Does the Gospel of Mark Give Us a Radically Different Jesus Than the Gospel of John?
Overview
The video is a conversation between Fr. Stephen De Young and a host (with a brief cameo from a co-host, “Tanner Iskra”) responding to the popular claim — exemplified by a clip of Rhett (of Rhett & Link) and by Bart Ehrman’s How Jesus Became God — that the Gospel of Mark presents a merely human Jesus while the Gospel of John presents a divine Jesus, and that this reflects an “evolution” of Christology over time. FDY’s through-line: the two Gospels present the same Jesus; the “two Jesuses” thesis rests on outdated presuppositions (Sola Scriptura narrowing the data, Hegelian/evolutionary assumptions, and a hermeneutic of suspicion), and close reading of Mark’s own details — plus Second Temple and patristic context — shows Mark’s high Christology is present, just “shown rather than told.”
1. The “Two Jesuses” Thesis and Its 1980s Provenance
FDY opens by answering flatly that the Jesus of Mark and the Jesus of John are the same 0:46. He dates the popular version of the thesis to roughly the 1980s — “1986 called and they want their scholarship back” 2:23 — noting that even at the time it was “improbable” because the gap between Mark (c. AD 69) and John (c. AD 90s) is only about 30 years, too short for “massive doctrinal development” 3:12. He names Bart Ehrman’s How Jesus Became God as the “magisterial statement” of the view, while praising Ehrman as one of the few scholars willing to publicly change his position 4:03.
2. The Sola Scriptura Presupposition and the Narrowing of Data
FDY identifies a “deeply Protestant presupposition” behind the old consensus: that the only relevant data for early Christianity is the New Testament itself 4:51. He traces a watering-down: from Sola Scriptura’s “only infallible rule,” to “only thing worth reading,” to “only relevant scholarly data” 5:37. This is why reading Second Temple Jewish literature was once considered irrelevant — until N.T. Wright in the 1980s, whom “everyone thought was nuts” and who is now broadly accepted 6:23.
3. Evolutionary Assumptions and the Historical-Jesus Industry
The second presupposition was German-scholarship evolutionism: ideas move from simple to complex, so a human Jesus must precede a divine one 6:23–7:08. Combined with the assumption that the New Testament preserves only “people’s opinions of Jesus,” this generated the historical-Jesus quest 7:08. FDY describes the Jesus Seminar voting on authenticity, the Five Gospels (which included Thomas and rated it more authentic than the canonical Gospels), and the circularity of reconstructing a Jesus and then matching sayings to him 7:55. He notes that participants like John Dominic Crossan later admitted everyone “ended up looking at a mirror” 8:45.
4. Dating the Gospels: Patristic Testimony vs. Reactionary Scholarship
FDY defends the traditional dates on patristic grounds: Mark c. AD 69 because the earliest accounts say Mark wrote down Peter’s testimony after Peter’s martyrdom under Nero in the mid-60s 15:10; John in the 90s because that is when Irenaeus says John received the Revelation 15:10–15:58. He declines to “out-conservative the church fathers” 15:58. He notes the Bodmer Papyrus (a John fragment copied by the 120s and found in Egypt) rules out the old 120s–130s dating 10:22. He also diagnoses a reactionary dynamic in evangelical scholarship — mirroring the modernist–fundamentalist controversy — where late dates are countered by implausibly early ones 11:13–14:24. His analogy: you could still write a Vietnam War history from eyewitnesses today, but not World War I 15:58.
5. The Bauer Thesis and Its Internal Contradiction
FDY flags a “massive cognitive dissonance”: the same era held both the evolutionary Christology thesis and the Bauer thesis (that orthodoxy was not earliest, and that first-century diversity included Gnosticism via a first-century Gospel of Thomas) 17:34–18:24. Gnosticism denies a human Jesus entirely, so it cannot be both older than orthodoxy and derived from a purely human Jesus 19:11. He notes Ignatius of Antioch responds to Docetism, and that Docetists also kept Torah — confounding the “Jewish vs. Greek Christianity” split (von Harnack, Ebionites, Hegelian synthesis-of-Trinity theories) 19:57–20:49. These reconstructions “sound good at the systemic abstract level” but “fall apart” against the data 21:44.
6. N.T. Wright, 4QMMT, and the New Perspective on Paul
FDY credits Wright’s use of Second Temple material — specifically 4QMMT (from Qumran Cave 4, a document of the Qumran community’s leaders corresponding with Pharisees, whose language about justification triggered Wright’s rereading) 23:25–24:15. Once this data entered the field, ignoring it drew immediate peer pushback 24:15–25:02. This also forced a rereading of Paul away from a Lutheran “Paul against Judaism” frame toward “Paul within Judaism,” as in FDY’s own St. Paul the Pharisee 25:02–25:48.
7. Paul’s Christology as the Decisive Problem
Since all parties agree Paul’s epistles predate the Gospels, Paul’s Christology (especially Philippians 2) makes the evolutionary sequence impossible: a pre-existent divine Christ in the 40s–60s, then a merely human Jesus in Mark, then a cosmic Christ again in John 25:48–26:38. FDY notes Ehrman now holds that Paul believed Jesus was the incarnation of a pre-existing divine being — “not correct, but moving in the right direction” (he quips Ehrman is now “an Arian or a Jehovah’s Witness”) 27:27–28:20.
8. Mark’s Own High Christology: The “Passing By” in the Storm
FDY’s key exegetical example: Mark’s unique detail that Jesus, walking on the water, “looked as if he was going to pass them by” (Mark 6) 30:48–31:41. The Greek for “pass by” matches the Greek of Job’s lament that the Lord “passed me by” — i.e., walked past without helping — in the midst of a storm 31:41–32:30. This is an intertextual identification of Christ with God, a theophany 33:22. The detail is extraneous unless significant, and the other Gospels omit it 32:30–33:22. FDY’s broader hermeneutic: the Gospels “show, don’t tell” — Luke shows Jesus doing divine and human things without stating two energies 33:22–34:13.
9. The Silo Problem in Scholarship and the Intertextuality Boom
FDY blames 18th–19th-century academic partitioning: Old Testament, New Testament, and patristics scholars don’t talk, so New Testament scholars miss things obvious to an OT scholar (e.g., Greek Job) 34:13–35:01. He estimates 75–80% of recent biblical-studies dissertations involve intertextuality 35:01–35:47. He notes the irony that 200 years into modern scholarship we are only now systematically asking how the Testaments connect 36:33.
10. John as the Most Jewish Gospel: Against Bultmann
Responding to the charge that John reads like a sermon without authentic detail 37:22, FDY notes John was long classed as “Greek Christianity,” reaching its apex with Rudolf Bultmann, who argued the Johannine literature was Gnostic 38:08. The Dead Sea Scrolls demolished this: the Qumran sect (a rigorist Jewish group that thought the Pharisees too liberal) uses the same light/darkness language 38:55–39:45. FDY argues Johannine literature is among the most Jewish in the New Testament 39:45. He notes John’s detailed Jerusalem/temple geography supports (though he doesn’t fully accept) pre-70 dating arguments 39:45–40:32.
11. Synoptic Relationships and John as Gap-Filler
FDY says the old Q hypothesis is largely abandoned; the dominant view is mutual independence with Mark first, Matthew using Mark, Luke using Matthew and Mark (consistent with Luke’s preface) 40:32–42:11. A growing consensus holds John had all three Synoptics 42:11. Evidence: John fills gaps — e.g., explaining the Triumphal Entry’s excitement by the raising of Lazarus (reiterated three times, with the authorities plotting to kill Lazarus too) 43:02–43:50; explaining how the trial was known (the beloved disciple’s connections) 44:38. Critics like Ehrman call such details inauthentic myth-making; FDY counters that correct early geographical detail plus gap-filling forms a composite case for authenticity 45:27. This also explains why John omits the words of institution (already in three Gospels and Paul) and instead theologizes the Eucharist in John 6 45:27–47:05.
12. Authorship, Community, and John’s Cyclical Structure
On Ben Witherington’s Lazarus-as-beloved-disciple theory 47:05, FDY is irenic: John knew the Theotokos, Mary, Martha, and Lazarus; Lazarus became a bishop; Mary Magdalene went to Ephesus 47:55–48:41. He rejects the “everyone went their separate ways” assumption behind community reconstructions 48:41. He finds it “really hard to argue” John’s Gospel, Epistles, and Revelation had different authors — same Greek and structure 49:28. Eusebius’s appeal to “John the Presbyter” for Revelation was special pleading because Revelation was disputed in the East 49:28–50:16. John’s structure is a “corkscrew” — cycles moving in one direction — seen in his three cycles of Jewish feasts, the early Temple cleansing, and the seven cycles of Revelation; 1 John likewise cycles topics (the evil one four times) rather than arguing linearly like Paul 51:01–52:36. No other New Testament text is structured this way, so a different author would require a “masterful forgery” 52:36–53:30.
13. The Sponge: Spite vs. Voluntariness (A Test Case)
FDY’s second example: Mark has the sponge (a sedative, which hastens death by asphyxiation) offered out of spite; John has Jesus say “I thirst” and receive drink dutifully 54:17–55:50. Critics read this as Mark’s human victim vs. John’s Christ above it all. FDY: Mark shows the murderers’ spite; John shows Christ’s voluntariness (“no one takes my life from me”) 55:50–56:41. Both are true; no contradiction, no need for “great links” harmonization 56:41. A human person is infinitely complex — wife, mother, parishioners all see different true aspects — how much more a divine person who took on human nature 57:29–58:20. Four Gospels are therefore appropriate, not a problem; the earliest evidence (against Marcion) is that churches used all four 58:20–59:06.
14. Ignatius, Oral Tradition, and Orthodox Scholarship’s Future
On Ignatius’s “prince of this world” language (found only in John) 59:06–59:52, FDY thinks Ignatius writes around the same time as John and likely draws on the same oral/apostolic milieu rather than the text 59:52–1:00:44; Paul’s “prince of the power of the air” (Eph 2) shows shared tradition 1:01:33. On the future: Orthodox scholars should enter the Society of Biblical Literature rather than only critique, leveraging the Orthodox freedom from Sola Scriptura and from an “intertestamental gap” to argue continuity 1:02:20–1:03:53. On disputed Paulines, he argues the pastorals’ church structures are reappropriations of synagogue/Sanhedrin presbyterate (cf. Ignatius, To the Antiochians) 1:04:38–1:08:02. On Mark’s brevity: his Greek is “rustic” (non-native, participle chains giving speed), and the Gospel is a literary monument enshrining Peter’s testimony after his death 1:08:50–1:11:24; Peter’s flaws are a mark of authenticity 1:12:12. He is unpersuaded that Acts’ Petrine sermon outlines match Mark, since all recorded sermons are summaries (the Sermon on the Mount would take ~45 minutes read slowly, yet the text implies a full day) 1:13:02–1:14:41. Inspiration means the Spirit guided what was and wasn’t recorded — letting the Bible “be the Bible” 1:15:28–1:16:15. He urges liturgical and biblical translators to coordinate so scriptural-liturgical connections remain visible 1:20:15–1:21:53, and notes the Jerusalem chant book (dated c. 350–400 by Dr. Shoemaker) freely uses Deuterocanonical and wider Second Temple material, since the canon “iron wall” is a later development (cf. Paul’s “rock that followed,” 1 Cor 10) 1:22:46–1:25:14. Closing exhortation: read each Gospel individually, straight through, without harmonizing — the differences are meaningful 1:26:03–1:27:42.
FDY’s positions in brief
| Topic | FDY’s view | Where |
|---|---|---|
| Mark’s vs. John’s Jesus | Same Jesus; no contradiction | 0:46 |
| ”Two Jesuses” thesis | Outdated 1980s consensus, improbable on chronology alone | 2:23, 3:12 |
| Bart Ehrman | How Jesus Became God was the magisterial statement; now holds Paul taught a pre-existent divine Christ (still not Nicene) | 4:03, 27:27 |
| Root presupposition | Sola Scriptura narrowed relevant data to the NT alone | 4:51 |
| Evolutionary model | German/Hegelian assumption of simple-to-complex; circular historical-Jesus reconstruction | 6:23, 7:55 |
| Gospel dating | Accept patristic testimony: Mark c. 69 (after Peter’s martyrdom), John in the 90s (Irenaeus) | 15:10 |
| Bodmer Papyrus | Rules out 2nd-century dating of John | 10:22 |
| Evangelical early dating | Reactionary overcorrection; won’t “out-conservative the church fathers” | 13:35, 15:58 |
| Bauer thesis | Internally contradictory with the evolutionary thesis (Docetism problem) | 17:34, 19:11 |
| N.T. Wright / 4QMMT | Legitimate turning point; Second Temple data now unavoidable | 23:25 |
| Paul’s Christology | Phil 2 pre-existence predates the Gospels, breaking the evolutionary sequence | 25:48 |
| Mark 6 “pass by” | Intertextual allusion to Job’s lament; high Christology “shown not told” | 31:41 |
| John’s background | Most Jewish NT literature, not Gnostic (contra Bultmann); Dead Sea Scrolls confirm | 38:08, 39:45 |
| Synoptic problem | Q largely abandoned; John likely knew all three Synoptics and fills gaps | 40:32, 42:11 |
| John’s authorship | Same author as Epistles and Revelation; Eusebius’s “John the Presbyter” is special pleading | 49:28 |
| John’s structure | Cyclical “corkscrew,” three feast cycles; 1 John cycles topics | 51:01 |
| Sponge at crucifixion | Mark shows spite; John shows voluntariness; both true | 54:17 |
| Four Gospels | Appropriate given Christ’s infinite complexity; earliest churches used all four (contra Marcion) | 57:29, 58:20 |
| Ignatius and John | Likely shared oral/apostolic milieu rather than quotation | 59:52 |
| Orthodox scholarship | Should enter SBL and argue continuity, not just critique | 1:02:20 |
| Pastoral Epistles | All Pauline; presbyterate is reappropriated synagogue structure | 1:06:17, 1:08:02 |
| Mark’s style | Rustic Greek, participle chains; a literary monument to Peter’s testimony | 1:08:50 |
| Acts sermons | Summaries/notes, not verbatim; Petrine-outline theory unpersuasive | 1:13:02 |
| Inspiration | Spirit guided what was recorded; let the Bible be the Bible | 1:15:28 |
| Liturgical/biblical translation | Should be coordinated so connections are visible | 1:20:15 |
| Deuterocanon in liturgy | No early canon “iron wall”; Jerusalem chant book freely uses it | 1:22:46 |
| Reading practice | Read each Gospel individually, straight through, without harmonizing | 1:26:03 |
References surfaced
Biblical: Mark 6 (walking on water, “pass by”); Mark 15 (sponge/sedative); Mark 16 (length); Job (LXX lament, “passed me by”); Philippians 2; Ephesians 2 (“prince of the power of the air”); 1 Corinthians 10 (“rock that followed”), 11 (words of institution); John 6 (Eucharistic discourse); John 11 (raising of Lazarus); John 18–19 (trial, “I thirst”); Matthew 5–7 (Sermon on the Mount); Luke 1 (preface); 1 John; Revelation; Daniel 3 (Three Youths, LXX additions); Gospel of Thomas.
Patristic / early Christian: St. Irenaeus (John’s vision in the 90s); St. Ignatius of Antioch (against Docetism; “prince of this world”; To the Antiochians on presbyters); Eusebius (John the Presbyter, Revelation’s disputed status); Marcion (single-Gospel canon); the Fundamentals tracts.
Scholarly / historical: Bart Ehrman, How Jesus Became God; N.T. Wright; 4QMMT (Qumran Cave 4); Dead Sea Scrolls; Bodmer Papyrus; Rudolf Bultmann (Gnostic John); Adolf von Harnack; Walter Bauer (Bauer thesis); the Jesus Seminar and The Five Gospels; John Dominic Crossan; Ben Witherington (Lazarus hypothesis); Dr. Shoemaker (dating the Jerusalem chant book); FDY, St. Paul the Pharisee; The First Christian Hymnal; Lord of Spirits episode on the four Passion narratives.