The question of who wrote the Gospel of John is almost as baffling as how it was included in the New Testament canon in the first place.

To make a long story short, the early church was convinced the author of this Gospel was none other than John, the son of Zebedee and one of the three disciples in Jesus’s inner circle of trust. Without this label, it is doubtful that the Gospel of John would share Biblical history alongside Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Authorship of ancient scripture was a matter of supreme importance. This led early leaders to decide that the only books included in what would later be known as The Bible were required to have the apostolic stamp of approval (written by an apostle.) 

The most significant caveat to John’s identity is that the Gospel of John does not assert authorship by an individual bearing his name. It remains entirely anonymous.

The consensus among scholars may differ, but the prevailing belief is that John’s name serves as a mere placeholder.

While my perspective may be biased, I have complete faith in Dr. Bart Ehrman’s comprehensive coverage of this topic on Gospel authorship through his diverse range of books, blogs, podcasts, and online courses. There are numerous layers to uncover when examining who authored the Gospels, and Bart has done an exceptional job at dissecting them all with precision.

The aim here is not only to provide readers with an overview of the ongoing debate surrounding Gospel authorship but also to delve into what kind of individual could have penned such profound words. So prepare for a powerful exploration into one of Christianity’s most intriguing mysteries! 

When it comes to establishing and celebrating Biblical authority, it would be so much more convenient if the authors of the Gospels were, in fact, eyewitnesses to the miraculous deeds of Jesus.

….so the question is, who wrote the gospel of John?  Was he such an eyewitness? 

As I continue my studies and teachings of the scriptures, I increasingly feel at ease with letting go of the notion that the Gospel of John was authored by the same individual who accompanied Jesus in the initial years of the first century.

Anonymous authorship can be a confusing concept to grapple with. However, assuming this John is the John from Jesus’s heyday is nothing more than wishful thinking, not to mention a bit irresponsible. We should trust the consensus among New Testament scholars who assert that none of these writers were eyewitnesses to Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection.

Who were these Gospel writers, and why were they writing about Jesus? Authors of the Gospels like “John” were likely established Greek authors invited to entertain audiences with stories about the incredible deeds of Jesus passed on to them (For a mind-bending tangent, check out Dennis MacDonald’s Mythologizing Jesus: From Jewish Teach to Epic Hero).

The Gospel of John was written during the turn of the first century and had the advantage of several decades for legends to embellish the story of Jesus. Unfortunately, the surviving content falls far short of achieving historical accuracy about Jesus, which the author may have intended to convey.

However, I believe that the anonymous Greek writer known as “John” did not intend to talk about Jesus but rather embody his teachings. John’s approach was to speak in the voice of Jesus himself. While some may question the veracity of these extensive speeches, they remain unverifiable precisely because they are so distinctive within this Gospel text.

Cover to cover, the words of this Gospel differ significantly in comparison with the other three Gospels. John has Jesus conveying profound spiritual lessons about life and God, and they strike me as words I might hear from a preacher.

According to author John Shelby Spong, that might be because John was a Jewish mystic, and his words were intended to inspire a mystical understanding of Jesus rather than a historical account of his life.

The moment I delve into the pages of John’s Gospel, my mind is captivated by its powerful and sermon-like language. The vivid imagery used to convey Jesus’ acts serves as a theological education in and of itself. To assert this writer was none other than Jesus’ close confidant and disciple would be an audacious claim bordering on absurdity.

I urge those who hold the belief that “the” John, author of the gospel bearing his name, was a disciple of Jesus to consider the following key questions: 

1) When was the Gospel of John written? 

2) In what language was it written? 

3) Would someone, who was likely illiterate, be able to produce such well-written content? 

Tapping the original disciple John as the author ignores the near consensus of late first-century dating, as well as the fact that these words were penned in the Greek language.

To write the Gospel of John, Jesus’s disciple would have needed to not only learn but master a new language in his very, very old age. Possible? Anything is possible with God, right? That said, given Jesus’s disciple was likely illiterate, it remains highly unlikely that he achieved fluency in Greek as a centenarian.

Using this logic, it’s difficult to imagine Jesus’s disciples writing any books of the New Testament.

Repeatedly, academics and theologians have established that the probability the author of John was the disciple of Zebedee is extremely low. Furthermore, whether “John” was even his actual name is doubtful. Despite this uncertainty, can we extract any valuable knowledge from this text?

Taken at face value, are there any clues that tell us who the author was versus who he wasn’t? My takeaway is that “John’s” Gospel is one long, often repetitive, but highly charismatic sermon.

My books and sermons are usually on the short side, but John? His work is the equivalent of a lengthy Baptist preacher stirring up the crowd on a Sunday morning. Maybe that’s just me, but this Gospel comes across not as a book to be read but as a brow-beating persuasive testimony to be heard and felt.

It feels like this Gospel wasn’t intended to be studied but to be consumed. Whomever this author was, from my point of view, he succeeded in building a very compelling case in favor of Jesus as the Christ. 

Who wrote John in the bible? I have no idea what his name was, what his educational background consisted of, or whether he preferred red or white wine. That said, something deep down is stirred every time I open the New Testament to the fourth Gospel.

Perhaps he was a gifted storyteller, a pastor, or a beloved professor? He was certainly a well-rounded and passionate preacher.

The true identities of the authors behind The New Testament remain a mystery. Unfortunately, these shrouded Greek figures failed to provide any “About the Author” notes or background information that could aid our historical investigations.

I believe John’s Gospel was written to place Jesus’s hands in the metaphorical sidewalk cement outside the Chinese theater of Hollywood. The author wanted to be part of a legacy that has, far and away, become something more special than he could have imagined. 

The Gospel of John cleverly and boldly put in print a written record of an oral tradition about Jesus the Christ that somehow lives on in perpetuity, eternally pointing seekers and believers alike to Jesus who, in his words, is “the way, the truth, and the life.” (John 14:6)

Who was Paul in the Bible? Apart from Jesus, no person is more important to the formation of Christianity than the Apostle Paul.

Without Paul, I doubt that the largest religion in the world would have ever lasted past the second century. Most of the New Testament would not exist because no matter how you spin it, Paul’s letters were the catalyst behind Christian thought and theology.

Thanks to one man’s unwavering dedication and tireless work ethic, the followers of “the Way” expanded from a mere twelve initial believers to over a billion and continue to thrive as a relevant religious movement in the twenty-first century.

As a pastor, I spend most of my time telling people who Jesus was, but Paul’s legacy is nearly as important when understanding the importance of Jesus and his mission.

The curious would find more to grapple with in the writings of Paul than in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John combined. While the Gospels talk about Jesus’s life, Paul’s letters talk about Paul’s life as he lived it in real-time in Christ’s wake.

Paul is a rare first-person point of view about how Jesus impacted his life’s work, as well as his intimate thoughts and beliefs both about Jesus and from Jesus personally.

The Gospel authors cannot claim to have communicated with the Lord, as Paul claims in the books he wrote. This assertion elevates his significance. In this article, I delve into Paul’s background, his journey, and his eventual recognition as the initial missionary of Christianity, possibly being our sole firsthand witness to the resurrected Jesus.

Let’s start with the meaning of a name. Was Paul really his name? Yes. And no. In Hebrew, Paul’s name was Saul. In Greek, the New Testament language, Saul was often changed to Paul, though the exact reason remains unknown.

This isn’t all that important in terms of Paul’s story, except that some Christians assume the name change was intentional because Paul converted from Judaism to Christianity. The idea was that the name Saul possibly acted as a reminder of his previous role as a relentless persecutor of Christians, a chapter in his life that he wished to distance himself from.

However, no Bible verses substantiate that nor indicate Paul changed his name. Instead, it appears people just called him by both names throughout his life, like how someone might use the names “Rob” and “Bob” interchangeably.

In my personal opinion, I find the entire idea quite absurd that he would alter his name by just one letter to differentiate between two vastly distinct identities. So when you ask yourself, who was Paul in the Bible, wouldn’t it have made more sense for him to choose a name such as Walter or Keith to provide greater separation? Oh well. I digress.

According to the Apostle Paul himself, he “was circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.” (Philippians 3:4-6)

The author of the Book of Acts, whom most scholars agree was the same writer of the Gospel of Luke, revealed Paul was a “Jew from Tarsus, Cicilia, and a citizen of an important city” (Acts 21:39) who could speak both Greek and Hebrew.

Luke gave several biographical nuggets regarding Paul’s background, namely that he was “brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, educated strictly according to our ancestral law” (Acts 22:3) and that Paul declared himself a Jewish-born Roman citizen (Acts 22:28). 

When we consider the entirety of the New Testament in order to form a comprehensive picture of Paul he emerges as a remarkably impressive character. However, it is important to exercise caution and critically evaluate our sources, as there is a significant time gap between the earliest writings of Paul and his later works, especially the Book of Acts, which some argue could be renamed as the Book of Paul’s Acts.

In another blog post discussing the historical context of the New Testament, it is suggested that Luke-Acts was probably published near the conclusion of the first century. This extended timeframe allowed for the memories and influence of Jesus and Paul to develop and give rise to narratives that occasionally include exaggerated elements or adopt a more mythological tone rather than remaining strictly historical.

Don’t get me wrong, the sources not written by Paul are important too, but if you want the most accurate depiction, it is best to rely on the information the apostle personally supplied, which from my perspective, is sufficient. 

If I were to answer the question, who was Paul in the Bible?  I would say he was an interesting and multi-faceted character… and if Paul were in the pulpit today, he probably wouldn’t be well-liked.

What Paul had to say about Jesus, the Church, the scriptures, and the Spirit was exceptional. Paul’s writings convey him as an intelligent, hot-tempered, insecure, and stubbornly opinionated orator and teacher. There were likely few others as zealous for the message of Jesus as Paul.

But Paul didn’t always have the best “bedside manner” regarding conflict resolution. At times Paul was confrontational (Galatians 2:11), and at other times tender-hearted (Philippians 1:8), making his demeanor slightly unpredictable.

We only get Paul’s side of things through his letters. However, he did not react favorably to those who doubted his authority as an apostle. Instead, Paul repeatedly emphasizes his qualifications as a messenger of Jesus, highlighting the hardships he endured to spread the Gospel. For example, he feverishly defended his ministry in 1 Thessalonians 2:2; Romans 5:3.

In  2 Corinthians 10, fieriness aside, what stands out to me about Paul was his wonder, gratitude, and at times his supreme confidence and borderline arrogance regarding the message he felt dutifully bound to proclaim.

Admittedly, it isn’t easy to piece together the entirety of his story. Still, he writes with an unparalleled blend of urgency and boldness that many attribute to his supernatural visionary revelation of Jesus the Christ he had on “the road to Damascus” (Acts 9). 

I find Paul’s decision to dedicate himself to the propagation of the Gospel highly intriguing.  His unwavering dedication and perseverance, combined with his profound encounters detailed in 2 Corinthians 12 and the life-altering moments depicted in Acts 9, persuade me that his rise to power was primarily influenced by what he witnessed and experienced rather than solely relying on his words and actions.

Acts 9:3 Now as he was going along and approaching Damascus, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” 5 He asked, “Who are you, Lord?” The reply came, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 6 But get up and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.”

9 For three days he was without sight and neither ate nor drank…17 So Ananias went and entered the house. He laid his hands on Saul and said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on your way here, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and his sight was restored. Then he got up and was baptized, 19 and after taking some food, he regained his strength.    

No one can answer who Paul was better than Paul–and I, for one, am inclined to let him speak for himself. No sermon is harder to preach than when I am asked to use scriptures that Paul wrote. He does just fine by himself when it comes to answering questions. So when we ask, “Who was Paul in the Bible?” let me just turn it over to him to respond.

I’m guessing he would point me to the first chapter of Galatians and the color commentary for the Book of Acts version of Damascus and tell me that by God’s grace, he was set apart to proclaim Jesus among the Gentiles.

Period. End of story.

And here we are, many of us grateful Gentiles, still striving to learn about Jesus and those who first knew and loved him.

If you are hungry for more about Paul and his role in the early Church, then perhaps it’s time to become a subscribing member of the Bart Ehrman community or, at the very least, to listen to Pauline scholar Dr. James Tabor who guest lectured on Bart’s new podcast in November of 2022.

From there, I recommend Bart’s new courses on Paul, which are coming out soon. 

When were the Gospels written? Unfortunately, the answer isn’t as straightforward as one might think. The simple answer is, during a period when Christian communities were spread throughout the Roman Empire. 

Christians today usually begin their beliefs based on the content of the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But interestingly, when the Gospels were written, their content was likely the product, not the source, of early Christianity.

The Gospels were not written as biographies of the life of Jesus but as evangelical narratives intended to inspire belief in the Good News of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, Christianity today tends to mash up all the Gospels by creating a single narrative from the four distinct offerings. Still, when the Gospels were written, they were not published simultaneously but independently of one another, with decades passing between each work. 

Therefore, when the Gospels were written, the context of each writer was different.

Unlike background, context is interactive. The authors lived in a particular time and place, and their circumstances and experiences within that time and place affected the telling of their version of Jesus’ story.

To put it into perspective, our background is fixed, but our context changes as we age and gain experience. Context influences how we think and how we act within our world. This is an important distinction because scholars have been able to cross-reference historical data with the authors’ writings in the Gospels, including their narratives about Jesus.

This helps establish a better frame of when the Gospels were ultimately written and the authors’ potential motives. But first, we must ask why they were writing and to whom their words were intended to reach.

Institutional Christianity produced the ubiquitous denominations and sects of today’s Christianity. But in the ancient world, particularly in the immediate decades following Jesus’ lifetime, no institution or denominations in his name were spreading across eastern Europe. There were, however, various small groups and communities.

Not all, but many Christians today treat the words of the New Testament as divinely transcending the historical context of the Biblical writers. Those who believe the Bible is “God’s infallible Word” often believe the Bible is, therefore, above and beyond reproach and not subject to questioning, let alone scrutiny and correction.

I encounter some Christians who cannot fathom interpreting the Bible based on the historical context of its writing. Instead, these folks take the totality of “God’s infallible Word” as the final word.

No matter how often the content contradicts itself, how many grammatical errors there are, or how utterly baffling the subject matter is, they are dead set that the New Testament is timeless. Its content is to be taken at face value even though almost no one today lives within the cultural norms Jesus challenged throughout the Gospels.

This is most certainly not my perspective! The way I understand, interpret, and derive meaning from these ancient texts is in alignment with scholars such as: 

• Dr. Bart Ehrman
• John Shelby Spong
• Marcus Borg
• Brian McLaren
• Rob Bell
• John Dominic Crossan
• Elaine Pagels
• Amy Jill-Levine

… and many other incredibly learned and insightful historians of the ancient world. Their work provides incredible wisdom about the period from which the New Testament came into being.   

When the Gospel of Mark was written, the year was approximately 70 A.D. At this time, Jesus’ followers are a mix of Jewish and Gentiles.

This is a momentous time for Jews and early Christians. In the year 66, a revolt against Roman rule broke out, and  Jewish revolutionaries initially succeeded in taking control of Jerusalem.

But by the year 70, Roman legions re-conquered Jerusalem and destroyed the temple. This was the only place of Jewish sacrifice, thereby beginning a transformation within Judaism. The crushing defeat of the revolt was perhaps the most devastating event in ancient Jewish history. It was rivaled only by the Babylonian temple destruction some six centuries earlier.

The temple’s destruction was central to the historical context of Mark. It’s especially apparent in Mark 13 when discussing the “signs” indicating when “the end” will come and Jesus’ warning that the magnificence of the temple and its vast stones will be cast down.

When the Gospel of Mark was written, the author likely assumed the second coming of Jesus would be soon. It appears Mark’s words are motivated by the events in his midst concerning war and immense loss. His Jesus is rooted in urgency and the hope that the end makes everything new. 

The Gospel of Matthew was written a decade or two after Mark, in the 80s or early 90s A.D. The author of Matthew was likely writing during a time of growing hostility and conflict between Christian Jews, non-Christian Jews, and Jews toward the end of the first century.

The loss of Jewish lives during the Roman destruction of the temple decimated the population. “These circumstances naturally led to a greater emphasis on Jewish identity and the social boundaries that maintained that identity and distinguished Jews from non-Jews,” writes Marcus Borg in Evolution of the Word: The New Testament in the Order the Books Were Written.

The survival instinct likely kicked into high gear, making Jewish and Gentile Christian interactions intense. In Matthew’s contextual circumstances, “expulsion from the synagogue” was on the table, a severe threat that eventually came to pass. The severing caused irreconcilable differences between Christian Jews, non-Christian Jews, and Jews.

The consequences of this divorce cannot be understated. This was a terrible time for Matthew and his community. While it does not legitimize nor justify the anti-semitic language often found in this Gospel, it does help us understand why it is there. 

The common consensus of the Gospel of John and its dating is around 90 A.D. An additional layer of mystique to this Gospel is that it seems to have two endings—one at the end of chapter 20 and again in the next chapter.

Regardless of when it became a cohesive narrative, the context of the 90s, when this Gospel hit the presses, is steeped in even deeper resentment toward “the Jews” than Matthew’s Gospel. It is believed this sentiment results from the expulsion above and exclusion from the synagogue.

John, a Jewish Christian, more than once articulates his sadness and anger about this divorce. One is left with the feelings expected from a moody teenager expressing dissatisfaction with his parent’s divorce. An event that would undoubtedly strain every good memory about the previous relationship up to that point.

Such language and vitriol toward Jews are dangerous when separated from the historical context. The most compelling piece of evidence supporting John’s anger about “the Jews” (which scholars think ought to be translated as “the Jewish authorities” or “the authorities”) is the healing story of the man born blind from John 9.

The author directly states those believing in Jesus as the Messiah were “put out of the synagogue” (John 9:22). “This verse is significant from a socio-historical perspective. We know there was no official policy against accepting Jesus as Messiah — or anyone else as the Messiah, for that matter — during his lifetime.

On the other hand, some Jewish synagogues did begin to exclude members who believed in Jesus’ Messiahship towards the end of the first century,” writes Dr. Ehrman in his blog.  

The dating of the Gospel of Luke varies, with some placing it as early as the 80s and 90s and other scholars timestamping it around the year 120 A.D. Popular opinion still leans toward Luke’s Gospel being written a decade or two later than Mark’s.

However, the author of the Gospel of Luke is also the author of the book of Acts. This single work in two volumes complicates matters.

Luke writes more of the New Testament than anyone else. The Gospel of Luke and Acts comprise about 30 percent of the New Testament. Longer than the letters of Paul combined and 80 percent as long as Matthew, Mark, and John combined.

Second-century Christians identify Luke as a companion of Paul in the 50s. This strongly suggests the author was an eyewitness to some of what was narrated in Acts.

Most modern scholars are skeptical of this dating rationale and place the unknown author’s context several decades later. Following on the heels of the Christian Jews’ expulsion from the synagogue, Luke’s Gospel appears to announce this in the opening scene of Jesus’ public activity in his hometown of Nazareth (4:16-30). The reaction to Jesus’ inclusion of the Gentiles is met with rejection and hostility.

This passage is one of at least a dozen others from the book of Acts which infer opposition from “the Jews” in one way or another.

Such hostility suggests that when Acts was written, “the parting of the ways between Judaism and Christianity was more than well underway–it had happened. The emphasis upon the rejection of Paul and his mission by “the Jews” suggests that the division into two different religions was occurring. Hence the relatively late date for Acts and thus also for Luke,” concludes Marcus Borg from Evolution of the Word. 

When the Gospels were written is inextricably tied to who these authors were and what motivated them to write down the most retold story in the history of the world.

Where they lived, what events were happening in their midst, and how this affected their worldview are all on display for readers to ponder. The Gospels, when read independently, are four unique expressions of Christ and his impact on early Christians.

I believe we are better off letting the historical context inform our interpretation of scripture in our ministry today. We should not give in to the impulse to treat the four as a single volume. Cinematic works such as Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ and the multi-season series of the life of Jesus in The Chosen portray this early Palestinian Jewish rabbi as a martyr. While mashing all these works together might be entertaining and tempting, it ignores context. 

I may be biased, but taken independently, the distinct differences create endless intrigue.

If the debate of when the Gospels were written captivates you as much as it does me, you are on the right path to unlocking even more knowledge through the work of New Testament scholar Dr. Bart Ehrman!

Who wrote the New Testament? Firstly, the New Testament is known as a collection of writings by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, and Jude. But it’s not as simple as that. There is much debate among scholars about the authorship of some of these writings.

This means that traditional attributions are not universally accepted. Which makes for quite the mystery. 

Bible stories are incredibly diverse – from the slightly esoteric Songs of Solomon to the militaristic conquests in Joshua and Judges, the Bible illuminates mystical encounters in Daniel and Revelation and character-driven epics in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

While most theatrical performances are typically divided into three acts, the Bible is divided into two, referred to as “testaments.”

The Old Testament is far older and more expansive in scope than the New Testament. But, unfortunately, no known original copies of either are available, only copies of copies going back thousands of years.

The authorship and authenticity of the Bible as a whole are the sources of in-depth debate. As a clergy member, nothing defines my role more than my grasp of the Bible’s content and ability to answer inquiries such as: How many authors wrote the Bible or put a little differently, who wrote the Bible, God or humans?

If you’re looking for a philosophical treatise on whether God is responsible for the words of the ancient scriptures, then keep surfing.

Instead, expect an overview of what I believe is behind the writing of The New Testament.

When people use terms like “books” and “chapters” to describe the writings of The New Testament, one might wonder how this applies to writing today. I can tell you they are not like the books or chapters you and I are familiar with.

The most lengthy contribution to The New Testament is The Gospel of Luke, which comprises approximately  25,640 words. This is roughly less than a standard-sized one-hundred-page book in today’s literary world.

A better way to describe these twenty-seven contributions might be that The New Testament consists of over two dozen independent pamphlets and letters written on parchment.

These writings penned in ancient Greek contained no spaces between letters or words, no chapter or verse divisions – not even punctuation. Instead, they are a continuous flow of letters. 

The manuscripts of the New Testament were typically produced through one of two methods: either the author wrote them by hand, or they employed a scribe to transcribe their ideas. The language used here is intentionally gender-specific, referring only to men. This is because it is widely believed that the New Testament was written exclusively by men, with most of it attributed to one man or others writing under his name.

The man I am talking about is Paul. A Greek-speaking Jew from Asia Minor, born in Tarsus in Cicilia (now modern-day Turkey.) He is often considered the most important person after Jesus in the history of Christianity and is credited with authoring thirteen letters of The New Testament, although the authorship of some of these is disputed:

• Romans
• 1st and 2nd Corinthians
• Galatians
• Ephesians
• Philippians
• Colossians
• 1st and 2nd Thessalonians
• 1st and 2nd Timothy
• Titus
• Philemon

The other fourteen:

• Matthew, Mark, Luke, John
• Acts
• Hebrews
• James
• 1st and 2nd Peter
• 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John
• Jude
• Revelation

…were written by a mysterious assortment of authors. Twenty-seven books make up the New Testament; as a whole, they are our earliest surviving Christian writings. 

Opinions vary regarding the authorship of the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Some assert that these were the actual names of the scribes. But most scholars conclude those names are merely placeholding pseudonyms, and the Gospels were written anonymously.

Dr. Bart Ehrman unveiled much more detail about this question of Gospel authorship in various books, podcast episodes, and online courses. You might also find other Bart Ehrman blog posts on this topic of interest. 

The remaining ten works of The New Testament that are not attributed to the apostle Paul’s direct input or influence are notoriously tricky to pin down in terms of authorship. The Book of Acts is commonly believed to have been written by the same writer as The Gospel of Luke, (70-95 CE). Let us not forget The Book of Revelation, also known as The Apocalypse of John (near the end of the first century), which is nearly as popular as The Gospels are in many Christian Bible studies.

The confusion over who wrote what in the New Testament is widespread. It’s no wonder the contributions are named for people and not places.

Most Christians believe Jesus’ disciple John wrote the Book of Revelation, and in dramatic fashion no less, from the Greek Island of Patmos as a persecuted outcast at the end of Domitian’s reign. Some believe that perhaps even the prophet Jeremiah from the Old Testament was responsible for these texts.

Historical studies, however, suggest a different setting. The author of Revelation was probably an early Christian prophet who knew several Christian traditions but was not directly acquainted with John’s gospels or epistles, writes Revelation scholar Dr. Craig Koester.

While likely not the same man who caught fish with his brother James and father, it is more plausible than the belief that the other pseudonym, “John,” was the actual name of the author of Revelation and that he was a Jewish Christian prophet active in Asia Minor at the turn of the first century. 

As for the non-Pauline words of Hebrews, James, 1st and 2nd Peter, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John and Jude, authorship is shrouded in uncertainty amidst these relatively obscure contributions.

This leaves their words in relative obscurity. You likely won’t see many Christians tattooing “3rd John 3:16” on their biceps (because it doesn’t exist) nor hear something from Jude quoted by politicians scrambling for Christian votes on the campaign trail. Although, that would be a welcomed change.

The ugly truth, however, is that from the Gospels to the so-called thirteen letters of the apostle Paul, most New Testament authorship is a mystery at best and deceitful at worst. Don’t take my word for it; take Bart’s–he wrote about it in his book Forged: Writing in the Name of God–Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are.

There is a persistent Christian legend that some of the non-Pauline letters in the New Testament were written by Paul’s disciples rather than by Paul himself. This legend is propagated by some well-meaning Christians who want to give Paul’s teachings more authority.

The available evidence contradicts this notion. Essentially, determining the authors of the New Testament involves a lot of speculation. Evangelical Christians, in particular, are uneasy about non-apostolic authorship. They may believe that only Jesus’ closest associates and the prominent Christian missionary Paul could be responsible for “God’s Word” and the significant lessons on faith and life contained in these revered texts.

However, the reality is that the New Testament imparts valuable teachings on faith and life, and the impact of Jesus of Nazareth and the authorship of the texts play a relatively minor role in their overall influence.

The question of who wrote the New Testament can be summed up as “Paul of Tarsus and some other unknown authors.” Most authors’ true identities remain a mystery, as they did not leave any “About the Author” notes or other information that would aid historical research. I think it is hard to find fault with their missing signatures, as these men of mystery could not have been writing with modernity in mind.

Nonetheless, the New Testament preserves oral traditions about Jesus Christ and instructs the early Christian church. It contains messages intended for specific audiences during a specific historical period. Despite the obstacles faced during its creation and preservation, this ancient collection has remained relevant for over twenty centuries.

Its enduring influence is a remarkable achievement, given the many challenges it faced during the canonization process and beyond. It’s undeniable that the “New” Testament has remarkable staying power and mystique, considering we’re now more than two millennia past its publication.

The non-canonical gospels are a collection of ancient texts that were not included in the New Testament canon.  These writings constitute about a third of the Christian Bible and contain a number of different gospels, or accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, as well as other writings that provide additional information about the early Christian movement. They have been largely dismissed or are considered heretical to the orthodoxy for various reasons. 

Therefore, let the reader beware. An interest in the non-canonical New Testament texts comes at a steep cost for truth-seekers past and present. I am unsure of my long-term employment status at the time of this writing as I am in deep water with my synodical bishop. She isn’t entirely sure what to do with a pastor like me who has such strong feelings about the importance of these non-canonical texts, which was brought to her attention through the focus of my third published book.

The non-canonical texts were not accepted as part of the New Testament by the early Christian church, nor (as I am discovering firsthand) are they received warmly by the Christian institution today. 

Their exclusion is primarily because the non-canonical gospels contain different information about Jesus and the early Christian movement. As such, they do not have the same level of authority or reverence as the canonical gospels, considered to be the primary sources of information about Jesus and his teachings. 

Some of these texts provide more details about Jesus’ life and teachings. While others include entirely different stories and accounts of his ministry. Some of the non-canonical gospels also contain teachings and beliefs that are not found in the canonical gospels and may not be considered in line with mainstream Christian doctrine.

Overall, the non-canonical gospels are a fascinating and valuable source of information about the early Christian movement. But for reasons we will explore in this article, the orthodox Christian Church does not consider them to be on the same level as the canonical gospels in terms of their historical accuracy or theological significance.

The English word “canon” derives from the Greek word meaning “rule” or “measuring stick.” Let’s not get too far into the weeds of how the Bible is organized–a process that would likely span a series of posts. Truth-seekers like yourselves need to know that the New Testament was constructed approximately three hundred years after Jesus walked the streets of Jerusalem. 

How ancient scholars arrived at the inclusion of the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the only God-inspired words have been a debate that has ceased to abate. Such a topic is complex. In short, their inclusion in the New Testament canon occurred because of the age of the text, the similar content, the perception of Jesus in the texts, and the (alleged) identities of the authors.

The authors of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, also known as the synoptic gospels (or “common view” of Jesus), are widely believed to have known of one another’s authorship.

Just as you cannot expect a teenager to avoid their classmates’ test answers if left unguarded, progressive Christian scholars from Marcus Borg to orthodox Christian scholars like Dr. Michael Licona tend to find agreement for a first-century-ish dating of the gospels.

However you lean theologically, you don’t have to be a scholar to see that Matthew and Luke had access to Mark as the basis of their gospel accounts. Taken side by side, Matthew reproduces about 90% of what Mark’s Gospel states and Luke reproduces around 50% of Mark’s words.

In segments, Matthew, Mark, and Luke have in common verbal agreement that averages about 50%. An examination of agreements and disagreements like these led scholars to deduce that Mark was written earlier than the other Gospel accounts (approximately thirty years after Jesus died.)

In other words, “Mark is now understood to be the fundamental source for narrative information about Jesus,” according to Robert Funk and Roy Hoover in The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus.

The Gospel of John, on the other hand, was a different animal altogether. John is virtually nothing like the Synoptics in form and function and was likely written much later than the others (around the turn of the first century). It provided a favorable counter-combo that helped establish the Christian religion. 

Despite what you may have learned in Sunday school or confirmation classes, the identities of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are far from clear-cut. While it is certainly possible the four were contemporaries of Jesus, it is doubtful that any of them had a personal relationship with him.

Christian legend posits that Matthew’s Gospel was penned by Matthew, the tax collector appointed by Jesus as a disciple. Likewise, they may have told you that the Gospel of Mark was Peter’s companion, Luke was the Apostle Paul’s physician, and John was none other than the fisherman from Zebedee, another of Jesus’ inner circle compadres.

But this is a tradition passed down from the second-century Catholic Church. A practice that even the Catholics themselves now backpedal from asserting. I’ll let Bart debunk this legend in greater detail in one of his many articles, books, or online courses.

For now, it is essential to understand that these four book names are just that–book names. They serve as placeholders, pseudonyms added to the bookbinding for posterity and branding purposes. Those four Gospel writers were household names for centuries and assumed to be the only words about Jesus Christ and his influential ministry and life-changing mission.

Unbeknownst to far too many Christians, there were many other words written about Jesus following his evocative lifetime.

The New Testament, comprised of twenty-seven total works, could have surpassed the length of the Old Testament’s thirty-nine contributions! As it stands, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the only officially recognized authoritative Gospels in Christianity.

But from John Dominic Crossan (Four Other Gospels) to Elaine Pagels (The Gnostic Gospels) to our very own Bart Ehrman (Lost Christianities), the “rules” of authoritative scripture were meant to be tested and broken.

Nothing made this more possible than what was unearthed almost a century ago…

In December 1945, an Arab peasant discovered thirteen papyrus codices in upper Egypt. They are known as the Gnostic Gospels of Nag Hammadi (the English transliteration of the town’s name.)

While most people are familiar with the Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered around the same time, this collection portrays Jesus as never documented. Fifty-two texts from the early centuries of the Christian era were unearthed after over one thousand years in hiding!

Can you imagine how scandalous this discovery was to the orthodoxy when it included titles such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, The Apocalypse of Peter, and the Gospel of Philip?

Most of the hidden treasures were unmistakably Christian in terminology and recognizably of Jewish heritage, with one significant difference. These texts taught viewpoints that contrasted with second-century Christians.

Those same Christians appointed themselves the one true catholic or universal church of Jesus Christ and deciders of the New Testament Canon. When you page through these writings, it is easy to understand why they didn’t make the final cut. Their content is the stuff of Dan Brown novels and conspiracy theories: 

• The Gospel of Thomas – Proclaims the Kingdom of God is already present for those who understand the secret message of Jesus
• The Gospel of Mary – Lessons from the discipleship of Mary Magdalene, whom Jesus singled out to provide unique teachings
• The Gospel of Truth – Provides mystical teaching about God and the world and stresses the importance of knowledge over ignorance
• The Gospel to the Egyptians – A discussion between Salome and Jesus about topics such as celibacy, death, and sin
• The Gospel of Philip – Emphasizes marriage, a physical relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, and other controversial teachings

I’ve included a couple of others in the chart below:

It is my opinion that the early Christian Church wanted no part of these texts because they were more focused on understanding Jesus as the developer of their souls rather than the savior of their sins.

From my perspective, the primary difference between the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and the Gnostic texts comes down to a mystical understanding of Jesus versus a historical one.

The New Testament canon selection committee (aka the orthodox Christian Church) opted to go with a historical understanding of Jesus’ life, a theological understanding of his death, and a physical understanding of his resurrection.

All these interpretations vary from what the Gnostic Christians believe.

Another factor may be the dating of these texts. Most are believed to be from the mid to late second century or later.

The age of these texts all but certifies that none of them could have been written by people from Jesus’ inner circle or his contemporaries, even though that assumption for the existing canon isn’t foolproof.

As for the authorship? No, Thomas, Philip, and Mary Magdalene did not survive two to three centuries after Jesus! But their legacies certainly did for many people in the early Church.

I don’t think excluding the Gnostic apocryphal texts is accidental. Something about those texts was threatening to the powers that be behind the canonization process. If nothing else, literal interpretations of the Gospels were much easier to police “as it legitimized a hierarchy of persons through whose authority all others must approach God,” writes Dr. Elaine Pagels in The Gnostic Gospels.

If any of this smells foul to you as a truth-seeker, trust your senses. That said, there is no denying that what did survive stood the test of time.

The four canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, as well as the epistles of Paul and the other New Testament writers, produced millions of disciples. 

No one can take away the story of Jesus as told by the traditional canon, nor should they. But Christianity’s selection committee victory procured by the institutional forefathers’ decision came at a price. A price paid by committed students of ancient scriptures, who are encouraged to familiarize themselves with these fascinating writings.

I suggest delving into the likes of the aforementioned Crossan’s Four Other Gospels, The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels, Bart Ehrman’s Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew as well as digging into the bottomless knowledge contained in Bart’s blog, podcast, and online courses.

One of my favorite things to do to pass the time as a kid was flip through a Highlights magazine. Within its pages were several activities intended to sharpen one’s observation and critical-thinking skills. Waiting for the dentist or the doctor was always a breeze when I could spend the time spotting hidden bananas or flamingoes in a picture of a busy market or trying to spot how two seemingly identical pictures differed. The trickery was both exhilarating and maddening as the puzzles could rarely be completed without exercising brain muscles you never knew you had. I credit those activities for stimulating my concentration from a young age until now. 

If a person reads the first three Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (also known as the Synoptic Gospels) back-to-back-to-back according to their order in standard New Testaments not when they were written they will notice how similar each of those three accounts are. Not identical mind you, but very similar.

I doubt anyone tacking on John’s Gospel to that reading would miss how different it is compared to the first three. Readers may think a leaflet got stuck in their Bible by mistake. All four of the New Testament’s Gospels describe the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. When synthesized together, Matthew, Mark, and Luke provide a stark contrast in a side-by-side comparison to the Gospel of John.

In this article, I explore the seven key differences that set John’s storytelling of Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection apart. You need not worry about concentration headaches!  Unlike that impossible-to-find lizard in the corner of a Highlights hidden picture puzzle, the differences in John’s Gospel are glaringly obvious for both casual and informed readers alike.

At the beginning of John’s Gospel, the starkest difference compared to the other narratives is that there is no regal tale of Jesus’s birth to be found. There is no mention of Jesus’s parents, their long journey to Bethlehem, or Mary’s immaculate conception. There are no angels, no shepherds, no wise men…nothing!

The Gospel of John puts Jesus’s origins much, much, earlier, and elevates his status as far more significant. Even more significant than being conceived by the Holy Spirit as the Synoptic Gospels assert. According to John, Jesus is alluded to be “the Word” and existed before the universe began (Ch 1:1-4).

While the Synoptic Gospels begin Jesus’s story with a miraculous birth—in John’s Gospel, the story of Jesus begins with Jesus and God the creator of the universe on equal footing. In other words, John’s Gospel wants the reader to know from the get-go that Jesus is the Miracle-Maker himself.

Like Mark’s Gospel, the action of John’s story doesn’t spend time describing Jesus’s unusual first days on the earth. Instead, John pulls the curtain back to reveal Jesus as an adult, discussing what’s what with John the Baptist, and immediately recruiting his disciples for the ministry ahead. 

To say that the Synoptic Gospels and John differ regarding Jesus’s teaching style would be an understatement. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus is hesitant, afraid even, to speak about himself, his intentions, and his deeds, to anyone. He advises those he heals to tell no one what has happened.

In John, however, Jesus not only embraces talk about his divinity, but he also publicly declares it. In the synoptic Gospels, Jesus speaks in parables (code); In John, the parables are absent altogether and in their place is a Jesus who is very direct about who he is and what he has come to do.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke seem to be on the same page about the coming Kingdom of God, but in John, there is no mention of the coming Kingdom. John focuses readers on Jesus as one being sent by God. The use of metaphor and mystical language is rampant in the Gospel of John whereas the Synoptic Gospels tell stories that sound more historical in nature.

Jesus according to John is a cosmic force in the world, sent by God to love, forgive, and empower people through his presence. The other three Gospels leave much more meaning unpacked as readers are plunged into narratives that are anything but explicit.

What John lacks in the frequency of the miraculous in his Gospel, is made up for in the potency of each act. In John, Jesus dazzles in spectacular fashion, unveiling his worthiness in magnificent acts like: 

• turning water into wine (Ch 2)
• healing of the lame man by the pool of Bethsaida (Ch 5)
• healing of the man born blind (Ch 9)
• raising of the three-days dead Lazarus (Ch 11)

In addition to his outward demonstrations of power, John’s Jesus also appears to be omniscient. He knows everything about the woman at the well in John chapter 4 and “sees” Nathaneal under the fig tree in chapter 1.

The other three Gospel writers focus the bulk of Jesus’s demonstrations of power on restoring sight to the blind and exorcising the demonic. But amazingly, Jesus never performs an exorcism in John’s Gospel.

Whereas in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, situations seem to spontaneously follow Jesus or crop up wherever he is.  In John, it is almost as if Jesus expects situations to develop wherever he is so that he can use those opportunities to glorify God and inspire belief in his divinity.

Jesus’s identity in John is dictated early and often, sometimes explicitly—not so in the other three Gospel accounts.

Unlike Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus is open and affirming about his interconnectedness with God. He repeats that trust in him is on par with trusting God and those who believe in Jesus and his words inherit eternal life (14:6; 20:30-31). The concept of eternal life is rarely discussed in the Synoptic Gospels but is an ongoing theme in John’s Gospel.

In the Synoptic Gospels, multiple chapters reveal the ominous events leading up to Jesus’s crucifixion:

• the institution of the Lord’s supper
• the garden of Gethsemane where Jesus prays for the cup to pass from him
• Jesus’s arrest and trial before the Jewish authorities of the Sanhedrin

Most devout Christians could recite these events by heart—but none of them occur in John’s Gospel. Instead, Jesus spends hundreds of words in spoken prayer captured only by John’s pen. These and other heartfelt and spiritual discourses are unlike anything Jesus says in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

All four Gospels agree that Judas betrayed the Lord.  That said, only in John does Judas bypass the aide of the Sanhedrin bringing “a detachment of soldiers together with police from the chief priests and the Pharisees, and they came there with lanterns and torches and weapons.” (John 18:3)

In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus’s primary offense is blasphemy, but in John, there is no such verdict made. The Gospel of John is clear Jesus must suffer and die via the Romans because that was why he was born.  

Another thing unique to John’s Gospel are the intimate vignettes of Jesus’s rambling, detailed, discourses absent in the other Gospels. John’s Gospel is the only place in the New Testament where Jesus allegedly speaks at great length with:

• Nicodemus (Ch 3)
• the Samaritan woman (Ch 4)
• the disciples (Chapters 13-17)
• Pilate (Chapters 18-19)
• Mary Magdalene and Thomas (Ch 20)
• Peter (Ch 21).

The Gospel of John is also adamant about a character in Jesus’s inner circle known as “the beloved disciple.” This disciple is portrayed as the first to believe, and the one closest to Jesus during his earthly life, as demonstrated by Jesus entrusting his mother into their care at the foot of the cross (Ch 19).

A great deal of speculation and theories have circulated over the years as to the identity of this mysteriously titled disciple. Some believe it is none other than John, son of Zebedee, who is also the author of the Gospel itself.

While other scholarship, such as former Episcopal Bishop and author John Shelby Spong in his book “The Fourth Gospel: Tales of A Jewish Mystic, attest that “the beloved disciple” is Lazarus. The man whom Jesus wept for and raised from the dead. No matter who “the beloved disciple” may or may not be, any mention of that character or phrasing cannot be found anywhere in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

The potential reasons for these puzzlingly fundamental differences are as vast as the differences themselves. The fantastic and fascinating scholarship of Dr. Bart Ehrman has been a highlight in my ministry and has helped to thoroughly unpack the meaning behind and underneath such confounding ancient documents.

Be it through his many books on the subject or his insights generously shared on his blog – if you seek the Truth that often hides in plain sight, it is time for you to dig into Bart’s scholarship for yourself. If I were you, I’d start with his free webinar “Did Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John Actually Write Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?”  

What does the word Gospel mean?

“I’ve got good news, and I’ve got bad news.”  Have you ever said this or been on the receiving end of a statement like this?

I sure have and I’m the type of person who typically likes to hear the bad news first in hopes that the good news will cancel out or help me endure the bad news more easily. The method hasn’t failed me yet.

The word gospel means good news – but it’s a complicated word with a deep history. So let’s explore it now for greater understanding. 

All of this talk of good news resurfaced an interesting memory from 2020. As we all know this 12-month period was a disaster. The bad news was torturously ubiquitous because of covid and the quarantine. Yet in the shadows of this negativity, a YouTube show called “Some Good News” garnered over 72 million views and 2,500,000 subscribers in just two months’ time!

Actor John Krasinski hosted the show from his home in Brooklyn and blew people out of the water with his unexpected success. 

While Krasinski’s show may have demonstrated that “good news” never goes out of style – there was a much bigger success story involving good news….and that’s the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 

There’s no denying Krasinski’s numbers were remarkable but his success pales in comparison to sales of the Bible. Did you know over 5 billion copies have been sold worldwide? Countless people have turned to “The Gospel” for inspiration and comfort in tough times for millennia…

….and the pandemic didn’t reduce interest in the good news of the bible.

“In all 181 million Americans opened their Bible in the past year—up 7.1% from the 169 million adults who did so in 2020, according to @americanbible.” 

But what did “good news” mean in the ancient world of the Bible? Let’s unpack the basics behind the religious word “Gospel”.

Let’s check out the Gospel Etymology. In the Bible, Good News = Gospel. Gospel comes from the Greek word euangelion, which is a compound word made up of the Greek eu meaning “good” and angelia meaning “message.”

The “Good Message” according to the ancient Greek writers was that God acted decisively and permanently for the well-being of humankind through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified and “raised” in the early part of the first century in Israel.

The story and message of Jesus are what Christians the world over refer to as “The Gospel” or “The Good News.”

This message was composed by four different authors who go by the first names: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The first 4 books or documents, found in that order, make up the New Testament.

So how many gospels are there? 

There are four-fold testimonials that illustrate the importance of Jesus and his:

• birth narrative
• rise to prominence as a beloved rabbi
• controversial teaching, and
• resistance to the rabbinic law of his day

They also provide a detailed account of his last week alive, including his arrest, torture, and execution, plus various vignettes of him interacting with his followers after his miraculous resurrection post-crucifixion.

The Gospels tell the story of a child born around 4 BCE named Jesus, who lived in the Israeli village of Nazareth, which was roughly ninety miles north of Jerusalem.

These four accounts provide readers with insight into Jesus’s alleged actions, both the miraculous and the mundane. They also impart details about things he spoke into existence by way of his conversations, sermons, and prayers. 

Finally, the Gospels provide a guide to the events leading up to his tragic death by crucifixion and his wondrous resurrection and bodily reappearances to his closest followers three days after he was placed into a sealed tomb.

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John cover a remarkably brief but transformative three-year record of the sayings and doing’s of Jesus and his followers. Moreover, for many Christians, the Good News is not limited to the words about Jesus in the Bible. For them, Jesus has become The Good News himself for he is Christ, or the “The Good News” in bodily form. 

As you can see gospel meaning is very important for Christians.

Who was Jesus, really? Was he the Good News in bodily form or was he merely a special person? I think Jesus certainly qualified as Good News and is definitively a step or three above “special.”

According to each of the four Gospel writers, Jesus was Christ. The Greek translation of Christ is the Messiah. If you have any connection to Judaism whatsoever, then you know that messiah isn’t a word you ought to use flippantly.

This is no ordinary rags to riches or underdog tale. The Gospels are to Jesus what Moses is to the Torah.  A religious figurehead coming-out party gone viral, a highlight reel to end all highlight reels, a profound literary revelation.

For readers, the Gospels deftly “afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted”.  Accomplishing a total upheaval to Judaism, which was the religious system of Jesus’s day. The Gospels forge a new way of understanding the meaning of life and death, beginning with the man of the hour, Jesus the Christ.

Regardless of your experience with the New Testament’s stories of Jesus as told by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, this ancient four-fold account is the kind of good news you expect when you hear those two words put side-by-side.

It is gracious and kind, generous and uplifting. But the longer I am a pastor, the more evident it becomes that The Gospels are so much more than what meets the eye when read only at face value. If one wants to truly experience the Good…Better…Best News – then pick up your mental shovel and start digging below the surface.

There, in the depths of historical criticism, authorship, intended audience, archaeology, etc, one just might discover what The Gospel has been holding back all these years. Revelatory and disruptive truths are intended to inspire deep, thought-provoking transformation. 

If you’re cool with a Gospel on par with the happy-go-lucky sunshine-inducing warm-blanket that made Krasinki’s YouTube show a sensation, then keep reading it on a level surface.

But if you’re here because you’re ready for something else, then enlist the guidance of a world-renown scholar such as Bart Ehrman. The bad news is that you will be filled with more knowledge than you think your brain can contain. The good news is that you won’t regret trying!  

Who wrote the Gospels? According to a recent Gallup poll, only half of Americans leave any kind of will behind, and of that number, I am willing to guess only a handful take the time to leave any sort of personalized message for their loved ones to remember them by.

Americans aren’t crazy about death, so that percentage isn’t at all surprising. In all my years as a pastor presiding at funerals, I have only once read a eulogy written by the deceased person themselves. When it comes to the words of the most important man to have ever walked the earth, Jesus the Christ, surely that wasn’t the case, right? 

The short answer is that no, Jesus did not write any of his teachings down nor provide anything that could be taken as a “last will and testament” for his followers and loved ones. What a shame as this would have been by far the most convincing way to make his truth known about the Kingdom of God.

So if Jesus didn’t actually write these words down himself, then who did? In order to better grasp the answer to the proverbial “who done it” of Christianity’s written record, this article provides a brief examination of why the Gospels were written down at all as well as when they likely graced ancient newsstands.

I’ll let Bart’s webinar do most of the work underneath the question of who is possibly responsible for the authorship of the Gospels, but this will at least give us a starting point for how the topic is even up for debate.

As Bart discusses at length in his book and webinar how Jesus became God in the ancient world, Jesus was not the only influential human to cause a stir by outlasting death. Philostratus’s Life of Apollonius of Tyana, is one example of another influencer like Jesus whose life story shares components with Jesus’ story.

That Jesus’ story was written down is not surprising. Just as a person today tries to keep fresh the love story of their dearly departed through inheriting their stuff or wishes, Jesus’ followers also saw the need to keep Jesus’ legacy of love, forgiveness, and overcoming the grave from fading into obscurity.

Over time, the only way that could happen was by putting his life into words and onto papyrus. Some followers were in less of a hurry to do so than others.

In the immediate decades following Jesus’ death and mysterious reappearances spawned a new religious understanding of his teachings.  His followers were too busy spreading his mission across the Jewish homeland and setting up new Christ communities to worry about writing books about their Risen Lord.

Controversies were springing up left and right regarding the rules about proper discipleship. Who qualified, how important circumcision was, etc. Also, prevalent in the immediate aftermath of Jesus’ last days was the belief that Jesus was coming back soon. A belief that created urgency about the end of the world rather than finding a publishing house. 

The panic button was finally pressed thirty to forty years after Jesus breathed his last breath. Most scholars agree that the very first Gospel written and distributed was the Gospel of Mark in or around the year 70.

Motivation to put pen to papyrus would have been at a fever-pitch at that time as the Roman legions destroyed the temple in Jerusalem, dousing the fiery passion of Jewish hopes for independence. The act likely triggered an enhanced need to have Jesus in print so to speak. 

Matthew is traditionally believed to have been written a decade after Mark, and John a decade after that in the 90s. Scholarship regarding the arrival of Luke’s Gospel is widespread and divided, with some dating Luke/Acts as early as the time of Matthew’s Gospel in the 80s (see William James Jennings) or as late as the early second century.

Progressive theologian Marcus Borg makes a compelling case for Luke/Acts being the last of the Jesus narratives to launch, somewhere in the 110s after the earliest references to Jesus and Christianity began showing up in Roman sources like Tacitus and Pliny, arguing that Luke’s Gospel communicates the highest Christology of Jesus.

At the top of most conventional beliefs of Christians regarding the New Testament Gospel writers is Matthew.  He is believed to be none other than one of Jesus’ twelve apostles, the tax collector (Matt 10:3) and that Mark was written by a secretary of the disciple Peter, and that the author of Luke was a close traveling companion of Paul.

Many Christians believe John’s Gospel was penned by the “beloved disciple” mentioned in the fourth gospel. Not all scholars agree with the traditional Christian consensus however and have some very good reasons to doubt the traditional authorship of Jesus’ disciples behind these ancient words.

My colleagues have written more in depth articles about the authorship of each gospel.  You can find them at:

• Who wrote the Gospel of Matthew?
• Who wrote the Gospel of Mark?
• Who wrote the Gospel of Luke?
• Who wrote the Gospel of John?

For the rest of the New Testament, also see “Who Wrote the New Testament?”

If a person really wants to get to the truth, then I suggest asking several questions such as: why were the Gospels written in Greek versus Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke, or Hebrew, the language of Jesus’ heritage?

Weren’t Jesus’ disciples illiterate peasants with blue-collar jobs? When did they have time to learn Greek well enough to write it? How old did Jesus’ disciples live to be? Do the Gospels provide any indication of who was writing these words?

Finally, do the Gospels need to be written by Jesus’ actual disciples in order for them to speak Jesus’ truth and for that truth to stick? Next, do yourself a favor and sign up for the best free webinar you’ll ever watch, and get ready to unlock not only the most likely identities of the Gospel’s authors but also the why, when, and how behind the most influential last will and testament ever recorded. 

“Christ is Risen! He is Risen indeed!” It’s a phrase Christians shout with glee every Easter. Some pastors announce the call and response phrase at least three times in rapid succession, and some say the phrase ad nauseam.

Whether you’ve said or heard it over and over again or not, a person might find themselves thinking: but what does “he is risen” really mean? Did Jesus rise in a physical body from the dead or was the story of Jesus’ resurrection meant to be understood as a metaphor?

In this article we will explore why a physical understanding of the resurrection is so important to believers by reviewing what the New Testament says about Jesus’ resurrection from its two most prominent teachings contained therein and how such views became so fundamental to understanding Jesus’ alleged defeat of death in the formation of the Christian church.  

As for the epistles of the Apostle Paul and the other New Testament writers, much is written about the nature of the resurrection and what it means for a believers’ own resurrection. Whatever happened to Jesus will therefore live and die with what the gospel writers wrote about it because the information given about Jesus’ resurrection in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are completely absent in Paul’s letters. Paul never mentions an empty tomb.

He writes nothing about anyone by the name of Joseph of Arimathea. Paul gives no geographic setting for the people he says encountered the risen Christ. His letters do not address any conspiracy regarding a grave robbery. None of the core and secondary details shared between the four gospel writers even so much as make a cameo appearance in Paul’s words about Jesus’ resurrection.

The only corroboration between what’s depicted to happen in the gospels about Jesus being raised and appearing to his disciples is a scant reference in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians that “he appeared to Cephas (Peter) and then to the twelve.” (1 Corinthians 15:5) According to Paul, it was Peter who saw the risen Jesus first–but again, no mention of how, when, or where. 

A careful reading of Paul’s emphatic usage of Jesus’ “bodily” resurrection reveals that Paul was repeatedly referring to Jesus rising from the dead in a “spiritual” body (Romans 6:5, 2nd Corinthians 5:16-17, Philippians 3:10-11.)

That Jesus rose bodily from the dead was a foregone conclusion–what Paul sought to communicate with the church at Corinth was the way in which Jesus lives on. What Paul means by “spiritual body” is perplexing. He tosses around the concept that one day we too will rise in the same body that we lived and died in, only we will be “raised a spiritual body.”

(1 Corinthians 15:44) How Paul defines this “spiritual body” is the subject of thousands of books and articles with millions of words attempting to encapsulate what a person is to make of such teaching. What is the main difference between a spiritual body and our physical body? One is immortal. Can a spiritual body digest food, breathe, run, walk, and speak? Yes. No. I don’t know! 

What people living in the twenty-first century understand as “spiritual” is not the same as how people in antiquity understood it. When we hear words like “spirit” we tend to make an association with ghosts and misty, shadowy figures and cold spots that give us gooseflesh.

It doesn’t seem like that was how Paul understood the spiritual body.

Paul is insistent to the Corinthian community that our spiritually raised selves inhabit the same body. Recognizably you, but immortal and invincible. Paul argues that “spiritual” is not the opposite of “material.” Therefore, upon his death, Jesus’ body became a “highly refined” spiritual body “superior in every way and not subject to mortality” as Bart Ehrman writes in How Jesus Became God. 

What exactly a highly refined spiritual body is and how it functions is anybody’s guess on this side of the veil. Some like to compare Jesus’ resurrection and ours like the transformation of a caterpillar to a butterfly. The caterpillar is still physically present, but has undergone a metamorphosis into a differently abled body.

Another way to think about Paul’s teaching of the spiritual body is like the Iron Man superhero suit that Marvel Comics’ Tony Stark creates and utilizes. Tony is bodily present and physically at the controls, but as Iron Man, Tony can do considerably more than he can do without his highly refined outer shell.  

As days turned into years and years into decades and decades into centuries after Jesus’ mysterious reappearances, the physicality of the post-mortem appearances grew to be the most popular belief among early church leaders and theologians. But a physical and literal understanding of these resurrection narratives were not the only explanations circulating in the early church.

There were many, many other ways that the early Christians believed in Jesus’ resurrection. One of these ways was an ancient religious heresy known as “Docetism.” Docetics believed that Jesus only appeared as a human being but was primarily spirit in substance. The orthodox church balked at such an insulting theory for it undermined much of the doctrinal pinings being formed regarding Jesus’ soul-saving sacrifice for the sins of humankind–if Jesus didn’t bodily suffer and physically die, then the salvation of the world wasn’t legitimately valid, so went the rationale.

Docetism was an extreme byproduct of Gnosticism, which was arguably the biggest opponent to the orthodoxy of the ancient Christian Church.

Gnostics opposed the literal interpretation of scripture and emphasized that the key to the Spirit life as modeled by Jesus was by way of personal spiritual knowledge (gnosis) over orthodox teachings and traditions. For more information about Gnosticism in the early church, see Elaine Pagels’ book The Gnostic Gospels. 

It was the existence of these belief systems about Jesus that likely motivated the orthodox Christian Church to canonize which writings belonged and which ones needed to go away, a process which is described and confronted here.

As belief in Jesus’ physical and/or spiritual bodily resurrection became the modus operandi for religious leaders, the other forms of Christian thought (especially Gnosticism, Docetism, and Arianism) were discredited or destroyed.

Fast forward to the cultural embrace of science and reason during a period known as The Enlightenment in the 1800’s. During this period Bible-loving Christians felt very threatened by those on the outside looking in on the Christian institution, so the institutional authorities doubled down on Biblical literalism.

A line was drawn in the sand and believers in the literal, physical/bodily resurrection of Jesus were placed one side of the line and everyone else were deemed heretical and left on the other side of the line.

In my opinion, the all-or-nothing demand of a “bodily resurrection or bust” that Christianity requires of Jesus’ followers is as antiquated an approach as the scroll from which we first learned of the resurrection “event” itself. There are so many different ways to be inspired by the mystery of the resurrection without sacrificing one’s intellect as a faithful and faith-filled disciple. 

For more information about this fascinating topic, I recommend scrolling through Bart’s extensive scholarship on his blog or signing up for one of his online courses.