Uploaded April 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Was the Gospel of John written as eyewitness history, or is it a deeply literary Greek composition shaped by stories of Dionysus?
In this livestream, Derek Lambert of MythVision Podcast explores the shocking scholarly case that the author of John may have imitated Euripides’ Bacchae and recast Jesus as a superior Dionysus. Drawing from Rudolf Bultmann, Dennis R. MacDonald, Mark W. G. Stibbe, Courtney Friesen, and John Granger Cook, we examine the evidence that John’s Gospel is not merely telling history, but performing theology through Greek literary imitation.
We will look at John’s famous water-into-wine miracle at Cana, the “I am the true vine” saying, the trial before Pilate, the elusive Jesus who cannot be seized, and the striking parallels between Jesus and Dionysus as divine figures in human disguise. We will also discuss whether Lazarus echoes Euripides’ Alcestis, and why ancient Christians themselves recognized connections between Greek resurrection stories and Christian hope.
This is not the tired internet claim that “Christianity copied paganism.” This is a serious look at how educated Greek-speaking authors wrote religious literature, how ancient imitation worked, and why the Fourth Gospel may be far more theatrical, polemical, and mythic than many believers have been told.
Once you see the Dionysian Gospel, you may never read John the same way again.
Join MythVision as we ask:
Did John rewrite Dionysus as Jesus?
Was the water-into-wine miracle a Christian answer to the god of wine?
Is Jesus the “true vine” because Dionysus was the older vine?
And is the Gospel of John really eyewitness history, or Greek theological drama?
Was the Gospel of John written as eyewitness history, or is it a deeply literary Greek composition shaped by stories of Dionysus?
In this livestream, Derek Lambert of MythVision Podcast explores the shocking scholarly case that the author of John may have imitated Euripides’ Bacchae and recast Jesus as a superior Dionysus. Drawing from Rudolf Bultmann, Dennis R. MacDonald, Mark W. G. Stibbe, Courtney Friesen, and John Granger Cook, we examine the evidence that John’s Gospel is not merely telling history, but performing theology through Greek literary imitation.
We will look at John’s famous water-into-wine miracle at Cana, the “I am the true vine” saying, the trial before Pilate, the elusive Jesus who cannot be seized, and the striking parallels between Jesus and Dionysus as divine figures in human disguise. We will also discuss whether Lazarus echoes Euripides’ Alcestis, and why ancient Christians themselves recognized connections between Greek resurrection stories and Christian hope.
This is not the tired internet claim that “Christianity copied paganism.” This is a serious look at how educated Greek-speaking authors wrote religious literature, how ancient imitation worked, and why the Fourth Gospel may be far more theatrical, polemical, and mythic than many believers have been told.
Once you see the Dionysian Gospel, you may never read John the same way again.
Join MythVision as we ask:
Did John rewrite Dionysus as Jesus?
Was the water-into-wine miracle a Christian answer to the god of wine?
Is Jesus the “true vine” because Dionysus was the older vine?
And is the Gospel of John really eyewitness history, or Greek theological drama?
