Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
Strong Evidence That John Wrote the Fourth Gospel
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 01. 2021
- #apologetics #bible #gospels
Just about every shred of evidence we have from manuscripts and early church fathers identifies John the son of Zebedee as the author of John’s Gospel. But if you read the book by itself, John isn’t explicitly identified by name. He refers to himself as ‘the beloved disciple.’ Because of that, skeptics like Bart Ehrman tell us that we’re clueless about who wrote it.
Ehrman says: “The Gospel of John … is completely anonymous. The author does not tell us his name or identify himself in any way.”
But before Bart was a twinkle in his daddy’s eye, 19th-century BF Westcott did some Batman-like detective work. Using only internal evidence, Westcott narrowed things down to John, the son of Zebedee, as the prime suspect for who wrote the Gospel.
In this video, I summarize Westcott's arguments and conclude that John is the most logical suspect for the authorship of John's Gospel.
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
The Gospel According to John, BF Westcott www.google.com...
Other helpful works:
The Historical Reliability of the New Testament, Craig Blomberg, amzn.to/2Nou9vb
An Introduction to the New Testament, DA Carson and Douglas Moo, amzn.to/39dGiMh
Blog post: isjesusalive.c...
Help support me monthly: / isjesusalive
Outro music:
Equinox by Purrple Cat | purrplecat.com
Music promoted by www.free-stock...
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
creativecommon...
Pool of Bethesda photo credit: Drive Thru History.
A big thank you to everyone supporting me on Patreon. If you're interested, you can help me cover my costs for as little as $1 per month. www.patreon.com/isjesusalive
Greeks often lived in or commuted to Palestine from Greece in the 1st century BC and CE.
The region of Palestine was conquered by Alexander the Great in the 4th century BC, and it became part of the Greek empire. After Alexander's death, Palestine was ruled by a series of Greek dynasties. During this time, many Greeks settled in Palestine, and they brought with them their language, culture, and religion.
In the 1st century BC, Palestine was conquered by the Romans. The Romans allowed the Greeks to continue living in Palestine, and they even granted them some degree of autonomy. As a result, the Greek population of Palestine continued to grow, and they played an important role in the region's economy, culture, and politics.
The Greek presence in Palestine continued into the 1st century CE. During this time, Palestine was home to a large number of Greek-speaking Jews. These Jews were known as the Hellenized Jews, and they played an important role in the spread of Christianity.
1st century BC and CE Greek authors had access to a paucity of Jewish literature.
The region of Palestine was conquered by Alexander the Great in the 4th century BC, and it became part of the Greek empire. After Alexander's death, Palestine was ruled by a series of Greek dynasties. During this time, many Greeks settled in Palestine, and they brought with them their language, culture, and religion.
As a result, there was a great deal of interaction between Greeks and Jews during this time period. Greeks learned about Jewish culture and religion, and Jews learned about Greek culture and religion. This interaction led to the production of a number of works of literature that drew on both Greek and Jewish traditions.
Some of the most notable Greek authors who were influenced by Jewish literature include:
* Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BC - 50 AD)
* Flavius Josephus (37 - 100 AD)
* Theophilus of Antioch (c. 115 - 181 AD)
These authors all wrote extensively about Jewish history, religion, and culture. Their works provide valuable insights into the interaction between Greeks and Jews during the Hellenistic and Roman periods.
It is important to note that the Jewish literature that was available to Greek authors in the 1st century BC and CE was not the same as the Jewish literature that is available to us today. Many of the most important works of Jewish literature, such as the Torah, the Talmud, and the Midrash, were not written until after the 1st century CE. As a result, Greek authors had access to only a limited selection of Jewish literature.
Despite this limitation, Greek authors were able to learn a great deal about Jewish culture and religion from the works that were available to them. This knowledge helped them to better understand their Jewish neighbors, and it also contributed to the development of a new form of literature that drew on both Greek and Jewish traditions.
It's written in the style of eyewitness testimony. Doesn't mean that actually is.
@@dansaber4427: That wasn't the only point he made, he was exhaustive in laying out events that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that John the son of Zebedee wrote the gospel of John. Generally though, stuffs "written in the style of eyewitness testimony" almost always are eyewitness accounts.
I am neither religious nor a believer in the bible, I am just being objective based on this video presentation.
I know there are a lot of objections about the authorship of John's Gospel. I'll be reviewing those in a future video.
I'll appreciate. Sir I want to learn. I've been doing debates using your articles and it is awesome
That's a good way to lose a lot of debates, @@PopoolaTemidayo.
@Slimess for the win*
@Testify, I’m thoroughly convinced that the man who wrote the Gospel according to John was named John-my son is named John Polycarp after Polycarp of Smyrna and his teacher, John the Evangelist. What I don’t see as conclusive is that John the Evangelist is John the son of Zebedee-I’m referring to Richard Bauckham’s thesis from his excellent book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. In the second edition in particular he responds to the objections raised by scholars like Andreas Köstenberger and also defends the apostolicity of the Gospel should it have been written by a John other than the son of Zebedee (in short, we don’t think of Paul as any less of an apostle for not being one of the twelve-since Paul and others not among the twelve are referred to as apostles, it seems the word meant slightly more than just ‘one of the twelve’ to the 1st century church). I’m not totally convinced by Bauckham’s thesis, but together with the work of folks like Craig Blomberg, it does show that by far the best theory for the authorship of the Gospel according to John is that it was written by a disciple of Jesus named John who witnessed much of Jesus’s ministry, was present at the last supper, and witnessed the risen Lord, whether that John was the fisherman son of Zebedee or a originally a resident of Jerusalem (or more broadly Judea) who was known to the high priest.
(In the late 2nd century, Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus (the city where the Gospel was written) identifies John the disciple whom Jesus loved as a priest, actually, which would utterly destroy the language/literary quality objections to a fisherman having written it (though Bauckham believes Polycrates was interpolating). The strength of Bauckham’s thesis with regard to the Patristic evidence is that he shows that in the 2nd century John the son of Zebedee is never identified as the author by writers from Asia Minor where the Gospel originated-it’s only authors from outside Asia Minor that identify him as John the son of Zebedee (though someone here in the comments said Irenaeus made one such identification-it is certainly possible Bauckham is wrong, though the commenter left no quote or reference). If Martin Hengel is correct that the titles of the Gospels were somehow on/transmitted with the autographs (which is quite probable), it would make sense for churches outside Asia Minor to infer the wrong John. Bauckham’s thesis is definitely worth listing as a possibility because it takes the full data of scripture and the early church seriously and in no way infringes on orthodoxy, on the contrary bolstering the case for its apostolicity.)
Bart Ehrman is one of those guys who values himself and his fame over anything else. It only takes about 5 minutes of him to know
If the Gospel of John had been a _discovered_ document, then all these arguments would be good detective work for finding the best guess as to who authored the text.
But it is a document that was always treasured from the day it was first written, within a specific community (the church), broadly distributed, with unanimous attestation to authorship. The church itself hands over (traditions) of all sorts of knowledge that renders disputes like these moot.
Knoe he had noconnection with the priests .
That kind of methodological approach actually tends to testify against most Protestant hermeneutics. It also seems to argue that there is some kind of continuous tradition worth listening to. That tends far more Catholic than, say, Baptist or Evangelical.
@benabaxter ...just an observation of what actually happened, historically, within Christian history. The gospels are not documents discovered later, with anonymous authorship.
Later historical developments need not be considered at all. Really, any disinterested party, even an atheist, should be able to discern that there has been continuity from the very beginning, without dispute, of authorship. We don't doubt who penned the Declaration of Independence just because he didn't write his name at the top of the page.
@benabaxter protestants don't entirely discard tradition, we just don't believe it's on the same level as scripture
Could you give some sources on this, I wanna learn more because this was recently brought up to me
This is really good analysis and the evidence is certainly there but there is something that everyone seems to miss when it comes to authorship of the Gospels and all of the books of the NT. The Gospels are only anonymous in that the authors refuse to name themselves and possibly distract from Jesus as the focus of the writing. However, all 4 were written to a community of Christians. Thus, the first recipients of the Gospels would have known who wrote them. Upon making copies they would have made known who the authors were. I find it interesting that there are absolutely no stories of anyone other than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as being the authors. There are zero stories that anyone else wrote them!!! Eusebius is very clear on who wrote them. Bart is entirely wrong on his assessment that we can’t or don’t know who write the Gospels as if they just mysteriously appeared out of thin air one day. If that were the case, why on earth would the church accept them??? How could they have any weight or authority??? No, the church has always known who the authors were with two being actual apostles and two being very close to apostles. Bart needs to go back to school!
fr fr Im use your agrument and back it up a little to
God Bless 🙏
So…I guess Paul didn’t care about “distracting from Jesus”? I guess he was more interested in forwarding his Christology which seems to be contradicted by Jesus himself in the synoptic gospels.
Mark 10:17-18; Matthew 5:17-18; Matthew 7:21; the Beatitudes (Matt 5,5&7, Lk 6:20-49); Paul preached that salvation is by grace Ep 2:8-9, a concept that Christ never mentioned or even implied.
Salvation is through Faith
@@DECDEC1220 Yes, combined with obedience. Jesus said that if we love Him, we’ll obey His commands. Matt.28:18-20 is Jesus commanding disciples to be baptized. Paul talks about the meaning in Rom.6:1 and following.
I'm only a lay person but I don't understand the skepticism regarding the Gospel of John. People talk about theology or words used compared to the Synaptics, and i get that. But we have writing earlier than Synoptics. Paul is indisputably the author of seven letters, all written in the 50's. Read Paul and John together and at least in English, Youngs Litteral Translation, they are in lock step. The Theology is almost identical. They both use the phrase "the Jews." They just seem so similar. The argument that John couldn't write is absurd. Paul says the apostles could charge a heavy price if they wanted. Why on earth would it be difficult for an apostle to have a bilingual educated Greek write down the stories for them. Isn't Roman's pinned by someone assisting Paul? If Paul could get an assist, why not John? Yes, the gospel of John has long discourses, but wouldn't an account from an apostle? Wouldn't it be a kind of behind the scenes gospel. The Synoptic sounds like stories of Jesus's public teaching. But John sounds like someone who was there when the crowds left.
I've always felt this way too. I'm glad I'm not alone.
Where did Paul say that the apostles could charge a heavy price?
Agree. Why would anyone think John’s account would be identical to Matthew or Mark? He was arguably the second closest disciple to Jesus.
@@dumbnumb162 1 Corinthians 9 KJB
@@claytonsmith6148 Thanks man
I first came across the argument from Jerusalem's elevation through the works of Peter J. Williams. He is a fantastic author and his work "can we trust the gospels" is a good starter for people curious about apologetics.
Totally agree. It is a great book for beginners. Chapter 3 specifically is fantastic that I think almost everyone can benefit from.
I have a whole video on geography drawing from Williams here - czcams.com/video/PinSHZcqS5Y/video.html
Just remember this. Apologetics is a grift to collect money from stupid people by telling them they're smart.
Agreed. He is a true scholar and always notes his sources in his books.
Your presentations are pretty good quality. Love the animations on the images. :)
This channel is everything I ever wanted when I'm talking about the new testament with my friends and collegues. You make me gain a lot more time. Previously I had to do a lot of reasearch and reading and it was very tiresome. Thank you !
I can't stop watching your videos ! I'm going to share all of them to my french catholic student association. If your channel was way bigger this world would be a better one.
Thanks. That is highly encouraging to me.
@@TestifyApologetics stop implying the opinion of church fathers matters, it doesnt. They didnt even believe in markan priority
@@TestifyApologetics "The author was jewish" no he wasn't. The Gospel of John is antisemitic.
@@scambammer6102silly, all of the Galilean jews were semites, including John.
I'm always enjoying your presentations and articles. God bless you sir
I love this one so much! The arguments against John's authorship have always irritated me. Of COURSE he wrote it.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
"Of course" ye of blind faith
@@tesladrew2608 If John didn't write it, then who? Read John 21:24-25.
@@Christ_Inspiring Bilbo wrote it
why does it matter
Nowhere in Acts does it say John was illiterate - and even if it was the implication, John was written about 40 years later, when the author was a VERY old man. People are capable of learning things, you know. Most likely the snobbish reference by the Sanhedrin meant that Peter and John had no rabbinical training. @@tomasrocha6139
John’s Gospel is written by John. The place written was Ephesus or near it; the writing was completed in 98 C.E. Time covered: After prologue, 29-33 C.E.
The fact that a copy of John’s Gospel was circulating in Egypt, where the fragment was discovered gives strong support that “Good News According to John” was recorded in the first century C.E. and by John himself!
It would have been completed much earlier
I didnt expect such a short video to be so full of good content! Thanks a lot for tour work!
This channel is extremely underrated.
The style of these videos reminds me of The Bible Project. Very well done sir.
Wow. If only I could get to that level but I'll take that as a compliment!
@@TestifyApologetics do you do these animations?
I love your thumbnails.
Spot on brother. I think its a sad reality these days. If you accept anything traditional, you are looked at as fool. Keep up the good work.
Also all the bishops in Asia Minor (where John was primarily responsible and who are the 7 churches addressed in Revelation) believed John to be the author of Revelation - contrary to the popular gap-based theories of modern scholars.
Who besides iraenus prior to 180 claims this?
I would suggest a small booklet written by J. Phillips entitled "The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved." It was thoroughly researched and written for the specific purpose of getting to the very heart of the matter. The internal scriptural evidence tells the tale when taken at face value without a preconceived perspective.
You made no attempt to dismiss the theory that John the Presbyter was the main author. Pâpias of Hierapolis, around 110 AD, suggested that this other disciple (but not an apostle) was the main author, and that he is the one who reclined on Jesus breast during the last supper. He described TWO John. Polycrate of Ephesus said the samething in the second century, John, son of Zebedee, an illiterate fisherman from Galilee, and John the Presbyter, an educated priest from Jerusalem (who wore the plate) who befriended Jesus and became an important figure much later. The Gospel of John barely mention Galilee, most of the events occured in Jerusalem; this is consistent with the theory that this John was residing in Jerusalem and met Jesus several times when he was in the vicinity. Second clue, the author of the gospel is a very educated theologian who has a splendid style. There is no mention of the transfiguration in front of Peter & John in John's gospel (Mark 9:2-8 ) , no mention of his brother James, and Jesus announce in Mark, 10, 35-45, that both John and James, sons of Zebedee, will be 'terminated' and not die in their bed. Marie-Émile Boismard found some evidence that both James and John of Zebedee were probably executed together in 43 AD. The sole element in the gospel that tries to build a link with the son of Zebedee is the second conclusion, perhaps a tardive attempt by the someone from the John's movement to give him some extra autority, but the miraculous catch of fish is not supposed to happen after the resurection.
Richard Bauckham has argued this thesis rather persuasively (he very well might be one of your sources for the above), though he argues that the epilogue/chapter 21 is original to the document and that it concludes an inclusio indicating someone other than the son of Zebedee as the author. (My first son was due on the commemoration of Polycarp of Smyrna; my wife and I named him John Polycarp, and because of Bauckham, we tell people that he’s name after Polycarp and his teacher John the Evangelist, who may or may well not be the son of Zebedee.)
Awesome video! I was wondering about this after watching 'useful charts' video series on who wrote the Bible. This answers my questions. Many Thanks!
Glad it was helpful!
This chanel is so underated !!
Criminally underrated.
Hmm. Think about this more.
@@parktol02 I think the author he mentioned maybe was not peer reviewed, and the author of this video didn't think very critically about what he wanted to confirm because there's are good reasons to believe that the info in this video isn't as solid as he professes.
Maybe John did write Gospel John? Plenty of people named John. But we can't really say it was definitely written by John or a Jew.
@@jermsbestfriend9296 whether or not he was peer reviewed is superfluous.
@@jermsbestfriend9296 We definitely can say it was written by John, see Richard Baukchams book Jesus and the eyewitnesses
I haven't looked into much of what Bart Ehrman says, but just from his arguments you cover, it seems that he preys on people's distrust of religion. Like, someone may be thinking "how can anyone know that what they believe is real?" to which Bart plays into that by saying "they got it ALL wrong! They know nothing!"
Just look into more of what Bart Ehrman says before making any hasty judgements. Read at least one of his books. Bart Ehrman, by the way, was a fully churched and fundamental Christian who grew up in an evangelical family before he earned his ThD from a prestigious university in the United States. And is now one of the most respected biblical scholars in the world.
@@oddatsea9398 bart was a Christian, went to prestigious Christian institutions. It’s what he learned while attending that Made him question.
I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse - his going out, too, and his coming in - his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures Irenaeus Florinus
"Through the process of elimination, it can be deduced that anyone with some knowledge could be the one no one is sure of it."
Outstanding scholarship! Slam dunk!
Thank you!💖🙏💖🙏
You did a great job with this video especially how you were able to summarize such important information.
Wow!!!!! Amazing video!!!
Thanks. If it's good, it's grace.
Can you make English available for your Closed Captions?
Right now it seems Korean is the only available language for Closed Captions.
I think John wrote the gospel but I think Richard Baucham has argued very persuasively that he is not the son of Zebedee.
I'd give this a read: www.michaeljkruger.com/did-papias-know-the-apostle-john/
@@TestifyApologetics I'll check it out
John's gospel is my favorite of the gospels that and revelations
Mine too. And I am still angry how studying to get my MA in theology I was often told that John had no value over the synoptic gospels so I barely read it. When I did, I noticed how down to earth it was. How much it talked about the love Jesus had for his disciples and we wouldn't have the wonderful story of the woman caught in adultery and, "who is without sin, throw the first stone".
There are even good arguments to be made for John being the oldest gospel. If you're interested in that, read "The priority of John" by John A. T. Robinson. Highly recommended.
Excellently concise. Much more concise than using Irenaeus' "Against Heresies" or even Eusebius' quoting Papias. Those would take a much longer video to explain their validity and accuracy. This is also way easier to understand for the lay person.
Weak arguments.
1. Geographical Accuracy:
Pool of Bethesda: The description of the of Bethesda and other locations in the Gospel of John could suggest familiarity with Jerusalem, but this does not necessarily prove authorship by John the Apostle. Other people from Jerusalem or those with access to oral traditions and sources could also have known these details.
Roof Walkway: The claim about the roof walkway protecting Jesus from cold winds is speculative and not a strong argument for eyewitness authorship. Details about architectural features and their practical uses could have been common knowledge or included for narrative purposes.
2. Knowledge of Bodies of Water: The mention of five bodies of water and the specific reference to the Sea of Galilee as the Sea of Tiberius might indicate familiarity with the region, but this does not exclusively point to John the Apostle. Other local residents or those familiar with the area could have written the Gospel. Furthermore, the Sea of Galilee was widely known and its alternate name, Sea of Tiberius, was commonly used in that period.
3. Specific Details and Numbers:
Mentioning Individuals: The inclusion of specific individuals such as Lazarus, Nicodemus, and Simon Iscariot does not uniquely qualify the author as John. These names could have been part of oral tradition or sourced from other accounts available at the time.
Numbers: The use of specific numbers (e.g., six water pots, 38 years of illness, four days dead, 153 fish) can add a sense of realism or symbolism to the narrative but does not prove eyewitness authorship. Ancient authors often used specific numbers for literary or theological reasons.
4. Presence at Events:
Last Supper and Crucifixion: While the Gospel of John includes detailed descriptions of these events, the author’s presence is inferred rather than explicitly stated. Moreover, intimate details could have been passed down through oral tradition or derived from other sources. The claim that the author had to be one of the 12 disciples is an assumption without direct evidence from the text itself.
Wow, thanks for this!
Paul was basically the only apostle that identified himself in his writings. Why are we arguing over whether John wrote his gospel or not?
Just one thing. John could not come from “Palestine” because that name was only given by Hadrian in 135AD so if it’s truly the disciple he would have come from Galilee or Judea, no such place called Palestine at that time. So if you want to be historically correct, then you need to be consistent
He probably meant to say "modern Palestine", but I thought of the same thing when he said that
Just tried to explain this on FB. I tried using the same points but you did it amazingly. I’m using this video as a reference from now on thanks
The gospels were written in Greek. The apostles spoke in arameic, they didn't have the education to write the stuff, let alone the educaron in another language. Check the work by Hugo Méndez, a catholic scholar who goes deep into John's authorship.
I highly recommend “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses” by Richard Bauckham.
amazing breakdown. . i hope to see more of this with the other 3 gospels
I stopped as soon as the video 'refutes' Erhman and then says that evidence points to John as the PRIME SUSPECT.
Summary; it's a conclusion based on DEDUCTION and the whole video is meant to explain such deduction. Erhman was correct after all. The author doesn't state his name directly.
Another excellently-done study.
These are so interesting and compelling
Kindly help with the title and author of the book referenced, the author is said to be: B. F. We...? Title :?
Thanks for your help. The link in Google Play Store will be appreciated.
The Gospel According to St. John by Brooke Foss Westcott (B.F. Westcott)
archiveDOTorg/details/gospelaccording13unkngoog
Brooke Foss Westcott who was an Episcopalian Bishop in the UK
Good work.
I don't find John ever referring to 'Palestine'. Do you know something John didn't know?
Trying to say John's author is anonymous, in total opposition to all the ancient sources who unanimously say John wrote it, is evidence of the hyper-skepticism of biblical studies when compared to normal history. It is skeptical to the point of being unreasonable.
Exactly, it's basically skepticism for the sake of being contrarian.
They're just being atheists at this point, what good is the authority of Scripture if you don't even trust the authorship of said scripture?
This was very informative. I learned something.
As I watch more Paulogia, I'm more convinced you're right that the minimal facts argument isn't all it's chalked up to be. Thanks for going outside the minimal facts and being different from many apologists today
What’s the minimal facts argument?
What do you think of kamil gregors response?
@@gg2008yayo not sure, what's the gist of it? thanks for asking
@@daman7387 Its oh his channel cam and kam under live streams I cant explain the gist of it as I didnt really understand it
I think its pretty obvious that the “disciple whom Jesus loved” was clearly Lazarus. The text itself says so. Who wrote the gospel of John is disputable but it’s obvious the book was redacted by another writer (the 2 endings).
A defining ‘eye’ witness is saying ‘the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil.
No remote writer would have done that.
5:14 am PDT
Gosh nailed, no other possible author knew about the old testament!
The beloved disciple knew nicodemus because he was known to the high priest. He also spoke to the servant girl to let Peter in at the high priest residence. So the beloved disciple is part of the priestly family circle, certainly not apostle john.
@allenthomas6422 what is your point?
How does any of this prove it was specifically John disciple of Jesus?
It would precisely be naive to just accept tradition.
Considering how late the 4th gospel was written, its unlikely John was alive.
That said, why does it matter who wrote it?
It's the word of God and it's God breathed, but you doubt the authorship of that very word of God.
I can't imagine a more self-defeating argument.
Insightful and succint, thanks
There's a lot of speculation here. Details can be added by somebody who likes adding details. They don't have to have been there. He knew about people like Nicodemus who was not reported in the other gospels. Maybe that's because he made it up. Maybe these are stories that were circulating in the writer's vicinity. Just writing down things like people's thoughts doesn't mean he's accurately stating things he witnessed. All these could be invented either by him or told to him by others.
I find this very unconvincing. Not surprisingly, if you are invested in the gospels being true then you'll find it more convincing. As somebody who isn't invested in that, this is sketchy at best.
3:28 As a Cohen, there would have been no problem in knowing Nicodemus, and the machinations of the Sanhedrin after the raising of Lazarus.
So John waited until he was in his 90's to write his Gospel? And wrote it in Koine Greek, a language he likely didn't even speak let alone know how to write as a fisherman? What was he doing for the intervening 60 years? Learning to read and write Greek I guess? This is so outside the mainstream of what historians and scholars agree on. Convince people who have made this their lifes work, have a PhD in the area to change their mind, and then you'll have my attention.
There's nothing in this comment that is a refutation other than an argument from incredulity and an appeal to authority. Craig Blomberg is a Ph.D. who has made this his life's work and he has an entire book dedicated to the topic. You can also read Lydia McGrew's Eye of the Beholder. People can learn to speak Greek, his Greek isn't seen as super-advanced, it doesn't take 60 years to learn (my 14-year-old son is learning it now), he could have used a scribe, and he was asked to write his gospel after the other three were written. The traditional dating scheme is arguably wrong, even atheist scholars like Crossley and Casey argue for the first of the synoptics to be written in the 40s. According to tradition, John was asked to fill in some details. It didn't have to happen in his 90s. John could have joined the disciples when he was in his later teens and had his gospel written while he was in his 70s. He clearly shows knowledge of someone in Jerusalem pre-70.
@@TestifyApologetics That's just funny. You accuse me of an argument from authority and go on to quote authorities. Do you not see the hypocrisy in that? But you're picking and choosing authorities that agree with you, and I'm just saying what the majority of scholars agree on. And they disagree with you. So when it comes to an appeal to authority I'm the one on stronger ground here, not you. And the rest of your argument is simply some sort of argument from "well it's not impossible". Sure, it's not impossible, but there's also not a shred of evidence that it's true. And "church tradition" from centuries later is not evidence. It's exactly what it says it is. Tradition.
Just sayin'.
@@nickbrasing8786 The point is you said scholars don't believe John wrote John. There are many that do. Engage their arguments, don't just appeal to consensus. Maybe the consensus is weak. I do have a video that deals with their most common objections against traditional authorship. And just how exactly does one go to prove John learned to read and write Greek? What kind of documentation would you expect for that?
@@TestifyApologetics No, you said that I was just appealing to authority. Now you're making a completely different argument. That's fine, but don't say that was your point all along.
And scholars don't really say John didn't write John. They simply point out what I pointed out. The Gospel itself doesn't tell us who wrote it. Therefore it's anonymous. And that it was written in a different country, in a different language, a generation after Jesus died. And it's so different from the synoptic Gospels that it gets its own category. You have to presuppose your laundry list of assumptions to argue that John actually did write John. For which there is no good evidence. That's all I'm saying, and all that the majority of scholars are saying.
And you can change "appeal to authority" to "appeal to consensus" but it's still the same thing. And I've listened to your videos on the authorship of John and commented there. I really don't have anything more to add here.
That's the oddest response to this video I've seen so far: "how dare you to present an opinion that's outside mainstream!!" What evidence do you have he was in his 90s when he wrote his gospel? What evidence do you have John didn't speak or know how to write? Just nothing. Just your own imagination with the even more fertile imaginations of historians and scholars working to spread unbelief sponsored by tax dollars.
Since you have no artefacts on your side, you have to imagine you present your case to a jury. What would they find more believable? A gospel full of details no Greek person living 1000s of miles from this area, with details no one except a disciple could have known, written by John or written by someone we know absolutely nothing about? It reminds me of the discussion about the works of Shakespeare. As someone quipped: Shakespeare wasn't written by Shakespeare, but by someone else also called Shakespeare.
On the Greek: where did John grew up? On Galilee OF THE GENTILES. If there is one area we expect people to know and speak Greek, it's right there. Greek was common in that area. Having two names, one in Greek, one in Hebrew, was common. What else do we have? Scribes, widely attested too. So we have a person growing up in an area that spoke Greek, if he couldn't write it (which I find unlikely and for which no evidence has ever been submitted), he could have used a scribe, we have a person familiar with details only a disciple could know, and only someone living in that area in that specific time period could have known. I would say case closed.
I wonder why CZcams subtitle in this video is Korean
That's a good rundown of the evidences for the Gospel of John being authored by John, but I'd encourage people to take these with a big grain of salt. There are fairly strong evidences that the book wasn't written by John the apostle: it appears to have been written in Greek (which a fisherman is highly unlikely to have known or learned), and John 21:24 seems to explicitly say that the author of the book ("we") is not the Beloved Disciple ("his testimony"), but rather is relaying other writings from that disciple. The Gospel of John is also compiled so late as to make it highly unlikely that John was the author (~90 AD).
Huh. Never noticed it before. However, it still seems to be based on John's testimony. Polycarp was supposedly mentored by John, maybe he wrote it?
Is it not dated to 90 AD because the scholars don’t believe in Prophecy?
It was extremely common for them to write with scribes, as they were very accessible, even Paul admits this. That's prolly what John did.
@@JustGav86 It's true that authors sometimes used scribes in the ancient world, but if anything, this makes the idea of "authorship" less concrete. If the Gospel of John were written in this way, then it means we have no sense of which of the words are his description, and which are the scribe's. Remember, this scribe would need to be translating into Greek, including common Greek phrases and idioms. It's much simpler to simply say that whoever wrote John spoke Greek (and the John did not). Imagine, for example, if I was a historian carefully taking down your eye-witness account... but for some reason, I decided not to write down your actual words, but instead translated them into French (which you don't speak). Even with a high level of skill, the accuracy of these words would be in question.
As for the idea that this is "probably" what John did, I personally haven't heard of any evidence suggesting that the Gospel of John was compiled by a single scribe (although if you're aware of any, I'd be interested in hearing about it).
@@inotterwords6115 Greek was a universal language of that time period, so there's no doubt that John spoke it, hence why it's written like that. And, one would have to come to that conclusion since John was still alive at the time his gospel came out. If his account was falsified, it would have easily been removed by the early church fathers. This also helps their case since they would have relations WITH John, being that he was still alive. Tradition and early church father documents preserve their accounts well.
I am with Bart
St. John is my favorite apostle. Great video as always!
I always thought John wrote it as the style is like that of his epistles and these skeptics never apply these criteria to other historical events or authors. I do think John’s came last and he had time to make it more “theological” than the synoptic gospels. Second, all of the gospels are consistent in that women first saw the empty tomb and encountered Jesus. Given the low status of women at the time, why start the story there if you were writing fiction?
No proof of date. I think all books were written before 70 AD. Or they would have included that
If you've already concluded that everything in the Gospel According to John is inspired and true, it doesn't really matter much who wrote it.
Otherwise, the explanation for the details is just as easily that the author added them to increase verisimilitude.
John was obviously a very observative dude
He was one righteous dude 😎
Because of Christ Jesus of course!
Theres a lot of scholars who wrote extensively on the topic and disagree with Bart shallow weak arguments. (Richard Bauckham Phd Cambridge)
2:02 - John 5 and the Pool of Bethesda
2:18 - John 10:23
2:24 - John’s gospel and more frequent mentions of five bodies of water compared to the other gospels
2:32 - John and the Sea of Tiberius
4:38 -
5:15 -
@@edwardtbabinski Even if the Pool of Bethesda continued to exist, John does not mention the Oliver discourse which Matthew, Mark and Luke mentions and John does not describe the destruction of the temple. It's still very early. I mean seriously you are just jumping to conclusions solely based on this evidence.
Bart Ehrmann is so weird. He'll grant everything up until the most obvious parts, like Jesus claiming to be god
Regardless of who the author was or wasn't, they seem to be making up a story. Not that this is bad. They appear to be writing to give the reader an idea of what Jesus would have been like. The author provides 25 quotations of private conversations he was not a part of. Even had he asked Jesus what did you talk to the woman at the well about, it is unlikely that Jesus would have recanted word for work what he and the woman said. At best, he would have described, not quoted verbatim, the conversation. Much less 50-60 years after Jesus died. John 4 is beautiful, but unless there is something I am missing, it's not historically factual.
I'm not scholar or expert, but I've always believed that Polycarp or another of John's students wrote the Gospel according to John, based on all the stories John told him. It would make the "beloved disciple" reference make more sense (it's a student honoring his teacher instead of an apostle claiming to be the best). It also make sense of the idea that John may not have been able to write in greek, being a poor fisherman.
Yeah John’s assistant wrote what John told him. John was illiterate
Referring himself in that way might actually be a way of humbling himself. saying "I am John, the Beloved Disciple" is kinda proud.
However we do know that multiple new testament books (mainly the pauline epistles) weren't actually written by Paul himself, rather communicated by Paul to a scribe that wrote it down instead.
Jn 21:24 "It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them, and 'We' know that his testimony is true."
The phrase in this verse is most clearly not John speaking or writing.
This verse seems to indicates that the author is someone other than this disciple, because he is speaking about himself in the first person plural ('we know') and the disciple in the third person ('the disciple... who has written all these things').
Therefore, imo, the author merely claims to have used an earlier written account, allegedly from the beloved disciple, as his source for writing the Fourth Gospel ostensibly in Johns' name and authority.
I can speculate that it could have been a student of John. Perhaps even Polycarp?
Yet, it's not even apparent as to whether the author even knows the name of the beloved disciple.
@@Axer01250 This is a non-issue, Christians have repeatedly stated that this is him being earnest and trying not to reveal who the beloved disciple is. The “we” in this passage alludes to him not being the author less than it does him being like “well uhh I totally don’t know who this beloved disciple is but what he testifies surely is true!”
Postulating that even polycarp wouldn’t know the name of John, who is commonly accepted to be the beloved disciple and the disciple that was fittingly attributed to John the gospel is pretty weird.
I had this objection when I first read it too, but the idea that John is willingly anonymizing himself as the beloved disciple fits a lot better than John not being the author of John.
Process of elimination. Luke 22: 7- 22, Matthew 26:17- 28. These 2 passages clearly eliminate Lazurus or any other as being the writer of John's Gospel. These 2 passages state that Jesus had the supper with the 12 Apostles.
The only writer of John, was John. It was probably translated into Greek and distributed to the early churches. This is what missionaries do. In fact, they were written in a number of other translations that the Whore of Babylon destroyed.
If John didn't write it, then he was personally dictating it to the writer or the writer had John's notes and writings. I personally think John wrote it and originally in Hebrew.
Well done, sir.
I have one question. You state that "The author can't be Peter, since the beloved disciple is distinguished from him." I agree with your conclusion, but I am not following the logic here. Can you explain this bit about Peter? Thanks.
Sure. The inner circle of Jesus was James, John and Peter. James was killed in Acts 12. Peter was present with the beloved disciple in John 21 so the beloved disciple isn't Peter. So by the process of elimination the beloved disciple is John.
@@TestifyApologetics Yes, but how does that imply that he wrote the gospel?
Because he's an eyewitness that's very close to Jesus. The argument is that we start broad from looking at internal clues and narrow things down. I'd give the book in the description a read, it goes into more detail and it's free. Hope that helps some.
John 21:20-24
I see it now. I wasn't understanding how you were eliminating Peter just because he was distinct from the beloved disciple. Thanks.
Well the one that Jesus loved mentioned many times that he was faster than Peter😅 John 20:3-9
Re: our Lady and our Lord's brothers (ca 05:45)
Have you considered the possibility that the James mentioned as the Jerusalem Church leader in Acts might be James the Less of the Twelve? here is a case in brief......
1. Acts never refers to him as anyone other than "James". Luke does not mention him being the Lord's brother, as Paul does in Galatians. Usually Luke will introduce a new character who enters his story. especially if they have an ambiguous name. otherwise, if they arent introduced or differentiated, they generally are who they were in his earlier Gospel. If the James in Acts chs 15 & 21 were someone other than one of the Twelve, we should expect Luke to alleviate confusion. like saying "James the Lord's brother, not one of the 12, who only came to believe in Him later...."
2. James the less and Jude the Apostle were probably brothers and both Epistles bearing those names contain the designation "Lord's brother" . This makes sense if James son of Alpheus was closely related to our Lord, then James' brother (or son) Jude would also qualify as a "brother of the Lord".
there's my case.... fire away!!😊
Do most scholars agree with your position?
No and I really do not care. If I put my finger on a mistake in your argument, it doesn't help to point out that your entire field makes this same mistake as well.
Couple of things. The author was not from "Palestine" as you put it but from Israel as it was called then. Secondly, Jesus "appeared unto the eleven(John was one of them) as they sat at meat and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen Him after He was risen...".(Mark 16:14) However, in John 20:8 at the tomb, Peter and the "other disciple" had seen it empty and we are specifically told that the "other disciple" saw and "believed". He could not therefore be John because, along with Peter, he was "upbraided" for unbelief.
How do you know wasn't John Eliezer (AKA Lazarus)?
because he wasn't there for a lot of the scenes John describes, as I mention in the video. Witherington is just wrong.
4:48 Would the 72 not have been told how the 12 were called?
Were only the twelve going along to Samaria or present at the feeding of the 5000?
4:50 All of Jesus' visits to Jerusalem - would equally apply if he was a Cohen who as disciple and house owner in Jerusalem hosted Jesus (yeah, the one who had two donkeys prepared).
5:36 "a few more than the twelve might have been there" - like, _for instance,_ the host, the owner of the house.
Who, unlike the twelve, was not ordained Catholic priest that day and was therefore not present at the Eucharist.
Jn 21:24 "It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them, and 'We' know that his testimony is true."
The phrase in this verse is most clearly not John speaking or writing.
This verse seems to indicates that the author is someone other than this disciple, because he is speaking about himself in the first person plural ('we know') and the disciple in the third person ('the disciple... who has written all these things').
Therefore, imo, the author merely claims to have used an earlier written account, allegedly from the beloved disciple, as his source for writing the Fourth Gospel ostensibly in Johns' name and authority.
I can speculate that it could have been a student of John. Perhaps even Polycarp?
Yet, it's not even apparent as to whether the author even knows the name of the beloved disciple.
The 2nd c Muratorian canon says John’s Gospel was reviewed by others. That likely involved witnesses (e.g. Andrew) & relatives of Jesus, who lived till Trajan’s rule. The canon notes are likely testimony based. So, it’s likely a royal “we” which accompanied all the last remaining eyewitnesses.
Christianity is based in Judaism, and Genesis is framed on the template of the monomyth. Same as Greek and Roman myth, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc. There is one bottom line reality all religions carry nested inside of them. It doesn't matter who wrote the Gospels or the Bhagavad Gita. What matters is that they be interpreted and understood. Theist's carry it. They don't see inside. The Ark metaphor in play.
Hey erik! What do you think of kamil gregors response to this video?
I think it's pretty terrible tbh, I just need to get around to responding.
@@TestifyApologetics Do you think youd make one for another blogpost or video? Also is their a way I could discuss with you more on this if i may?
Thanks again Erik!
When did he make that video? I’m curious.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 He made it a year ago on his channel cam and kam
@@gg2008yayo thanks. I’m actually surprised that video before it’s pretty uncharitable.
John, the son of Zebedee suspect for who wrote the Gospethe and 12vdisciples was banned from the Bible so funny
6:37 I think the first early Church Father who _explicitly_ identified John the Beloved with John the Son of Zebedee was St. Irenaeus, while those back in Asia Minor didn't.
One says "we have known John, who has worn the golden head band" - why mention _that_ in response to the Pope, if he could have said "who was one of the twelve"?
I wasn’t aware Irenaeus ever identified the apostle John as John the son of Zebedee-do you have a reference, by chance?
@@augustinian2018 The question is rather whether he attributed John the Apostle-Gospeller as John-one-of-the-Twelve-Apostles. It seems he did, I do not have references at hand, Fr Jean Colson in his 1968 work (nihil obstat and imprimi potest in Paris archdiocese) argued this was a misunderstanding, the Gospeller was actually a Cohen, and not one of the twelve, the actual meal of the last Supper happened in his house (hence the Last Supper Discourses recalled by him), but he was leaving his guests among themselves when God in the Flesh held Himself in His hands, hence no account of the Eucharist (the son of Zebedee being obviously one of those then present, but he wrote no Gospel, maybe his brother, rather than God's wrote the Epistle).
And Fr. Jean Colson obviously quoted with citations somewhere the place where St. Irenaeus considered the fourth Gospeller as one of the Twelve. His work?
L'énigme du disciple que Jésus aimait, appeared in print and bookshops April 1969, Beauchesne.
It's years since I read it, so this is the best I can do.
@@hglundahl I’m familiar with the thesis that John the Evangelist was not one and the same as John the son of Zebedee from Richard Bauckham’s book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. His analysis of Irenaeus was that the apostle John who taught Polycarp and wrote the Gospel is never actually identified as the son of Zebedee; the two people most frequently called apostles in Irenaeus’s works are Paul and John, and Bauckham argues that Irenaeus’s use of the word ‘apostle’ in reference to John carries the same meaning as it does in reference to Paul, as Paul was not a member of the twelve but was nonetheless an apostle. Bauckham built much his case on the fragments of Papias (early 2nd century bishop of Hierapolis) and Polycrates (late 2nd century bishop of Ephesus, the city where John wrote his Gospel); whether Papias refers to one or two Johns is ultimately ambiguous, though there is a strong case to be made that he refers to two (Eusebius seems to read him that way, though Eusebius harbors strong biases against Papias on other grounds). There is also a 5th century fragment of Papias (in a history by Philipp of Side) that says the sons of Zebedee were both martyred, seemingly contradicting other early tradition about John the Evangelist if we take him to be the son of Zebedee. Polycrates definitely identifies John the beloved (and by the extension, the Evangelist) as someone other than John the son of Zebedee-he identifies him as a hiereus/cohen/temple priest (which seems to be the source one of the authors you mentioned was drawing on; given Polycrates had access to local tradition about John from within a century of John’s death, I do give quite a bit of credence to him).
I don’t consider the case that John the son of Zebedee was not John the Evangelist to be conclusive by any means, but I do incline toward that view as a result of Bauckham’s argument. I sometimes quip that my son, John Polycarp, is named after John the Evangelist and possibly John the son of Zebedee. Nevertheless, I’m due to re-read the surviving works of Irenaeus sometime soon, so I’ll keep my eyes peeled for identification of Irenaeus’s John the apostle with John the son of Zebedee; I find it entirely plausible that Bauckham missed something explicitly linking the son of Zebedee to the Evangelist in Irenaeus.
@@augustinian2018 I have not yet read Bauckham.
Thanks for mentioning the 500 and Andronicus and Junia and Paul are apostles but not of the twelve.
Good point.
LOVE THIS! 💙🙏🏻
I want to see your absolute proof in your statement. “John was written long after 84AD.” Post your proof please. That’s a big statement
John's disciple, Ignatius of Antioch, had an actual copy of John's Gospel.
hmmm...who's the man in John 19:35?
Why do specific details mean it was not orally transmitted and corrupted? Hadith was orally transmitted and maintined high percision.
What do you think of Craig Blomberg's belief that the author is Lazarus, the man Jesus raised from the dead?
I think you mean Ben Witherington, since Blomberg believes John wrote the fourth Gospel. Witherington bases this on the fact that Lazarus is the only disciple identified as whom Jesus loved by name.
So the sisters sent word to Him, saying, “Lord, behold, he whom You love is sick.”
- John 11:3
Blomberg believes Witherington is wrong, this is from The Historical Reliability of the New Testament:
ibb.co/WnJ61JW
“Sorry Christians! But the Gospels were written by anonymous authors at some point probably. Source? Trust me bro” -Atheists
If you assume that what that book says is true - which you do - then of course you conclude what you do. It doesn't matter that the author knew the countryside and jewish literature. Anyone could know those things. It doesn't make them a disciple. And anyone can make up details about people and stories that they also invented. It's called writing a novel.
Nor do you even endeavour to address the reasons for speaking of specific numbers. These are of mystical significance, not historical facts.
And if you ask for respect here, kindly do not begin by belittling Ehrman as you do.
If John son of Zebedee wrote the fourth gospel:
Why would he, ostensibly born a Jew, use anti-Semitic language to refer to Jews?
Why would he omit the striking story of Jesus calling him to be a disciple? Surely if he was an eyewitness to the events he would want to include this story.
How did he know what was said between Jesus and Pontius Pilate?
How was he able to memorize long discourses from Jesus?
Why does his Jesus not cast out demons, even once? Jesus is casting out demons left and right in the Matthew, Mark and Luke.
John son of Zebedee was a low-class fisherman, without access to education. Where would he have learned to write in sophisticated, cosmopolitan Greek?
Why doesn't he mention the Transfiguration, which he was present to witness?
I have a video answering several of these objections. Also see my interview with Lydia McGrew and her book
Because that wasn't the purpose of John. It literally says in the book that it was written to fix theological issues, not repeat already documented events.
3 person inner core of leadership? Like Kirk, Spock, and McCoy?
The argument isn’t that the document is based on oral tradition but that the author included loads of details to seem more legitimate. Considering the age of the oldest copies of this documents, speculating that this documents an eye witness account is really stretching things. There’re also the similarities in narrative w/ other Gnostic gospels like Mary & Judas, encouraging a metaphorical interpretation rather than literal.
Yes, but the gospel of Mary was clearly trash, and I don't know about the gospel of Judas.
I haven't read that one.
@@eddardgreybeardMaybe go read it before posting? Doesn’t matter, this video’s “detective” work is silly. John’s a production of the Joanine community (which was in Palestine)…nothing more. It’s a completely different version of Christianity from the other gospels, so it shouldn’t even be in the Bible (along with/ the epistles & exodus).
None of the Gospels were written by early 1st century Jews or eyewitnesses.
There are around a dozen historical discrepancies with the trial of Jesus that wouldn't appear in an account by eyewitnesses or an early 1st century Jews:
1. Timing: The gospels describe Jesus' trial as occurring at night and during Passover. Jewish law prohibited capital trials at night or on the eve of a festival.
2. Immediate Execution: According to Jewish law, a death sentence could not be executed immediately after the trial. There had to be a delay (typically a day) to allow for additional testimony or potential reconsideration of the verdict.
3. Charge of Blasphemy: Merely claiming to be the Messiah was not considered blasphemy under Jewish law. Moreover, blasphemy, a violation of Jewish religious law, would have been handled by Jewish authorities, not the Roman governor. Which would've involved a stoning, not crucifixion. The direct claim of divinity in the Gospel of John is historically doubtful. He doesn’t make such claims in the earlier Gospels. Only in the last one. This makes the historical accuracy extremely unlikely.
4. Location of the Trial: The gospels suggest the trial took place at the house of the high priest, Caiaphas. Jewish law dictated that trials, especially those involving capital punishment, were to be held in the Hall of Hewn Stones, not in a private residence.
5. Accusations and Witnesses: Jewish law required that accusations in a capital case be corroborated by at least two reliable witnesses whose testimonies agreed in all details. The gospels mention that the witnesses gave false testimony and did not agree, which should have invalidated their testimony under Jewish law.
6. Sanhedrin Procedures: The Sanhedrin was required to have a full debate among members and a clear majority for a death sentence. This debate isn't mentioned in the Gospels. With members like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, a unanimous decision as described in the Gospels is unlikely
7. Reluctant Pilate: Pilate is known to have been a harsh and pragmatic Roman governor, unlikely to be easily swayed by local leaders or crowds.
8. Romans releasing criminals: No such thing. Only appears in the Gospels. The name Barabbas (the insurrectionist) translates to "son of the father." Matthew refers to him as "Jesus Barabbas." Meaning "Jesus, son of the father."
First of all, I've discussed many of these things elsewhere. These objections are really weak. You're completely ignoring the positive evidence and relying on flimsy arguments to support your case. But here ya go, sorry if some of this is copy and paste (but let's be real, I'm guessing you're doing the same thing!)
Regarding points 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6:
These points suggest that if the trial of Jesus was actually meant to be a capital trial, and not just a pretext to hand him over to the Romans, it was highly irregular. The Jewish leaders didn’t always stick to their own rules or Roman laws when it came to executing people, as Josephus points out in Antiquities 20.9.1 (§200).
But was it even supposed to be a capital trial? Maybe not. For more on this, check out Darrell L. Bock’s Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism and the Final Examination of Jesus: A Philological-Historical Study of the Key Jewish Themes Impacting Mark 14:61-64 (1998).
Regarding point 3.
Let's read Mark 14:61-64 in context: “Again, the high priest asked him, ‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?’ And Jesus replied, ‘I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.’ The high priest then tore his garments and exclaimed, ‘What further witnesses do we need? You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?’ And they all condemned him as deserving death.”
Note that Jesus’ makes two allusions to the Jewish Scriptures, one of Psalm 110:1: “The LORD says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.’”
The other refers to Daniel 7:13-14: “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. He was given authority, glory, and sovereign power; all peoples, nations, and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.”
In the Jewish context of the first century, the phrase “Son of Man” would be understood as a reference to divinity. Even Bart Ehrman agrees with this interpretation (*The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings*, 3rd ed., 2004, p. 77). The first-century Jewish writer Philo of Alexandria noted that any personal claim to the prerogatives or nature of God was considered blasphemy (*Legatio ad Gaium* 26; *Flaccus* 5; *De Somniis* 2.18). So you're wrong again.
Here's a scholarly opinion: Craig A. Evans remarks that “what made Jesus’ reply a scandalous blasphemy lay in the combination of the phrases from Psalm 110 and Daniel 7” (*Jesus and His Contemporaries*, 2001, p. 414). Darrell Bock adds, “What is emerging is a developing consensus that the key to the blasphemy resides not in the mere use of a title, but in the juxtaposition of Psalm 110:1 with Daniel 7:13 to attribute to a human figure an unusually high level of heavenly authority” (*Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism and the Final Examination of Jesus*, 1998, p. 21).
Regarding point 7: In John 19:12, we read about the taunt from the Jewish crowd directed at Pontius Pilate, when Pilate sought to release Jesus against their wishes:
> “From then on Pilate sought to release him, but the Jews cried out, ‘If you release this man, you are not Caesar’s friend. Everyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar.’” (John 19:12)
This incident can be better understood by considering a previous episode recounted by the first-century Jewish philosopher, Philo of Alexandria. In his work *Embassy* (299-305), Philo describes how the Jewish people had previously complained to Tiberius Caesar about shields that Pilate had erected in Jerusalem. These shields, though ostensibly to honor Tiberius, were seen as a provocation by the Jewish population. The situation escalated to the point where Tiberius wrote a sharply worded letter to Pilate, demanding the shields be removed.
Philo recounts:
> “... Pilate, not so much to honor Tiberius as to annoy the multitude, dedicated some shields coated with gold in Herod’s palace in Jerusalem. These shields had no images but bore inscriptions stating the name of the dedicator and the one honored. The Jewish leaders appealed to Pilate to remove the shields, arguing that they violated their traditions and threatened their peace. Pilate, known for his stubbornness, refused. Fearing that an embassy to Tiberius would expose his other corrupt practices, he reluctantly complied when the Jewish leaders wrote directly to Tiberius. The emperor responded angrily and demanded that the shields be relocated to Caesarea, preserving both the honor due to him and the city's traditions.”
Philo’s account provides some key context for understanding why the Jewish crowd's taunt, “If you release this man, you are not Caesar’s friend,” struck such a nerve with Pilate. Having already been reprimanded by Tiberius for offending the Jewish leaders, Pilate was keen to avoid further conflict. This historical backdrop explains why Pilate eventually acquiesced to the crowd’s demands for Jesus to be crucified.
Regarding Point 8:
Wrong again. The Mishnah, a compilation of Jewish oral law, states that one could “slaughter the Passover lamb” for someone promised to be released from prison at Passover (m. Pesahim 8:6). It’s unclear who made this promise-Jewish or Roman authorities-but it is notable that the release was specifically for participating in Passover.
Craig Evans notes that a papyrus from around 85 AD records a Roman governor of Egypt saying, “You were worthy of scourging… but I give you to the crowds.” Pliny the Younger also mentions the release of prisoners based on petitions to proconsuls or lieutenants (Epistles 10.31), and an inscription from Ephesus describes a proconsul releasing prisoners due to public demands. Livy, in the early first century, discusses special dispensations to remove chains from prisoners’ limbs (History of Rome 5.13.8). Additionally, Josephus recounts that Governor Albinus, upon leaving office in 64 AD, released all prisoners except murderers to curry favor with the people of Jerusalem (Antiquities 20.215).
Archelaus also released prisoners to gain favor and secure his father’s kingdom (Antiquities 17.204). This evidence suggests that both Roman rulers and at least one Herodian prince occasionally released prisoners to appease the crowds and gain support.
The improbability of asserting such a custom without its existence lends further support to the Gospel narratives. If Pilate had not released prisoners during Passover, the Evangelists' claim could have been easily refuted, potentially embarrassing the early church. The fact that all four Evangelists report this event, with the possibility that the Fourth Evangelist did so independently of the Synoptics, suggests it did not cause embarrassment to the early Christian community.
But why would Pilate release a criminal like Barabbas? Barabbas, likely an insurrectionist, does not present a historical problem as similar instances exist in Roman history. Plutarch, in *The Life of Julius Caesar*, recounts how Caesar's soldiers mutinied and killed two praetors, and Caesar, to appease them, addressed them as “citizens” and rewarded them (The Life of Julius Caesar 51.2). Josephus also describes successfully appealing to Caesar Titus to spare his companions, even reversing crucifixion sentences for some (Life of Flavius Josephus, 75). Pilate, facing pressure from the Jewish authorities who threatened to complain to Caesar, may have seen Barabbas as a lesser threat and released him to placate the crowd.
But what about Barabbas' name? Sorry but this kind of symbolic parallel does not disprove the historical authenticity of the event. The crucifixion of Jesus, while carrying symbolic significance, has solid historical grounding. Finding symbolism does not negate the reality of the event.
To illustrate, consider how skeptics might reinterpret other biblical stories based on names. They might argue that Martha, whose name means “lady” or “mistress,” was invented by Luke to emphasize traditional female roles in the New Testament. Similarly, they could claim Matthew’s story symbolizes Jesus’ teachings as a divine “gift of God,” leading to a profound transformation from collecting worldly taxes to amassing spiritual riches. Such arguments based on names alone are weak and do not constitute strong evidence against the historical authenticity of these characters or events.
Great video loaded with TRUTH with only one exception. John was NOT from "palestine". "palestine" NEVER existed as a country and didn't become a name the Romans gave the land as a cruel joke until after the 3rd Jewish revolt. This might sound picky but we all need to be more accurate when using that term so we don't delegitimize the important issues addressed in this video.
The Book of John’s testimony comes from Lazarus. Never calls itself a gospel; always refers to scripture as “their law” but the best proof it’s not John of Zebedee is that he wasn’t seen by the High Priest Court until Acts 4 but John 18 says he was well known by the High Priest. That is direct evidence it wasn’t john that the Testimony is based on…
Papias and Polycarp disciples of John also mentions.
David Copperfield has many details, did that make it true? The geographical details are a better argument.