothing from Polycarp himself making this claim. What you're doing is making an assertion with no evidence, and then claiming that it's as reliable as asking about grandpa. That's not how we determine historicity.

[@golove3204]

@@VulcanLogic Irenaeus and Tertullian both state that Polycarp was assigned to Smyrna by John. The registers of record were at the church of Smyrna if anyone wanted to check accuracy. Polycarp was not a prolific writer, so we only have one small letter of his. Writings of this time are rarely found today...only in fragments. So it is beyond a "reasonable doubt" to assume truth as recorded by the next generation. Too many modern historians demand beyond a "possible doubt." With that criterion, truth would never be ascertained. I am a skeptic. And I'm critical of all sources, modern and ancient. Even a skeptic should implement the principle behind the telephone game...choose to believe those closest to the source, if reasonable.

[@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111]

@@golove3204 For sure, memory recall is an important part of how we interact and live out our lives.​​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠ Ireneaus was a student of Polycarp, who was a “hearer” of John. John, who lived until the times of the Emperor Trajan, was alive less than 100 years earlier than when Ireneaus. I recall my mother telling me a story that she heard when she was young from an older family member who witnessed, when she was younger, black slaves being paraded around naked and being sold in front of a feed store. That’s oral history from over 160 years ago! I also recall hearing first hand battle accounts from of a World War veteran friend of mine, back in the early 1990’s. The information gap is not that spread out when a few significant people are able live long full lives. As another example, there is a “What’s My Line” KZbin video of a fellow, in the mid 20th century, describing his boyhood witnessing of Lincoln’s assassination. Mid second century writers could have very easily heard accounts from individuals that lived & remembered what transpired during an earlier period of time.

[@tontoschwartz3666]

It is shocking to me how many billions of hours humanity has devoted over two millenia to the study, investigation, analysis and worship of a Jew who, if he existed at all, is largely fictional and died almost 2000 years ago and stayed dead. Think of all the death, destruction, pain and suffering that could have been avoided and all that could have been accomplished by humanity if the silly superstition which is Christianity had never been invented.

[@jeffmacdonald9863]

There would have been plenty of other death, destruction, pain and suffering if Christianity hadn't been invented. It's not like those things weren't around in the pre-Christian world.

[@tontoschwartz3666]

@@jeffmacdonald9863 Obviously, but that is beside the point. There would have been plenty of death, destruction, pain and suffering if Hitler had not started World War II. So what?

[@jeffmacdonald9863]

@@tontoschwartz3666 That seems a lot more directly tied to it than Christianity is.

[@dominicestebanrice7460]

"Not actively screaming".......practical wisdom to reset expectations for people contemplating parenthood 😀 Fantastic!

[@CarlosTorres-cb5fb]

Feliz Año Nuevo 🎉Happy New Year to both of you. Gracias for everything you do for us.🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉

[@Yaz.12345]

May I recommend a book called The Fourth Gospel: Tales of a Jewish Mystic by John Shelby Spong.

[@helbitkelbit1790]

Who wrote John ?......probably the same people who wrote Greek mythology....or maybe any fairy tale you wish to read

[@Ken19700]

Megan has the best collection of glasses I've ever seen

[@ChrisArden]

Elton John?

[@cletuspiper4999]

According to James Tabor the Beloved Disciple is James the brother of Jesus. Which would make sense because James would be next in line as the head of the family.

[@chrisp4170]

Apart from the fact that James was dead at the time that the book was written…

[@macroman52]

Gospel of John knows the CLAIMS made in the synoptics and deliberately contradicts those it doesn't like. i.e. Jesus carried his cross 19:17 (no one else helps as in Luke 23;26). In GosJohn Jesus welcomes his death, "Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?" John 18:11, and never asks if he can wimp out (contrast Mark 13:36).

[@brian1204]

What about some of the “excluded” gospels like Thomas and Mary Magdalen?

[@ChristianMcAngus]

Author was likely an educated Jew in Asia Minor or Greece, fluent in Greek, who wrote the gospel based on stories he had heard from other Christian believers. A pious convert, he wished to remain anonymous.

[@timothyharmon9472]

Just finished the Brian Dalton series on Tom Holland's book in which Dalton argues persuasively that Jesus' ideals notwithstanding, Christianity has rarely actually lived up to them. He might say that if Jesus is the source of altruism, for example, that virtue has been more theoretical (theological?) than practical. I will be interested to read your take, if that is within the scope of your new book, two Christmases from now..

[@lyngkplayer3037]

35:17 Even if the author may not try to claim he is himself John (or BD, a close eye witness), at least he is trying to take credentials from claiming that his story is from the BD, which is not true if his story is strongly geek rooted and his high Christology is so much later developed. So even if not forgery, it is bearing some fraudulent claims

[@jespervalgreen6461]

I don't think there's any reason to suspect the author of John of making fraudulent claims. I think there is every reason to think that he believed he was telling us the truth.

[@DJMarcO138]

Happy New Year Bart & Megan!!! Another great episode! Love your glasses (again) Megan!

[@youwhat491]

the shifting woke hair dye makes people think they are hiding their grey hairs

[@DJMarcO138]

@@youwhat491 how is hair dye "woke" exactly? Do you also have commies hiding in your cereal bowl?

[@comparedtowhat2719]

@@youwhat491 If so, more power to her!

[@youwhat491]

@@comparedtowhat2719 fake coloured hair, looks like an attention starved women cult

[@handsdowndrumming9261]

Great talk! Great hair!

[@carlmally6292]

Megan or Bart?

[@comparedtowhat2719]

@@carlmally6292 "megan or bart?" BOTH.

[@zyme607]

New book on Jesus' ethics and altruism sounds promising and exciting 🙂 Refering to autorship of John's gospel: Could you please comment on NIKODEMOS? According to the gospel, he is a Jewish "archon" (leading or high standing person) with a GREEK name. Could he have been linked to an upper class early Christian community and the later John gospel's authors ("we" = team)? Perhaps, a hellenistic jew, more fluent in Greek than Hebrew/Aramaic, Septuagint reader and representative of pilgrims from the diaspora to the Jerusalem temple? According to John 19,39, he spend an incredible amount of spices for the funeral of Jesus (symbolising his great love?). According to 21 verses of chapter 3, Jesus gives HIM exciting theological insights. We never may be sure, but may this be an interesting clue?

[@UnimatrixOne]

I disagree that there is true altruism. We help because it benefits us -- either because it is family (genetic or social group) or because it benefits our reputation or makes us feel good. If the good feeling is missing, e.g. if gratitude is missing, we will be less willing to help.

[@UnimatrixOne]

Keyword self-efficacy: the feeling of making a difference, the power to change something, taking responsibility - it can be very strong. That's not a bad thing, but it shows that real altruism doesn't exist.

[@petergrant2561]

As an atheist, I am puzzled by the evolution of early Christianity. Of particular interest to me is the broad development of early Christian documents. If we accept that the letters of Paul are the earliest documents, and the Gospels beginning with Mark followed, it seems to me that there was an explosion of (non-canonical) texts in the first and second centuries. What puzzles me is; who was writing these early documents (individuals, groups, regions, languages), if most people were illiterate, who was their audience (individuals, groups, regions, languages)? Is there an evolutionary tree of concepts within the texts? I can get the 3rd century and later development of texts, but I can't get my head around the early texts.

[@paulkoza8652]

i love these episodes and i look forward to them every week.

[@lindotimo]

What I remember the Valentinians, used only the gospel of John. It probably originated among these people.

[@vanshankguitars]

My weekly dose of reality

[@mrnarason]

I can't get enough of Mr Erhman

[@NeuroDot7]

They hate us because they ain’t us 🇺🇸✌️

[@sandraR9551]

I love when you testify the truth about jesus teachings i pray you could return your faith because jesus teachings has nothing to do with forgeries and his followers are truly god mens and women who are fullfilled with the holy spirit

[@edward1412]

I’ve always believed that the ending of John was included by people who knew that it was John who wrote this Gospel.

[@lepidoptera9337]

That's a religious belief for which no evidence exists.

[@HaldaneSmith]

This is the passage in John 21 that many think indicates the beloved disciple wrote John: 22 Jesus [talking to Peter] answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23 Because of this, the rumor 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?” 24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. This is the add-on chapter of John, presumably written after the beloved disciple died. This story explains that Jesus did not say the beloved disciple would necessarily live to see Jesus' return. "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down." This clearly states that the beloved disciple wrote an account of Jesus life and the present tense of "the disciple who testifies to these things" indicates that written account is the present work, the gospel according to John. I think that is the most straight forward reading.

[@davidbrachetto1420]

John 11:3 tells us who Jesus loved…

[@butternutsquash6984]

Every time I hear "the gospel according to Bart, I immediately think it would read like the novel Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff... which is the story according to Jesus's childhood buddy.

[@bowrinkle8408]

I think James is lecturing against a purely gnostic faith. i.e. the command "repent and be baptized" does not mean acknowledge a need to repent, but don't repent...

[@davidzimmerman1354]

When examining I really felt that Lazarus is raised (in more ways than one) and John the Baptist is critiqued. I see Lazarus as the source but not the author. The author was more of an editor as part of the “Johannine” community, putting different voices into one work, as Bart also mentioned.

[@Hallahanify]

I dont get it, how is this "unnamed disciple" reffered to in the gospel? How do we know it keeps refferencing the same person?

[@williamliamsmith4923]

20:00 Herodotus wrote down history after collecting accounts from others - potentially through translators. So it could be likely that illiterate John was sort of interviewed by an author and he wrote the story “according to John”. This scribe may have been particularly literate and a good book writer. The titles “according to Mathew/Mark/Luke/John/…” would make sense in such scenarios. This would explain the discrepancies and also why the discrepancies were left as they are in the Gospels - because the writers expected there to be discrepancies in the recollection of the people telling the stories to them. In some cases we see copies of passages verbatim and that could be due to scribes filling in the narrative by borrowing from another person’s account at a later date, or Luke saying “yeah, I agree with what Mark says”

[@gazzas123]

when Jesus asks Peter who do you say I am. I interpreted this as meaning that the rock that Jesus will build his church on is the statement that Jesus is the Christ, not that Peter will build the church.

[@phishphan6596]

At the 32:30 point in the video, he talks about the 3 Voices of 1) John the Baptist, 2) the narrator and 3) Jesus ---- and they are all ONE VOICE (i.e. 1 person) --- he says they all sound the same ---- well, OF COURSE, Ehrman offers not a single example of this ---- while at the same time asking you to believe that this "obvious single voice" is a COMMON and REPEATED occurrence, yet he just throws out there --- without a single example. I cannot think of even one occasion where this happens ---- with the "3" as he calls it (the closest example is the blurring of the writer and Jesus in John 3, following the Nicodemus story ---- but notice Ehrman cannot even produce 1 example of this very "clear" literary situation.

[@VK6XZ]

If the author of John was a disciple of Jesus he would have written the text when he was in his 80's or 90's. How probable would that be in that era?

[@claude2243]

John’s Prologue is a reminder of the creation according to Genesis. Does the author here and elsewhere seem to know the Septuagint version of the Bible? How many Christian’s knew it at the time? Was John in fact a Jewish convert that was a speaker of Greek ?

[@dinosaurs5414]

The question I always ask is why all the writers of the gospels have lied so much over centuries?? and how so many people even studied those lies!!!

[@barnsweb52]

John all but defies Matthew - yet Christians study so little they don't realize it. I'm glad Bart Ehrman has noted so many issues - I've tried to see if anything makes sense - or not. I had to side with Matthew is the only one, but it was altered to go along with the rest of the Roman Canon.

[@scienceexplains302]

*According to John* Paul once wrote that he himself was writing the letter, from which I infer that others usually took down his dictation. So I inferred that “according to X” meant that a scribe wrote it from the words and opinions of X, and might even fill in some gaps from X’s sect or school.

[@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111]

According to oral history, John wrote in Ephesus decades after the death of Jesus. Even if he had a poor grasp of the Greek language when he was young, he would have many years to become very proficient. John had the means (via the faith community’s financial contributions along with volunteer teachers), the motive & the opportunity to be extremely well educated towards the end of his life. The collective memory process is documented in the oral history written down in the 2nd century Muratorian canon. The canon states John’s Gospel, composed by John to be spiritual, was reviewed by others. So, there might have been some sort of collective process going on. That process likely involved witnesses (e.g., Andrew) & relatives of Jesus (Simeon) who lived till Trajan’s rule. The canon notes are likely testimony based. So that’s like us having heard eyewitness accounts of the Holocaust.

[@scienceexplains302]

@@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111 Sounds nice. Do you have evidence that anyone ever took that route around the end of the first C?

[@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111]

⁠@@scienceexplains302well for one thing, I doubt the percentage of literacy across the Empire was as low as 5%, as is often claimed by the Bible scholars. For one thing, recent excavations of first century Pompeii and Herculaneum has revealed a large amount of of graffiti. That indicates a large percentage of people were constantly being exposed to writing. The disciples, like John, were living in a world where literacy played a considerable role in society and was visually and visibly all around them. They had the means, the motive and the opportunity to be culturally current. It’s why missionaries in our modern era take the trouble to learn the language of the people they live with.

[@scienceexplains302]

@@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111 Modern day parallels don’t seem useful. A large amount of graffiti could come from a few students You didn’t really answer my question.

[@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111]

⁠@@scienceexplains302 The presence of graffiti on the city’s streets also means that people going about their daily lives were constantly exposed to writing. That doesn’t mean they could all read and write, but it does mean that there was likely an incentive to learn to read & write. How many people learned, or polished their, ability to read and write different languages later in life? No one really knows for sure. But common sense wise it stands to reason that many would likely do so if there was a significant motive and opportunity for doing so. The oral history of John writing in Ephesus helps explain the “logos” theme in the Gospel. The Dionysian saturated milieu of Ephesus is also reflected in the choosing to report and highlight the water turned wine story in John’s Gospel.

[@jonjohnson445]

24:39 It's also interesting that Moses is credited with writing the Torah, but if he did, he wrote in third person also. Then we have the transfiguration account with Moses and Elijah and John the Baptizer has the spirit of Elijah. John the disciple outran Peter who was quite zealous. Elijah called down fire from heaven(lightning)Flash/Shazam, and was taken to heaven via fiery whirlwind.

[@jonjohnson445]

Nazi Germans also have a connection to a full moon on a red background with lightning bolts that represent the letters "J', "S", and "Z".

[@MH55YT]

If the author of the Gospel of John were written by John, son of Zebedee, how old was he? Bart says the Gospel was written around 95 AD, which is 65 years after Jesus's death. Therefore, the author would have been nearly 100 years old? It only makes sense that anybody could live that long if you believe in myths. PS. thanks for your videos.

[@leopoldopetrieska6564]

damn, who wouldnt click with that banger of a title?

[@user-wj9hx8ww3z]

If the sons of Zebedee are mentioned in John 21 as being with the risen Jesus alongside the "beloved disciple", how could John be the beloved disciple?

[@HPLeft]

Bart's next book sounds like an extremely important one, especially given our current political situation in the US.

[@jasonengel]

Has anyone made an argument for the author of Mark and John being the same person writing two gospels, "Mark" first and then "John" decades later? Such a person would not use the same content twice, and would've had enough time to learn the more advanced Greek used in John.