Is the Gospel of John a Forgery?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 окт 2024
- Visit www.bartehrman... to shop from Bart Ehrman’s online courses and get a special discount by using code: MJPODCAST on all courses.
In this special episode, Bart takes a turn at doing the interviewing, talking to his colleague Hugo Mendez about the Gospel of John. Scholars have long argued that the Gospel of John -- named after Jesus' disciple John the Son of Zebedee -- was in fact written by someone else. Only later in Christian tradition was it ascribed to John. In that view, the author himself is not a "forger" -- that is, he did not claim to be a famous person knowing he was someone else. The book was anonymous*: the author never names himself and so can't be blamed for later readers mistaking his identity. But in fact *is there evidence that the author wanted his readers to think he was one of Jesus' closest disciples, and that he left hints for them in the book. If so -- and if he wasn't who he intimated he was -- isn't John a forgery?
Hugo and Bart’s dialogue is reminiscent of my colleagues and me posing Q’s to each other to fully flesh out details of our positions. Fun, healthy, and beneficial discourse 👍🏽
What discourse is there to have after learning that the entire book is fanfiction?
Luke and Mathew copied around 70% of Marc and for the rest they share they could have copied from each other. So if Luke copied Mathew or the other way around would be the question and not if another fictional source existed.
I'm a retired Anglican Priest and currently an Atheist... Your videos are seminary level stuff, and I learn a lot from them! 🎯
I am a Muslim. There are many reasons why somebody might leave the religion they had before or grew up with. From Anglican Priest to Atheism and currently retired, your path might have gone through faces. Anything major that might have pushed you to where you are now?
As a Muslim, I see the Bible as an important book but one that is missing its keys to unlock its mysteries, which got covered, through rewrites and hands the it went through.
Do you mean anti-seminary? I spoke to a seminary graduate recently and he said something that baffles me. He said the all Bible was inspired by God, and that there are no contradictions in it, none. I guess when you think that then you wouldn't bother looking for any.
The trustworthiness of thebible was directly linked to your believe in God I presume?
@@HajjiJesus I'm going on memory so this might come out backwards, but if you take the Hebrew word Yahweh and squish it tight, reverse the letters backwards and flip them upsides down and read it in Arabic, it spells Allah. As a Muslim, do you think this is mere coincidence, or is it more likely that all three of the major religions serve the exact same sky daddy? So ridiculous
@@Imahuckleberry
There is no Sky Daddy. Never was and never will be. That said, there are more important things going on to make a laugh from it. Unfortunately, Christianity begets Atheism due to the fact that the Book was not preserved and contains contents from many different sources, from regular men to Prophets to all the way to God. All these however share a common issue, corruption and lack to trust to tie it back to their origin. Bible was never meant for you and me as a path to follow. The Messages in it from God or Prophets were meant for societies that are long gone. You will never find in the Bible a nation that this is the final message from the final Prophet or God. That said, here is a digest what Islam is, below. It is a series of steps to help you digest the message. If you have questions, you can ask me or contact Islamic scholars near you. So let us start.
Do we agree we all exist, have choices, or are given choices? I Hope, we agree to this otherwise there is no point in us going past here. I will make this assumption. Now that we have this agreement, the question is where did we come from?
One might say we are from exploding stars, this galaxy, long-gone dead galaxies, the Big Bang, etc. We don't know as we cannot experiment and prove our hypothesis. So let us leave “x” as our origin. The question that comes after this is what made that “x”? And if you don't already come against a wall, what made that “x”, till you arrive at a stop where you just gave up and say "We don't know". The problem for you is that Logic answers this. We come from an originator, a single originator. If there were two, like parents, it will finally go back to a Single Originator, or Uncreated, Purposeful, Willful, Powerful, knowledgeable, Superior, Inventor, Shaper, Fashioner, etc. to have made something/beauty from Nothing. Nothing means without everything we take for granted like matter, time, space, etc. In other words, you have been made by an Entity “x”. Whether you like it or not, it does not have any bearing to that entity we named “x”, aka God.
Done.
You might have a question about suffering, death, hell, etc. Let me explain. What do you think when you see suffering?
Unmerciful God?
Is nothingness causing this?
Nature doing this?
Nature for example does not create itself, self-originate.
Something, a thing, an entity must create the system, nature. Let us say there was Energy. We will not even go about what caused the energy in the first place, to begin with. But let us grant that for now. Can Energy create a simple Game with simple graphics and a story from start to end? Not in Billion, Quadrillion years unless that Energy had powers of intelligence, wisdom, will, power, etc. Attributes we associate with God.
The problem of atheists is that they are wearing tinted glasses and then using them to interpret everything they don’t know. Like somebody who can see a microscopic level of things and apply what they see to planets and galaxies.
Think of this world as a Virtual Reality with different obstacle levels. Each of us comes to this Reality with predefined scenarios we have to navigate from. We are given a tribal, race, family, relationships/façade, temporary façade that adds to the course that we are given. This is not limited to human associations. This is also true for wealth, health, calamities like earthquakes and other things that affect our lives here. These might make our movement harder or easier. Either case, the harder the hand we are given and we succeed, the better we are positioned when it all ends. We don’t choose the hand we are given. Excellence is what is expected from us whatever the hand.
We don’t die and disappear neither do children suffer for no reason. Suffering is the eye of the beholder. We and the kids have the same substance, we call it Soul. When the Test finish and we are out, we come out as the same. What we call children are just the same entities as us who had their slotted time on this Reality get ended early. This does not mean, we should have mercy for each other. Matter of fact, it is one of the expected things. We should see all of us as same from the kid near NorthPole to the one in the jungle down south.
If you understand this, you understand this world. Nothing dies for real in this world. Yes, the avatar or character you are given to play dies but that thing that makes the character work does not. It exits the Virtual reality, Existence, and wakes up to the reality it already knew. Then the truth will start to dawn on us. Every one of us will remember why we were in this reality upon exit.
You might ask, why we don't remember. Because it defeats the reason we are here for. We are here for a purpose. As we start this game called World and we get transplanted in the middle of a small baby growing inside of a mother, we start fresh and assume total plug-in to this reality/ Existence. This means temporarily forgetting everything outside of this existence. Brain and the data it contains are created in this existence. Everything about this reality is already programmed, designed to the pixel level, using a term we know. All the option choices we are availed to us, in reality, are also known and configured. What is expected of us is to use the rules set for this reality and excel. These rules are created by God to help us achieve our goals, to get the best possible outcome when our time is reached while living the best possible life.
Of course, Virtual reality is one thing, the life we are in is another. One the Creator is us, the other, its Creator is the Originator of all that is, was, or will be, the Mighty Supreme Being. Unlike virtual reality, we feel everything because we are supposed to feel as it is, to be like the Real deal for us. Why? So that the good comes out from the bad. The power-hungry narcists come out from the beautiful Soul. God does not punish unjustly, our actions do. Our actions decide what happens to us once we wake up from this reality and realize what we have done. If you are wondering why you are even here since you did not choose this? This might shock you, you choose to be in it. If you are already in this world, there is nobody to blame for that except you.
.....
Dr. Ehrman, I love your videos. I wasn't smart enough, nor had the money in my youth to attend college. It's just fantastic that you take the time to do these videos thus giving the [ simpleton laymen man ] to look into your eyes and hear your knowledge. Thanks again, I know it's time consuming for you. But this allows me/us to hear you speak and LEARN. Thank you sir !
@Gladicuss I totally agree and you seem smarter at heart & brain than most PhD's I know. Keep it up bro!
Did you think Ehrman's was smart and honest to fail realizing the fact that the NT Bible NEVER claimed it was written by one single writer at the one single time???
Wtf did u just say?
@sgma4m Dr B has stressed the many authors of the Bible as well as anonymous authors. He IS bright and informative
Your interest in this content, shows you’re smarter than most people, my friend, because you want to actually USE your brain to understand these things. Most people’s smarts never get put to use, once they leave school. Good luck !🍀
At first, my mind read the title as "The Gospel of John Fogerty."
“Proud Mary,” indeed!
I ain't no Fortunate Son (of God)!
I figured that John Fogerty had taken Bart's class where Bart has his students write a Gospel. I'm sure Bart has read some interesting and curious student Gospels!
😂
That is hilarious? Thanks.
As someone who grew up within a pentecostal Christian tradition, this kind of discussion would have amounted to a Satanist convention. To even hint that the Bible could be anything but perfect and inerrant would be to place yourself on the edge of the pit of Hell. But it has been so liberating to view and read so much of Bart Ehrman's material and to become progressively more liberated from the constant anxiety and obsessiveness that extreme fundamentalism brings. While I am not at the point of abandoning all that the term "Christian" can entail, I am certainly more agnostic of many of the claims made in its name, and the journey is definitely not over.
Writing around AD 180, Irenaeus of Lyons wrote, “John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.”1 In other words, Irenaeus declares that John wrote the fourth Gospel while living in Ephesus. And this John should be identified with the disciple whom Jesus loved and reclined on Jesus’ breast in John 13:23. Do you realise that? You should.
Other church fathers also affirm John’s authorship. Clement of Alexandria-also writing around AD 180-stated, “But that John, last of all, conscious that the outward facts had been set forth in the Gospels, was urged on by his disciples, and, divinely moved by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel.”
Same here same here
Being Roman Catholic did the same to me
Why do you as a Christian refuse to even look at Islam. Is it because you have a hatred/pride towards the people of the East? Not once in your whole life of following these ridiculous lies did it ever cross your mind, or maybe it did, and your pride kicked in.
God will not be unjust to you on the day of sorrow.
"In the name of God, the Gracious, the Merciful.
1. Say, “He is God, the One.
2. God, the Absolute.
3. He begets not, nor was He begotten.
4. And there is none comparable to Him.” [Quran 112]
Great interview! So nice to hear calm, respectful debate
As opposed to?
The gospel of John was the start for me to doubt the reliability of the bible and Christianity. It was my first shock given in a class in my church by a paster that had a doctor degree in theology. He said what here is presented about the date of this gospel, in a class room of over 50, I was the only one to raise my hand. I ask him how old was John when he wrote this down since this was written in or close to the second century. His said over 100. Then I ask him, how is this possible if the apostles were murdered in the first decades for their belief. The dancing this paster did was unbelievable to pull out his butt a justification. It took me ten years to finally accept that it was all bull shit and I was 58 believe it or not.
Moreover: Chrysostom Homily 25 on the Acts of the Apostles Acts XI. 19:
"seeing those they went to, were those that should bring the war: and moreover the war (66 if i remember it correctly) breaks out only after the Apostles were dead"
They were all dead pretty early before the Jewish roman war.
The average life expectancy was probably 30's - mid 40's during John's time, that's what I can't get past. John was 2 1/2 times over that. Even with all the blatant errors in this novel we still have Trekkies
so an immortal disciple doesn't persuade you ... I mean we can just ask them. I assume they are hanging out at beach in Aotearoa
@@Imahuckleberry except the author is supposedly immortal
There never was multiple Gospels by multiple authors. The Gospel was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th.
I'm loving this interview. The subtitles of the arguments enters a whole new level of understanding or dimension even. I was seriously happy to have Bart as the interviewer since he could put the breaks on and slow everything down to about my speed. What a fascinating perspective on John. 🙃✨️
I absolutely love the discussion between these two
I got hooked on Bart’s work about a decade ago when the library I worked at ordered one of his Great Courses programs. I quickly made my way through all the classes we had of his, all of his general audience books, and even managed to get my hands on a couple of his scholarly books from a university library in town (through an interlibrary loan).
I’ve watched pretty much every video on this channel (except most of the debates), and this is by far my favorite video Bart’s done with a guest since launching the MQ podcast.
I’d love to see Hugo come back for more discussions within his fields of expertise. Bart and his rapport and respect for each other’s work really come through, and made me wish this episode was twice as long as it was.
Agree more Hugo!!
As a former devout Catholic come agnostic, I always have a soft spot for academia Catholic Christian apologists as they are usually incredibly intelligent and even better communicators. This young man nails both, and, exceeds them, in places.
Well done & hope to see more of you w/Bart.
I was educated mainly by Jesuits. We were encouraged to study, then think for ourselves.
What about looking into Islam?
Happy to see this posted again! I didn’t get to finish it last time haha interesting guest and topic
I graduated from a Evangelical Seminary in Guatemala, but most of the students didn like to learn Greek, and Hebrew. For them, to be a minister WAS to follow the Bible to the letter. Dr Mendez does a incredible job telling us the intricacy of THE language in what the NT was Written. WOW! What a mind! I could watch another 3 hours of this.
So ironic that military conquered people BEING MENTALLY CONQUERED IN THE AMERICAS with religion
(As a Christian) Neither did Jesus write the bible nor did he say "Write the bible". I do think the term "Holy book" misleads too many people.
I hope you have Prof. Mendez on your podcast more often!
He sounds clueless
@@TheRealDyscyples Who sounds clueless? Hugo Mendez? He doesn't sound clueless to me.
As a fellow linguist I think I'm going to like this episode
Are you a cunning linguist?
@@twitherspoon8954Damn, you beat me to it! 🤣
The politest of scholarly fisticuffs... Makes me nostalgic for old friends
I heard Bart’s debate voice a few times in this one. Here we go!
I really appreciated this conversation and the guest's perspective. I've started wondering lately if there were religious grifters or charlatans plaguing the early Christian community -- kind of like we see today.
Kinda seems like human nature
Judging by what's found in the Didache, I'd place money on it.
Of course. Why do you think organized religion was invented?
John was a “forgery” not written by John the disciple, it was written as a theological philosophy.
It also has obvious Neo-Pythogorean and Platonist aspects and illusions in it.
So why Lie? To give the theology authority.
But bring there is an obvious Influence from Plato, perhaps they were also influenced by Plato’s Republic. Plato's The Republic, a noble lie is a myth or a lie knowingly propagated by an elite to maintain social harmony.
And when you read Justin Martyr he says we have “designated Jesus as the embodiment of the eternal Logos”.
Designated is an interesting word.
Justin Martyr also remarks on the harmony of the new church in which people who were once enemies now worship together.
Another Idea in the Republic is the Philosopher King. By Jesus being the embodiment of the Logos he is the one who was the source for all philosophers and also a King.
We know Platonism was a major influence on several early Christians, why wouldn’t the Republic also be an influence?
Paul
An interesting theory is that John 21 is the missing ending to Mark. It has Markan language and has a perfect fit to Mark, ending with Jesus again re-calling Peter to follow him (beside the sea again), and would make sense for a resurrection appearance, as the disciples go back to fishing before the theophany.
Mark already has way too many endings. Interesting theory though. I'm inclined to think that there were a lot of hands in the pot, so to speak, each trying to get what they wanted.
Except John was written at least 20 years after Mark and it's clearly written to fit John's first 20 chapters. So sure, it may seem to fit any other gospel since they're basically sloppy politicized copies of each other. But it's not a theory that any credible scholar would take seriously. Then again, most of them are christians, so there might be even crazier theories that enjoy a consensus among scholars. Very few are credible.
@@stylis666 This is completely false and your worthless attack against scholars shows yourself to be another blind and retarded Matt Dillahunty disciple. Atheists in scholarship can have the exact same view, and they're starting to. The core of John being the earliest and most Jewish of all the Gospels. And no, the Gospels aren't sloppy and John 21 doesn't resemble 1-20. Don't talk if you don't know your shit. Sit down.
Mr. Mendez is a fascinating person. I will get his book.
Impressive explanation about the authorship of Gospel John , well supported with text references, logic and thought, presented with a clarity we layman can understand. Thanks for this program.
What Is the logic of the universe?
@@Petal4822 that question doesn't make sense. Logic is about good arguments and respectings rules of thought to get to valid conclusions. It has nothing to do with the "Universe" or material truths.
Drs. Ehrman and Mendez, how would the author of the Gospel of John have distributed his gospel in a way that people would accept it? Obviously, he couldn’t say “Here’s a book I wrote about my time spent with Jesus,” because his contemporaries would have known that he was not one of the original disciples.
Exactly how many books in history have been written without a book cover or some sort of tag (ie superscript) identifying its author? Is there even a precedence for such a practice?
I loved the debate! Great episode to both Dr. Ehrman and Dr. Mendez 🎉
❤ I appreciate the clear points in the discussion.
The greatest challenge of this world is knowing enough about a subject to think you are right, but not knowing enough about the subject to know you are wrong…
Did you come up with this or is it a quote. Either way, I really appreciate it!
@@MetaphorUB Alexander Pope famously said 'A *little* knowledge is a dangerous thing.' which means pretty much exactly that.
Alexander Pope beat you too it in the 1700s. He famously said 'A *little* knowledge is a dangerous thing', which is still regularly quoted today. He went on to add: 'drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.”
People are pretty ignorant on the whole. GR and QM is fine, to be ignorant about, they are difficult however, idiots do critique other subjects because it affects their religion. With absolutely ZERO understanding.
@@MetaphorUB -It’s a self-assessment study known as the Dunning-Kruger effect. The study shows that everyone can potentially be affected by this.
I am curious about the images on the wall behind Professor Mendez.
Interesting discussion. As a European protestant theologian, I was already familiar with the premise that much of the authorship claims in or about the NT are historically false, as Bart mentions. A new insight for me was that John is offering a reading guide to the other gospels, precisely by telling stories that do not appear in those gospels. This is very enlightening, and actually provides a valuable reading guide to the gospel of John itself. So thanks for that!
I don't know whether I would call this gospel a forgery, though. Technically it is, of course, in the sense that the book puports to be written by someone who is not in fact its author. But the word forgery carries quite negative connotations, whereas I do think this practise, which btw is also ubiquitous in the First Testament, was actually meant as a kind of tribute, out of respect, and happened in the spirit of: 'What would Jesus / John / Paul / Isaiah / Amos have said, were he alive today? What do his words mean for us, today?' The practise also speaks to the flexibility of religious thought, which always looks for new ways for the old texts (that remain to be read and revered) to be relevant under new circumstances.
I would agree that one can not know these things and remain a fundamentalist / literalist, but can by all means remain a Christian. For this, though, you will have to learn to view Scripture as a (human) discussion through time and between generations of believers, the result of a constant process of searching new relevance for new times, rather than a fixed, unerrant code dictated by Heaven itself. Personally, I find Scripture as a human discussion much more inspiring, if only because it lets us take position in that discussion ourselves ;-)
Perhaps you may would like to be open minded and read the quran to learn the real God Scripture not a human words. Best of luck dear
@@truthmatter9972 this is possible, the qustion is according to what standard as we knwo today the the islamic tradition is not any more historical teneble and we have no reason to think that the islamic muhammad is historical
i agree with this
actually a grew up agnostic and i was presented the chrsitian/biblical tradition from this ivnestigative prospective and now i feel more christian than before
i can understand how these intrviews may be shocking for people growing in a literalist environment
but when you are already educated in a chrsitan tradition where histtorical criticism is part of the christian education, things are fine and not a problem
@@torotorotaxi5367 Sorry ... What do you mean "we have no reason to think that the islamic muhammad is historical" ..!!!!!
@@torotorotaxi5367 You depend on Courapted book for salvation is not problem ??? really !!!!
Jesus was neither catholic nor protestant nor did he found a church
Nothing makes me trust a speaker/writer more then when they say "trust me, im telling the truth"......
I had the same thought. "Trust me. Would I lie to you?"
When someone says "trust me" so unapologetically you can't not believe them.. 😂
well there is the 12 disciple thing ... Mark mentions about 80, Mathhew and Luke mention 12 but not the same 12. John only gives names of 5 and one is Lazarous. The 12 thing is just to match the 12 Tribes ... and their are 13 Tribes. Levi is also a funking Tribe!
@@russellmiles2861 Details smetails :p
The Gospel of John is written in sophisticated and elegant Greek by someone with a command of Greek philosophy and thus he could not have been from Jesus' circle of Apostles. End of story.
Many Jews at the time of Jesus would have had some knowledge of Greek. If John wrote this in his later years, who is to say by then he was not fluent in Greek? Alternatively, it was common to have an amanuensis to write down what you said. In summary, it is quite possible. End of story.
@@PC-vg8vn I am familiar with amanuenses (I am using the Latin plural -es here). Apparently Your John spent a lot of time reading high cognitive level Greek works like those of Plato and Aristotle, because the Greek of the writer is very literary.
@@PC-vg8vn I guess then your Jewish John read Greek philosophy in an academy for years before he wrote his gospel in superb literary Greek instead of the Koiné everyday argot of the time. I am familiar with amanuenses (I use the Latin plural here.). 😎
Next listen to Dr Robyn Faith Walsh discuss who probably were the authors of the gospels and the audiences they were writing for. What Dr. Mendez is saying about the author of John fits right in with her theory. Buy her book.
Excellent discussion. Learned so much. Thank you.
For me personally, the Logos Doctrine is one of the ideas that have kept me linked to Christianity. But largely having read Justin Martyr’s understanding that Socrates and Heraclitus were “Christians before Christ” because the had access to the Logos. This way if understanding creates a real universality.
Meaning anyone in any culture can access Logos translated as ethical reason, deductive and inductive reason, other types of reason, creativity, vitality, have an insight into the divine order of the universe etc.
I am completely disinterested in creating a tribal chauvinism if Christianity so I have distanced myself fro organized religion. But aspects of the Logos Doctrine still speaks to me especially as teacher.
It is a miracle to see creativity, reason, morality emerge in students. There is the Logos, both described by Socrates and by Jesus and by Swami Vivekananda.
“In a conflict between the heart and the brain, follow your heart.”
-Swami Vivekananda
“We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes. Those, therefore, who lived according to reason (logos) were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus and others like them.”
Justin Martyr
If you think the ‘heart’ is a reliable source of knowledge, why are you attempting to present argumentation for your ideas?
@@davethebrahman9870 We know the truth (logos) not only by the reason, but by the heart.
In modern times I see atheists dedicated to reason especially scientific materialist reductionism of falsifiable science.
Many Christians are dedicated by Jesus‘s heart message and reject rationality and science.
I so no purpose in abandoning one for the other. They actually complement one another. And Justin Martyr did not see them in contradiction.
Tertullian on the other hand rejected Greek philosophy. And as Christianity evolved towards Orthodoxy reason was dropped and a type of Blind Authoritarian Faith was instituted.
The other aspect dropped was Gnostic intuition.
From there Christianity evolved into a one-sided religion. Which does not even serve the heart very well. It gets caught into the most idiotic idolatries imaginable with its insistence on jettisoning reason, science, evidence etc.
I think Christianity actually can evolve in the present at least partly by absorbing it’s rejected past.
A fascinating discussion. I need to find Hugo's article. He did an excellent job.
It's been over 30 years since I did my New Testament class at Erskine, and longer than that from my Bible at St. Andrews-Sewanee, so perhaps the scholarship has moved on. I remember the consensus at the time was that the Fourth Gospel was a redaction from at least five different textual threads, so the notion of "an author" was a bit misleading. As Dr. Mendez is a linguist, I would have loved to hear his thoughts on linguistic changes within the text that suggest different texts being edited into a whole. In English translation, certainly the 18th and 19th chapters sound and feel different from the lengthy Passion discourse before, but I don't read Greek, so I don't know if there are grammatical and vocabulary changes in the original. As I thought about the Fourth Gospel, I came to think of it as the product of a community deeply influenced by Platonism. (I'll read Dr. Mendez's article on whether he thinks the community existed.) The Gospel was their account of the life of Jesus and a response to Pauline Christianity as well as the Christianity of the Synotic Gospels. I come back to Chapters 18 and 19 and they smell like an oral history told by an eyewitness, particularly the specificity of the threat to Pilate "you are not Caesar's friend" and the place of judgment, Lithostrotos in Greek (I believe the only place the word is used in the NT) and Gabbatha in Aramaic. As memory serves, lithostrotos describes the mosaic floor and is not a translation of the Aramaic gabbatha which means more of a courtyard. It's a detail of specificity I just don't expect in a whole cloth forgery, particularly as it corresponds well with where archeologists think Pilate would have held court in Jerusalem. There is a century of redaction on top of it, and centuries of translation on top of that, but I just have a suspicion there is an oral eyewitness account in the shadows of the text.
Is it very possible that Pilate and his extremes, both in luxury and brutality, were so very well known (much like the "elites" in our time are know) it would be easy to offhandedly reference one of his attributes about a palace so offhandedly in a story.
Even the story of The Amazing Spider-Man, is laced with so many verisimilitudes that the credulous could use those inclusions to say "Such clear drawings of a costumed Peter Parker on top of the Washington Monument leads me to believe some truth to this story." Nah.
thank you, thank you, thank you for getting a good microphone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jeez i know!!!!! Its constantly driven me crazy with Megan in a sound booth and Bart on his iPhone
His slight smile when he was being introduced is killing me 😭
Very interesting interview! Thanks to Bart and Hugo!
LOL! I clicked because I thought I saw "John Fogerty". Glad I clicked anyway, it's not Fortunate Son, but Bart will most certainly be as provocative!
Same!
“It ain’t me!”
@@UplandJones1 I ain't no deity's, son, no!
All the CCR puns are driving me up around the bend.
@@secretgoldfish931 "I hoid it thru the grapevine" - author of John
Ah, we Orthodox Christians love Bart Ehrmann - he utterly debunks Sola Scriptura and the Protestant/Evangelical worldview for us!
Christians who love the bible discredited. An odd thing, but there it is.
@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr The bible wasn't a thing for the first 15 centuries so how can the protestants verify or interpret the bible since there's all they got.
48:03 spectacular! Hearing this part, CliffsNotes for Shakespeare comes to mind! ‘Tell me what this other thing, which is really hard to understand, actually means.’ Hermeneutic CliffsNotes for the synoptics, courtesy of a non-eyewitness… Lovely.
2000 years later Bart has cracked it. Thousands of theologians and students before him were under a spell but not Bart. He saw through it
Your argument, stated ironically, is of course a cartoon, suggesting that Ehrman alone calls into question the combined authority of Bible scholarship and Christian pronouncements.
The Deists seem to have limited the role of god to that of an initial designer. Among them, some of the framers of the US constitution. So we are back to the 18th century, and some powerful individuals.
Through the 19th century, the discovery of geological time led people to understand that the biblical stories of the Flood , of the patriarchs living to 900, and so forth could not be literally true.
By the time Darwin publishes, his evolutionary model is widely accepted within 10 years.
In the USA and UK some Protestants take up inerrantism and literalism, because the discoveries of science are undermining faith.
By the time Ehrman is around, the fundamentalists have doubled down. There are, believe it or not, YEC geology students at Cedarville U., studying Noah’s Flood Geology.
Mainstream Christianity, of course, concedes that the old Bible stories are myths and legends, but that Jesus is still the Son of God, and resurrected. The Resurrection is a crucial tenet of the faith. The fundies will tell you that 99.9% of educated theologians and Christian historians believe the story of the resurrection, despite the fact that it is physically impossible.
Ehrman is the most active critic on YT who shows that the biblical accounts cannot be read through Christian-coloured glasses, but rather as historical documents. He’s not the first, not the last. He does a good job of demanding that christians follow the rules, not make special pleadings.
Just a thought, about the Greek word Cross or Pole being different. But either way, congestion of the heart is a physical effect of a person hanging from a pole or a Cross which slowly sufficates a victim. So water gathering around the heart "pericardium" or bag around your heart can build up causing cardiac arrest. So the Romans would pierce that bag in order to prolong the suffering of the criminal. So seeing water come out identified that the Roman Soldier was experienced at his duties. Does not actually mean it was holy water, but an indication of the tip of the spear went to far in it would be instant death and not prolong the suffering of the criminal. The Catholics artists depict the spear entering the left side of the chest indicating a lack of knowledge of the physical placement of the heart inside our bodies. So we can hardly argue the water that came out was Holy Life Giving Water. But just the natural process of a person near death hung on a Cross or Pole.
or... John added a detail that the other Gospel writers didn't: to explain things better. Baptism per se never occurs in the Gospel of John. A-man-sent-from-God-named-John baptizes "with water" but he never actually baptizes anyone (he is also the voice crying out in the wilderness but he doesn't live in the wilderness). In Luke 12:50 and Mark 10:39 Jesus says "I have a baptism with which to be baptized". Other writings are already in the possession of the church so John the author wants to account for this upcoming baptism of Jesus, especially since he has already denied Jesus his baptism by A-man-sent-from-God-named-John. The pierced side baptizes Jesus in water without being baptized by a mere human or in natural water.
Yes, this is speculation: there is no need to accept it. But, no other writing in the NT mentions the spear (or the wound), not even Revelation, so the reason why John added it must be questioned. Given John's many other revisions, we have the right to say this is one of them, in spite of his insistence that we not ask questions (if we want to consider ourselves believers).
Yes, I am a Christian and I do honor the word of God. I also believe God cannot lie or make a mistake, and for this reason I say John has no right to be in the canon.
This was wonderful, thank you!
Wasn't this already posted a few weeks back?
Yes. At least part of it.
Right, I think it was accidentally released early.
One of the few people in the area Bart listens with interest/respect and doesn't ridicule 😂
I think he had to hold himself back a few times hah but I really liked this guest.
@@bubbles581I had the same impression 😂
@@bubbles581 There were a few occasions-maybe those you’re referencing-when he seemed a bit obtuse, when he seemed not to get some rather simple points, and that frustrated me. Later I thought maybe Ehrman was just playing dumb for the listener’s benefit, prompting Mendez to clarify in case the listener was not following the logic of the argument. At any rate, by the end of the interview he seems largely to come around to Mendez’s viewpoint.
Yes.. I kind of wondered what that is in videos with Bart with anyone other than Megan that he switches into a kind of 'debating' style where the goal seems to be to win the argument and prove the other guy is wrong. Maybe that's just inherent to university level debates where that's the expressed goal. And he does it respectful enough by and large but you still get the impression of a contest.
It’s obvious that John 21 was tacked on later. And at least that bit is a forgery. So if the author of that bit is claiming to be the author of the whole thing, then he is lying. And if he isn’t making that claim (which is the plain meaning of what he wrote) then he is leaving the author unidentified. He says the disciple wrote “these things”, but does this mean that the disciple wrote the preceding 20 chapters?
John 21:24
This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true
(Was this verse added in or not? Because it could mean that this gospel was based on the Signs Gospel written earlier, Scholars such as Raymond E. Brown believe the original author of the Signs Gospel to be the Beloved Disciple also known as John the Son of Zebedee. They argue that the disciple who formed this community was both a historical person and a companion of Jesus Christ.
The gospel of "John" writes directly about John the son of zebedee, the disciples and about the disciple whom Jesus loved, he doesnt view himself as one of them. And remember: every Christian is a disciple but only the 12 are apostles. So someone calling himself disciple doesn't mean that he knew Jesus.
And moreover: we already have an ending in John 20. And John 21 (inderectly) mentions the death of the disciple whom Jesus loved. He died and people thought he will be alive till Jesus returns, that explains the last chapter and the explanation of what Jesus meant
@@germanboy14 And where did you get this information from? How do you know that this is 100% true.
@@FriendwithNoName7 which exactly ? But I have everything from biblical scholars.
28:20 " . . . a little ambiguity is your friend; it ensures that a reader who might be sceptical of a direct claim might tolerate your book for a more implicit one . . . "
This instantly made me think of Gene Wolfe, especially Book of the Short Sun. When I first read his work I knew he was a convert to Catholicism, and that his texts are full to the brim with Christian and pagan allusions, metaphors, allegories & co.; but only now that I have dipped a toe into New Testament scholarship by watching videos like this have I come to appreciate just how much Wolfe was influenced by the style, tone, and technique of the Gospels.
Excellent interview and subject. My thought is this John book came along to steer the religion in a new direction, decidedly away from it's apocalyptic beginnings. Hugo...be prepared for some literary arrows coming your way from some evangelists!!
24:24-24:31 Given the Odes of Solomon it is more reasonable to think that the beloved disciple was a literary device simply conveying how one should strive to be up close and personal with Jesus.
I was more willing to think this was a pseudepigrapha BEFORE I watched this video. Watching it I do not think John is a pseudepigrapha. I'm inclined to think the Muratorian Fragment recorded an approximate version of what happened -- but I suspect that there were others involved who did the writing with John not dictating but potentially approving or correcting it after the fact.
"Pseudepigrapha" is plural. Just one would be a "pseudepigraphon".
@@Mac_an_Mheiriceanaigh OK, but isn't it supposed to be psudepigrapha when it is multiple authors?
Very important topic. Thanks Bart and Hugo!
Holy cow. Bart said, “you don’t have to believe in the Bible to be a Christian.” That statement is so true but so difficult to see differently being a Christian for so long.
well you have to believe in some of it, because without the bible there is no christianity
@@scambammer6102 There is, the Bible as the Bible didn't exist during that time, you could literally only read the Epistle of Barnabas and be a Christian lol.
I suppose it's possible for many people to believe anything under the sun... But for anyone who's analytical and empirical, they need something that's actually true to hang their beliefs on, which is why many become atheists.
@@FriendwithNoName7 that was 2000 years ago. there would be no christianity TODAY without the bible.
@@scambammer6102 without the Hebrew Bible there is no Christianity, but Christianity by definition predates the New Testament so even if the Christian Bible is responsible for the proliferation of Christianity through the ages it is fundamentally not required to be a Christian and the idea that it is is a result of what became the Orthodoxy claiming ownership over Christianity at the expense of other early Christian views.
Glad to see the video was uploaded again.
How does the analysis presented change when the “us” and “we” in Chapter 1 verse 14 are interpreted as “humankind” rather than “me personally and my friends”? It was always my assumption that 1:14 meant he became flesh and lived among humankind, rather than he was known to the author personally. But then, I’m reading it in English, and I have no idea if the Greek gives a different impression.
I'd love to hear what Hugo Mendez has to say about Jn 14:25-26
Bart Ehrman is the Rick Steves of the Bible.
I felt a moment of epiphany - if that is the correct word - when near the end you said - if I understood you properly - that you can be a Christian and also an atheist. I have more theology saved in my favourites than any other topic. I'm currently struggling with the "design" argument due to the lack of real scientific evidence for the start of life - from inanimate to even the simplest cell structures - which have a universe of complexity inside them all of which have amazing integrated functions.
To be a Christian and an atheist means to be a philosophical Christian. You live according to the morality of Jesus, but you don't believe the Bible to be true.
If you simply believe that there is a designer but not a specific one, you would either be a deist or an agnostic
Thank you. John and the Epistles of John are not talked about enough in a scholarly way. I'd love your take on the "book of Signs"- or " Signs Gospel " - do you think it an earlier book, or draft, contained within the book? Is it a different author?
Could the author of John have been a gentile? The gospel itself was almost certainly not written by John but rather by a disciple of John's. The gospel was written in Greek. Many Gentiles were Greek-speaking / if literate, able to write Greek. The author was convinced Jesus was God, and if he/she was Greek, then they would have believed in the pantheon and the legends of the gods, which included tales of mortals becoming gods. The gospel was written several decades after the churches were founded in gentile cities around the Mediterranean, and most followers by then were gentiles and not Jews. The Epilogue is likely a later addition to the gospel and it speaks about the author: "the disciple whom Jesus loved...This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them." The author is not named, so he/she might not have been one of the 12 - might have been a disciple that came later.
I'm trying to figure out what new info this guy is trying to present. It all seemed like common knowledge except the claim that Papias thought John wrote the Gospel. And when Bart asked why he thinks that he refused to answer
He was very relunctant while answering..
Probably a christian..
Imo..
There seems to be clear that all the authors of the Gospels wrote their materials for a specific group of readers or even a specific individual in the case of Luke writings. And those readers knew who the authors were and that could be the reason why the authors did not need to introduce themselves to their readers in their writings.
And since the 4 gospels and even all the new testament historical writings and epistles did not mention anything about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple God by the Romans in 70 CE, we therefore might conclude that those writings were already written before that.
Being in the Catholic Church I have never felt it very important who wrote John but I love playing around with the texts in the scholarly way. I think the NABRE (2011) translation of the scriptures does not pull any punches on scholarship while still being faithful to the Catholic Church.
I feel ya, the footnotes in my Catholic bible are extremely explicit on using the most recent findings on textual criticism
@@diansc7322 which catholic bible? mine is not English and it still says that mark wrote mark etc. (not even a word about recent scholarship) Also they seem to not acknowledge the dispute over authorship of the Pauline epistles. However, they admit some fragments of texts were added much later, I will give them this. I'm just wondering if it's only the Polish bibles that are like this.
@@queue9773 it's a Spanish one, it's called Biblia de América, has an imprimatur and all
@@diansc7322 so it might be just a polish thing lol. it's new and also has an imprimatur so im kinda dissapointed by it. thank you though
A lot of discussion regarding to points that the author testifies are truthful.
What does that say about the rest of the book, by implication?
I can't get it out of my mind that the disciple whom Jesus loved was Judas Iscariot. This just seems to make more sense to me than any other explanation. Judas obviously did not die and "went to his own place" (Acts 1:28). Is there anyone else who has been down this route?
The disciple whom Jesus loved could be Lazarus.
John 11:36. Then the Jews said, “See how he loved him!” referring to Lazarus
John 11:5, “Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.”
And we know that the disciple whom Jesus loved is a male from John 19 26 or 27
@@ObjectiveEthics thats not true. The messiah is supposed to be a ruler, who build the temple. Isaiah 53 is not about Jesus or the Messiah.
@@ObjectiveEthics Absolutely, without Judas, the Gospel would be nothing. Most people I have spoken to won't even entertain this idea. Could Judas have survived his suicide attempt?
@@RonaldMcDonalds-or5md It makes more sense than it being John for sure. I still think Judas is a better explanation.
@@robbo916 could be. I never thought about Judas. For me it's definitely not John. It could also be James the Just, the brother of Jesus. If I remember correctly, James Tabor said it.
Ehrman cooking his own guest lol
You mean John the son of Zebedee and Salome, an illiterate unschooled Galilean fisherman from the city of Bethsaida, didn't write in highly fluent Greek and personally compose the Gospel of John, the three Epistles of John, and the book of Revelation?
Maybe, maybe not. Even within early Christianity there was a dispute, there are 2 graves in Ephesus of 2 John's, one of them reported to be John the Elder and the other one John the Son of Zebedee. Some early Christians believed the book of Revelation to have been written by John the Elder.
Def not Revelation, almost certainly not the epistles.
The author writes about John the son of zebedee. The author was for sure john the elder who was not an eyewitness of Jesus
John the son of Zebedee couldn't have written any of them. He's described by the author of Acts as an illiterate, and he spoke Aramaic, not the Greek of those New Testament writings.
@@tchristianphoto The events of Acts would've happened directly after the Resurrection. You're telling me John, in the remaining decades of his life, never learned to write or to dictate to a scribe? Stop.
It's gotta be hell being interviewed by Bart because he is on your ass.
Wow WHAT AN INTRODUCTION!!, guy is clearly a genuis with languages
I found a pot of gold in my garden.
Well, not actual gold, but imaginary gold.
And to be honest, I didn't actually find a pot.
For me the best thing about the gospel of John is that it inspired Johann Sebastian Bach to write the "Johannes Passion".
“Johns passion”
In the German original: Johannespassion.
What is the book about?
Yes I love to play Bach's music on my piano.
@@lunarlight3131 "Johannes Passion" is the origal German title. I am a German.
There already exists quite a body of scholarship identifying Lazarus of Bethany as the discple whom Jesus loved (John 11:3) and the author of the fourth Gospel. I won't get into the reasoning here but I'd suggest typing this into the search line above and checking out some of the videos.
If Mark is a beatnik, magical realist story about a mysterious guy with superpowers who popped out of nowhere and then was crushed by the system, then John is a Kim Jong Un press-release. From a humble testimony about a prophet of the apocalypse to full-on cult of personality. At least this is what I think I learned, may be wrong. Thank you for these interviews. Made me realize how little I know.
To learn about true message of Jesus , Perhaps it is the time to read the Quran
@@truthmatter9972 perhaps the Book of Mormon also. Or Dianetics.
@@sebastianb.1926 Hans-Joachim Schoeps was a German-Jewish historian of religion and religious philosophy. He was professor of religions and religious history at the University of Erlangen. He said “ The Jewish Christianity disappeared in Christian church but was preserved in Islam. lslam continue the heritage from looking to earliest Christian beliefs.
Also the other good read is " Christian Beginnings. From Nazareth to Nicaea, AD 30-325," by Oxford university / professor Dr. G. Vermes’s , the religion schooler, fluent in hebrow , Aramaic and Greek and the world leader translator of the Dead Sea Scrolls to English.
I hope this will help you dear.
@@truthmatter9972 Mohammad was a pedo, why?
@@truthmatter9972the Quran is like 600 years too late to be a reliable source, in that sense the gospels are historically way more reliable than the Quran as they date to decades from Jesus not over half a millenium after
To recap the apparent consensus of these two scholars: the Gospel of John is a collection of falsehoods, written by people who lied on purpose, for the purpose of deceiving people about the nature of Jesus, the afterlife, and the meaning of the synoptic gospels.
bart is brill as usual. I prefer when bart is interviewed as he explains very clearly. I feel his guest today is not so clear but he has obvious potential.
Yes, he is younger, and Bart is still the old lion Professor 🦁
@@trilithon108
I couldn't agree more. Mendez has a terrible tendency to obfuscate.
How long does Prof. Mendez have to stay in academia to get tenure?
The gospel of John is the greatest document ever written!
Where is the evidence for your claim ???
@@colinlavery625 Where is the evidence that this is a real question???
. your question is logical nonsense
Have you read every document ever written in the entire history of the world in order to make the claim that "John's gospel is the greatest document ever written" .... clearly nonsense !!!!🤪🤪🤪
@@colinlavery625 This comment is not even wrong
The Bible is literature. There are Christians who, not being bibliolotors, Base their faith on a personal relationship with Christ, not an ancient text. The way Christians deal with all these "problems" is to have enough sense not to confuse the Logos with a text. I read the Bible to learn what other people thought about God, not as Jesus in book form. Is it really that hard to understand that bibliotors don't represent all who dentify as "Christian?"
Isn't this a repeat?
yes
An early sect of Christians called The Alogi said the Gospel of John, and the Book of Revelation, were written by a gnostic named Cerinthus. They lived much closer to the time Christianity was invented, and I tend to believe their report since John & Revelation are so different than other books of the NT.
The case he presents for the author being "John" is almost laughably weak
There are some scholars who believe it
According to you
@@FriendwithNoName7 not real scholars. Not ones that haven't signed a pledged statement of faith.
@@travis1240 Not sure about that.
@@FriendwithNoName7 I feel so sorry for scholars. Just imagine how terrible it would be to spend all your time and money filling your head with lies and useless information. How bad that must be to get this back out of your head
Yes, Stephen King wrote the old testament!!!!! The horrors, it all makes sense!!!! Love you Bart
I think Stephen King is religious himself and he has the most amazing ideas about psychological horror, so yeah, I think he might have :)
I haven't watched yet, but I swear to dog, I read the title as "The Gospel of John Fogerty". Amen!
That's because you are obviously a legasthenic. Ask your dog to teach you.
Carrier is SOOO RIGHT!
What is he right about?
@@FriendwithNoName7 didn’t you see the capitalization and exclamation mark? What more evidence do you need?
@@HkFinn83 Not sure how he is "SOOO RIGHT" many scholars disagree with him. He could be right, but that's opinion based.
@HkFinn83 If it ain't in the Bible it's wrong.
Signed, a Christian
This will be a "re listen the video a few times to get the message" -- over my head currently. I will be doing research on this subject and then come back to this very interesting video. Rig
As the speaker goes into detail after detail, one might think that the subject matter is actually real and important.... but in the real world where famine, war and hatred reside, this almost seems to be a rube to get peoples minds away from the truth... the "fact" that supernatural beings have never existed, and that religion is a fairytale made up to distract us from logic and critical thinking. As fascinating and well spoken Bart and his guest are... one might wonder if all humanity would be better served if we just moved on and forgot about this book and looked ahead to trying to heal society and rid ourselves of the divisive nature of religion.
You don't know if something is a forgery unless you have the original to compare it with the alledged forgery. Where is the original?
I have cardiomyopathy (heart failure). I take two pills that work to eliminate excess fluid (water) from around my heart and body in general. The guest is likely mistaken that the water and blood coming out was intended to have a figurative value. It is one of the few details about Jesus that I actually find credible. Given the stress that crucifixion places on the body, I would assume Jesus may have endured several heart attacks. Yes, you can have a heart attack and keep right on talking a not notice. Some people have very noticeable heart attacks though.
7:11-7:31 i don’t think the prologue of “John” is original, so i’m not convinced by that. i’m more than willing to believe more fringe scholarship if i think it makes the most sense (the pastorals were written in 140 or even 145 and Ignatius was alive in the 140s), but i don’t think the scholarship here makes the most sense. I think the “Johannine Community” was simply an extension of the Essenes, which is showcased in the Odes of Solomon (which i date around 110 just after “John”).
That’s if Ignatius actually existed. His story makes little sense and his alleged letters seem to be mostly forgeries.
What is conflicting to me is the testimony about the presence of disciples by the cross during the crucifixion while the historical evidence states that the Romans did not allow anyone to the site of crucifixion. As a matter of fact, the closest distance to the site of crucifixion allowed to the public was 3 kilometers.
We have so many variants in the copies of early scriptures. We have no definitive “original” copy of anything biblical. Every copy we have was written much later.
In John, Jesus keeps saying I was sent I was sent, the father who sent me etc. Reminds me of being sent somewhere as a child.
the idea that writing in someone elses name is normal is like saying the people of Pakistan find no issue with corruption due to fact it is so ubiquitous there.
I was so sure that at 46:34 Bart said "Nicodemus and this American woman", I had to go back and listen again.
11:32-11:44 i don’t think “John” 21 is original either, so that’s also not convincing.
John 19:35 does not include the term "the beloved disciple." All it does is refer to an un-named male witness (who may or may not be the beloved disciple): "And the man who saw this is our witness: his evidence is true. (He is certain that he is speaking the truth, so that you may believe as well.)"
Wow....Just wow. You found someone who gives you a run for your intellectual money. Hugo Mendez has now hit my list of people to follow alongside yourself, Dr. Tabor, Schonefield, et al.
I think they are all forgeries to some extent. Eg, the so-called L and M sources are simply what Matthew and Luke made up. There is also a lot of retrospective material and exaggeration. The push to make jesus divine goes way beyond necessity.its the excessiveness that draws incredibility.
Yeah i think so, too. Why are we giving those people so much credibility and assume that they didn't just made stuff up. Why does Bart Ehrmann (love him) assume that the agnostic gospels are just made up but those synaptic gospels have some hidden, never seen historic sources?