Who Really Wrote the Gospel of John? 

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.

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.

Thanks, as always, for these.

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

I look forward to reading the gospel according to Bart!

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

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.

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. 👍👍

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

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

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

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

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!

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.

Another banger! Love the podcast

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

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

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.

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

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

Great talk! Great hair!

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

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

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.

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?

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

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

Short answer: Nobody knows.

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

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.

@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?

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

This has quickly become one of my favorite shows!

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..

What is the title of Bart Ehrman's book on Jesus' ethics and when was it published?

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?

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.

3:22 discussion of John begins

Thank you.

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..

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

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.

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

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”

The upcoming book sounds extremely promising.

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.

The registered owner of your music is blocking the download of your video so we can watch it offline. Please address.

Has Bart done any videos on Romans 9, verses 11-23? I'm sure he has covered it somewhere, either in his books or RU-vid videos. It obviously is where Calvinism got it's roots.

"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.

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

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...

"Get behind me, Rock!" Honestly, I need a hole in my head to study this stuff

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 ?

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?

brilliant

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.

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.

Does anyone know of a good, annotated, Ehrman-approved, study Bible? Wanna support my niece with good scripture in hopes of averting a turn towards fundamentalism.

¿ "Sepphoris, known in Hebrew as Tzipori and in Arabic as Saffuriya is an archaeological site located in the central Galilee region of Israel, 6 kilometres north-northwest of Nazareth. It lies 286 meters above sea level and overlooks the Beit Netofa Valley. --Wikipedia" ?

Excellent. Bart is the cat's meow

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.

I’m just here for the glasses.

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.

who said johns was written as a response to gospel of Thomas, even picking out Thomas as the doubting disciple

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.

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

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?

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.

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

Honestly, I've not looked closely at it, so I'm just suggesting this based on your descriptions of not knowing who the beloved disciple is.... could it have been intended as a sort of "reader insert" where you're supposed to see yourself in the place of this beloved person who was close to Jesus? Perhaps not in the form that we're used to now, but with that type of intent?

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.

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.

Possibly Greek oracles ('mediums') wrote as instructed by spirits of Matthew Mark Luke John.

there were some of the opinion a gnostic named cerinthus wrote this gospel

I'm curious to learn more about the arguments Bart puts forth in his new book. So far it sounds like a broad-brush approach that might not take account of all of Jesus's ethical ideas. Such ideas as "take no thought for the morrow" strike me as unethical, at least prima facie, in that it's simply bad practical advice. Bart--or others--might want to argue for a more metaphorical reading of those teachings, though.

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.

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.

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

I thought Stephen was the first martyr?

*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.

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.

In finnish translation of the bible, book of revelation is called the revelation of Johannes. Johannes=John.

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

40:00 Altruism - sounds like an interesting thesis and book. I hope that Dr. Ehrman looks at altruism in cultures that had no contact with early Christianity, such as China, Africa, etc.

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

Megan's new orange looks cool (he said respectfully)

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.

Who is Megan?

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

Wow, Waldo's sister.

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.

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!

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

And the Gospel of Marcion?

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.

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.

I remember reading that educated people in the centuries before Augustine disdained early Christian writings because their rhetoric was too simplistic. So why does Bart insist that the writing in the Gospel of John is sophisticated?

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).

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.

Why can't it be like a hadith. Otherwise a recording of John's experience and knowledge.