Who Wrote the Gospels? | 151AD-160AD
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- To ring in the first new episode of 2021, Paul and Patrick are teaming up to tackle the question: Who wrote the gospels in the Christian New Testament? On the other side of this Christian biblical coin, who is Marcion of Sinope, and how did he influence the idea of creating a New Testament canon? Given how enormous this greater subject is, Patrick and Paul are working in tandem to properly deliver what it’s due.
*DONATE TO A.D. HISTORY ON PATREON: / adhistorypodcast
PODCAST LOCATIONS:
RSS Feed Address: tgnreview.com/...
Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple....
Spotify: open.spotify.c....
Google Play Music: play.google.co....
Google Podcasts: bit.ly/2Z1eLKe
iHeartRadio: www.iheart.com....
Pandora: www.pandora.co....
TuneIn: tun.in/pjvfQ
Radio.com: app.radio.com/...
Stitcher: www.stitcher.c...
RadioPublic: radiopublic.co....
Pocket Casts: pca.st/7Z73
Player FM: player.fm/seri....
Digital Podcast: www.digitalpodc....
Podchaser: www.podchaser.....
FOLLOW US!
TGNR: tgnreview.com/
A.D. History Podcast Home: tgnreview.com/...
RUclips: www.youtube.co....
Twitter: / adhistorypc
Facebook: / adhistorypod. .
Instagram: / adhistorypo. .
Patrick on Twitter: / nameexplainyt
Paul on Twitter: / pkdinhistory
WW2 Brain Bucket: tgnreview.com/....
Anna Domini is voiced by Anna Chole Moorey
Anna’s Site: www.voiceofann...
Anna on Twitter: / annachloemoo
Email: adhistorypodcast@tgnreview.com
We have received some excellent responses so far to the question: What do you think future historians will take the most interest in for the recently completed year 2020? In addition to the pandemic, what else do you believe will draw their interest? If you haven’t done so, leave your thoughts below, and we may include in a special segment in our next episode!
Maybe this year will make us rolemodels for them after all. It's the first time in history that the entire world worked together on one unified goal.
@@KarnodAldhorn like will smith? Or Ezra miller?
Yawn. Another Bart Ehrman rehash argument. There is a lot of evidence that the Gospels were written well in the 1st century AD by eyewitnesses. Also, if you have 12 disciples why name two of the Gospels for relative unknown Luke and Mark? The Apostolic Fathers even said that Luke & Mark were not even eyewitnesses. If you want to "create" a religion shouldn't you just go hog wild and name them after more well known disciples like Andrew, Thomas or James like the Gnostic Gospels did?
If you are going full tard, why didn't the creator of the universe write something down? Answer: He was illiterate and a horrible carpenter.
Nope 😂
If I was god, I would learn how to write and not leave it up to a trail of numbskulls over 300 years to mess it up.
Jesus forgot to write one. They are all inconsitent accounts. Paul was not interested in those books anyway.
I love how we just accept Q as gospel when there is absolutely no evidence of it ever having existed. We just assume that because the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke line up similarly that they must have shared a common source. What if Q was simply the eyewitnesses the gospel writers interviewed prior to writing down their words?
that is to easy, these guys are in love with their own intellect
You guys deserve more views. I'm glad to see new uploads. I will comment further after the episode. Good to see you guys are back
That really means a lot, thank you very much!
As far as views or downloads, the significant majority of our audience gets our show through platforms like Apple Podcasts/Spotify/etc. Though we have been slowly doing more to improve our game here on RUclips.
In your personal opinion for watching/listening to the show here on RUclips, do you feel you would get even more from it if we were to add more relevant images/short video relating to what we happening to be discussing during an episode?
@@ADHistoryPodcast absolutely that would help.
I think the fact that a guy named Mark (marcion) had a gospel that looks like Luke but has the structure of Mark is highly suspicious.
First of all, they were written in Koine Greek, which was the universal language at the time. Everyone knew it. Second, the scholarly consensus is that they were written within 40 years of Jesus death, other than John. Third, Luke was a physician and historian, Mark was a scribe and interpreter for Peter, Matthew was a tax collector, and John had about 60 years to learn, and above all else, they could have hired scribes to write for them. At the end of the day, the gospels are INTERNALLY anonymous, but that doesn't determine anonymity. It was extremely common for ancient greco-roman biographies to be written without an author in the text and in 3rd person. Every single manuscript we have attributes them to the 4 original authors. If they were circulating anonymously, there would be variations. So, in short, we know who wrote them, and there isn't any sustainable evidence to suggest otherwise.
Everyone knew it. LOL
@ztimbo ...yeah? Koine Greek literally means common. It was the universal language. Considering they wanted to spread the message to different regions, of COURSE they wrote it in a language everyone could understand.
@@JustGav86 Everyone knew it. LOL.
@@JustGav86 In his now-classic study of ancient literacy, William Harris gave compelling reasons for thinking that at the best of times in antiquity only 10% or so of the population was able to read [Ancient Literacy; Harvard University Press,
Everyone knew it. LOL
@ztimbo you quite literally said a whole bunch of nothing broski. You're making no sense, and my point still stands.
John had a disciple named Polycard, and he had a disciple named Ignatius of Antioch and they both had a copy of John's Gospel which is why it is called the Gospel of John.
Would you mind sharing some sources?
Correct and the gospel has never been tributed to any other person than John the apostle
Prof Bart Ehrman also points out that not only should one read the gospels from top to bottom, but horizontally. That will allow one to see how different they are amongst themselves.
Do you realize that Christians were doing that way before Ehrman made it "cool," right?
It's called the Diatessaron. Google it.
Bart Ehrman has said that it wasn’t the discrepancies or contradictions in the bible that made him lose his faith, it was the issue of a loving god allowing such suffering in the world.
The 12 apostles were illiterate fishers & farmers -the gospels were written in formal Greek some 40 to 60 years after the death of Jesus most scholars agree that the Although mark mathew Luke & John knew & were with Jesus the actual writers neither saw or actually heard Jesus speak. They heard the s oral traditions originally written in the language of Jesus //Aramaic & passed down Then written in Latin& lastly. English
Bart also speaks with the passion of hate towards God ... He lived his entire life following God's word and doing what you're supposed to do and watch the world pass him by as people send and did what they wanted just like The prodigal son and now the same people he watched sin get the same exact salvation as he did but now he's 50 years old and never got laid
@@markcognetti4875 amen
@@markcognetti4875found the scholar consensus cuck
Matthew was not illiterate nor a fisherman. @@markcognetti4875
Bart Ehrmans approach to reading the New Testament is generally that one should read the gospels side by side making notes about where each account contradicts one another. Such as whether the last supper occurred on the day before passover or the day of passover, ect. His goal is to combat the idea biblical inerrancy. I haven't seen a lecture in which he recommended reading each of the gospels in a linear fashion.
Why are there four gospels? Because they were written in different parts of the empire for small church societies planted by Paul, that were growing in many different areas. Matthew and Luke explicitly state that they are there to "give a complete and corrected" version of the events of Jesus's life and ministry which were to supplant earlier written accounts. Indeed, the "Q" document didn't survive and Mark almost didn't survive. Mark for example is written in Greek that displays a less educated writer. Mark contains several references to the Old Testament which are misstated or incorrect. Luke and Matthew are written in a higher more educated form of Greek and contains narrations of parts of the life of Jesus not included in the earliest gospel. It appears that both authors were distressed by the gaps in the story and were attempting to fill in the details of the accounts while including the meat of the earlier account. Those later gospels became regionally accepted and popular in different parts of the empire so getting rid of them later became much more difficult so they became accepted as canon.
That is not correct; they do not contradict. They were intended to be written the way they are. The Gospels reflect the particular ideology of their community. There was much division in early church and the Gospels reflect that contradiction.
@@russellmiles7247 Well, for what ever reason, theological or ideological, they do in fact contradict one another. The point is, they are not accurate recordings of historical events because you can't separate the history from the ideology. No matter what, based on gospel accounts, we will never know what day Jesus performed the last supper, since both accounts cannot be correct historically. Either it occurred on the day of preparation or the day of passover, it cannot be both and therefore one account is in error or both are.
@@russellmiles7247 whatever make you sleep at night, dude... lol
What you began with sounds compelling about Paul until you talk about the gospels contradicting each other ... Why would Paul or anyone plant gospels In different regions that contradict each other ??? As soon as you brought up the atheist who never got laid I knew the rest of your material was going to be 🗑️
Most of you look at naratives.
History s about
Names ofpeoples
Names of places
Events and
Time of events.
The gospels may contradict in some places due to differen reporters thats normal but they agree on most issues and you never mention that.
Non of historians have shown tbat
The above four approaches to determine historicity are false.
Non ever state that building the story shows say 80% as same.
All you look at is contradictions to discredit bible and judiasm and ctians
Very flawed and inaccurate scholarship on this.
20:30 The text in the first person disagrees with you
Matthew 16 - 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are *the Christ* the Son of the living God.”
25:15 The story about Herod is mpstly a take on a Roman storytelling trope that a mighty ruler must've escaped an assasination in their youth. There is also a story like this about Augustus.
Romulus and Remus too.
You guys might want to check your subtitles/cc, because for some reason they're auto generating to Vietnamese.
There were also the Gnostics who believed the god of the Old Testament to be evil and the one of the New Testament to be good. I kinda get where they're coming from.
Those were Marcionites.
If the literacy rate was only 10%, then who specifically would comprise the 10%? Where the authors trained scribes of the powerful and wealthy or where they themselves of the powerful and wealthy? Reading and writing was a luxury at that time, so who could afford that luxury? Both authors of Mark and Mathew were written by Syrian Greeks who could afford the luxury of knowing how to read and write.
Scholars agree that the Gospel of Mark was the earliest of the Canonical Gospels. It was estimated to have been written in 71-72 ad. The author ‘predicts’ the destruction of the temple in 70ad. And there are numerous independent accounts by people of that era. So, the Gospel was assembled after the Romans destroyed the Temple and dispersed the Judaeans.
We can also date the authorship by noticing the passage where the author of Mark states that ‘there are some who witnessed Jesus will see him return before they pass from this earth’. It stands to reason that if, Jesus was preaching in 32ad, and his typical follower was, at the youngest, 20 years old, and author wrote in 72ad, then the youngest portion of Jesus followers would be 60 years old, which is pretty old for those times.
Also, the author of Mark was a collector of oral tradition, and he even states that he is assembling a collection of saying in no particular order, and that the traditions assembled are only a small portion of those that exist.
Mark, does not include any mention of his miraculous birth, and after Mary and her companion run from the empty tomb, the Gospel abruptly ends.
The question 🤔 😕 😐 in the title wasn't answered.
Please be aware almost every manuscript that was translated by scribes - made notes ie Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The testimony of almost every scribe dates back to probably the original gospel. The testimony of the collective scribes holds more credibility than any modern academics today. We need to assume the collective Scibes testimony holds a historical tradition. Please address this fact before you assert the gospels are authored by unknown writers. Let along the Church Fathers writings.
So true
I have come to the conclusion after 30 years of study that Christianity is basically a philosophy that is based on verses taken out of context historically and culturally primarily from Paul's writings.
Ive come to the conclusion after 30 secs of reading this message that you . . . .
That's my current thinking.. took me 10 years. Mark fills out Paul's Jesus, Luke and Matthew pad out Mark and John rewrites Jesus to cover up that the second coming never happened
@@historicalbiblicalresearch8440 Incredible that the only sources of information about Jesus in the ancient world were exactly the same as the ones that survive to this day. Namely the letters of Paul. Mark just saw the letters, thought they were so fascinating they deserved a story behind them, and invented everything based on them. Even though there were churches devoted to worshipping this guy they knew nothing about him and had no prior traditions, or if they did, Mark simply did not care about them. Solid theory, since that’s how history works.
@@trentonryder7347r a dum dum
Jesus is the same yesterday,today, and forever- Hebrews 13:8. Jesus is present on earth today through the Holy Spirit who Jesus said would come in his place when he left earth. I have seen people physically healed supernaturally, hearts and lives changed in many ways in the 45 years since I first met Jesus. He is very much ALIVE
The Line of David narrative only makes sense if early followers of Jesus believed that Joseph was his father, it is unsupported by any evidence outside the Gospels this should never be left unmentioned.
well Matthew stresses Judaism hence geology goes to Abraham. Whereas Luke has a Romanised/Global view so has genealogy go to Adam. it is just which myth the author is basing their gospel on. This is like Mark has "son of God", Matthew changes this to "Son of David" and Luke " Christ the Lord". With John a proto-Gnostic toom.
Paul calls Jesus the son of David. So does John in the book of Revelation.
Not sure how J is the son on G-d, and also the son the Davidic line ...
The Gospels were written to express and explain one version or sect of Christianity as it developed through the decades and centuries. At first, the issue was if Jesus' revelation was for the Jews only, or was it meant for the whole world? This is shown in Mark and Matthew, Paul and Acts: but by Luke the issue is about explaining and expanding the myth of Jesus to the wide gentile world outside of Judaism. John is a mystical Gnostic text revised over the centuries to be more orthodox.
They all are patterned after the popular Greek novels and popular myths of the second century, and were written by various church propagandists, later than originally thought. They were written for the few wealthy and up and coming literati among those of the lower classes who had been educated to serve the true elitists in the ancient world's aristocratic families of old wealth and power.
These Romanized texts were written from oral traditions written down and canonized by the church leaders of the various sects in the mid to late second century, as the Roman world began to fall apart after the destruction of the Temple of Herod in 70 ad. by Titus Flavius and the scattering of the Jews throughout Russia and Europe in the following centuries. They eventually became the sacred texts we profess to read as “The Word of God.”
Important subject. I wish you took a more objective approach. It would have been great to listen to.
The NT gospels are not remembered history. The Jesus story is a myth placed back into an historical setting.
Bingo!
Let's think about that for a minute: Let's say Mark was written about A.D. 70. Matthew and Luke sometime around A.D. 80. And then John around A.D. 100.
Every Gospel claims Jesus interacted publicly and repeatedly with otherwise independently attested historical figures like Herod, Caiaphas, Pontius Pilate, John the Baptist, Peter, and John, etc.
Let's grant that everybody who I've listed was already dead by the time Mark wrote his Gospel. Now, what about the people who knew them? Like their families, for instance. Were all of them dead too? Probably not. So why would early Christians fabricate such an obviously debunked story like that? That would be like if I wrote a biography about my Uncle Fred and his many exploits in the 1960s, like when he filled in for John Lennon with the Beatles and punched John F. Kennedy on live television. Who would believe that?
Nobody. Because none of that stuff happened and everybody can verify that extremely easily.
I challenge you to find me a single example of ancient historical fiction that was written within living memory of the people in the narrative. You can't.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl Con-man Joseph Smith wrote similar bullshit in 19th century America about angels coming to New York state and delivering golden tablets on which new scriptures were written about jesus having toured america, and other nonsense. Most everyone at that time knew his stories were lunacy and ran his ass out of town, except for a few nutcases who followed him and built his fables into mormonism. Similar shit with science fiction writer, L.Ron Hubbard, who now has alot of believers of his fiction called scientology. Get the point? Just because no one documents their disbelief doesn't mean written products of febrile imaginations are true. Don't be stupid and believe everything you read, even it the edges of the pages on which it is written are gold trimmed.
@@zenglider2145
Are you referring to Smith's claim that an angel privately revealed a set of Golden Plates with the book of Mormon written on them to him? That's not even remotely comparable to the situation I outlined.
And you prove my point: Smith was immediately challenged by his contemporaries and they left ample documentation in the historical record. Why didn't the same thing happen with Christianity?
Hubbard's story has nothing to do with historical events that took place in the recent past.
I don't believe everything I read, but I won't dismiss a collection of historical documents from the first-century just because of silly skeptical arguments.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl While it is true that before the development and advancements of the scientific method, belief in supernatural agents promulgated by the 'anointed' was more widely accepted, there were still many who knew they were simply fables made to establish moral standards, give consolation to the suffering and hope of an afterlife to the desperate. The ruling classes found christianity's beliefs useful in promoting passivity to the masses for centuries before present day, widespread recognition of their absurdity and personal inefficaciousness. At best it's a spiritual placebo; at worse .. horrific crimes against humanity.
I would be interested in if the line of David persists to this day.
Do they have hid body to get DNA?
Pretty much zero historical evidence there ever was a king David. Although some new archeological evidence might help a.bit. but in reality theres no way to know if the guy is real.
You can find it, if David ever existed atall, in the Palestinian Muslims.
Yes Jesus sits on his throne in heaven
The New Testament, written by unknown persons, John Does, in an unknown time or place, about people that existed generations before them, about events that never happened.
By comparing incidental details included in Paul's letters with incidental details included by Luke in the book of Acts, scholars have managed to pinpoint with a high degree of accuracy exactly where and when Paul's letters were written. These were clearly real people. The Gospels and Acts are chock full of geographic, political, cultural, and even architectural details (including locations in Jerusalem destroyed in 70 and not uncovered by archaeologists until the 20th century) that only someone from 1st century Palestine would know. They were clearly written by people familiar with the time and place. You don't have to believe their story, but there is absolutely no basis for the claims in your comment.
@@sammygoodnight The New Testament , written in Hebrew , Aramaic which were spoken in Israel ? No , but in Greek by Christians , former Jews , educated like in Greek culture and ignorant on the geography of Israel which is why they made mistakes like traveling north to go south .
@@liberalinoklahoma1888 Greek was widely spoken in Palestine in the first century. By that point, they'd been part of the Hellenistic world for 4 centuries. Their kings took Hellenistic names, and the title "Basileos."
There was an Aramaic version of Matthew, but Greek was a more universal language that could be understood anywhere. Think about the reasons given for translating the Bible to Greek in the pre-Christian era, that there were Jews around the Mediterranean that could no longer speak Hebrew. If any gospels went east into Parthia, they could be in Aramaic or Greek, but if they went west, they'd have to be in Greek. Even in the Latin west, early Christians were using Greek. Jews stopped using the Greek bible once Christians began using it.
@@histguy101 Greek was spoken by the educated at that time BUT early Christians were not educated and mostly illiterate at that stage , the NT seems to be written by educated people that no longer knew the geography of Canaan .
@@liberalinoklahoma1888 You'll have to be more specific. There's 27 books in the New Testament. Perhaps you heard some claim about a NT author's understanding of local geography, and took it to mean all of the NT?
Did Paul understand local geography. He was a Jew, wrote in Greek, lived in Judea, and no one disputes this.
Perhaps you're not understanding a statement of geography in the NT because you're looking at a flat featureless map of 1st century Palestine and not taking into account terrain, mountains, travel routes, roads, water sources, political and ethnic boundaries, and other local features that NT writers are aware of, but some modern critics may not have considered.
Unfortunately the information stated in this video as “facts” is simply not true.
For example the dating when the gospels were written- not even liberal scholars agree with the dating stated in this video.
Conservative Dating:
- Matthew early 60s-80
- Mark: Late 50’s- late 60’s
- Luke: Early 60s-80s
- John: Mid 60’s- 100
Liberal dating:
- Matthew: 80-100
- Mark: 70’s
- Luke: 70- 110
- John 90-100
Am glad you mentioned that and in detail. Thank you.
if you want history...do not read the bible. if you want theology, fairy tales, propaganda and contradictions...read it. but these "books" of competing ideas were brought together and edits to pacify many different ideas. some see the obvious contradictions. but they are not if you see they are competing ideas. also if you are a fundamentalist and think every word is true and it is literal history.. then you are lost already. the fictional characters created to teach a moral. if you think you have to believe a human lived inside a fish for 3 days as it swam 100 miles into the desert somehow... you have been brainwashed and programmed at a childlike sunday school level. you will never understand reality. be happy in your ignorant bliss and think you are special and will live forever. if you go learn history.... confirm-able non fanciful history... make a timeline and learn about all the cultures from before bible times. escape the fiction and learn the history. the politics. this podcast is ok for beginners.
Maybe we'll be remembered for having the USA's downfall after storming the Capitol.
Mark, Luke, John, Mathew are names assumed by one gospel person and anonymous.
I would have expected this NT authority to tell us either who wrote the synoptic gospels or, if not knowing who, what sort of individuals wrote these gospels and for what reason did they write them. It's possible that knowing the answer to the second and third question would enable one to say with some authority that most of the content is either somewhat accurate or pure invention.
I can tell you that. They were highly educated, Greek (koine) speakers who lived in foreign countries far from Judea. The only one that really matters is g.Mark, the earliest one, the others are redactions of this. The author never says he is writing a history, in fact in chapter 4 he hints that what he is writing is one, long extended parable. The insiders will understand the real meaning & outsiders will miss out by taking it literally. He never mentions his sources but they can be detected. They include Paul, Josephus, the works of Homer & the Septuagint. What they clearly do not include are the two you would most expect, eyewitnesses & oral lore. Mostly this work is a pesher, an attempt to highlight current truths by rewriting & reinterpretations Jewish OT scriptures. Despite what Dr Bart Ehrman says none of the earlier christian writings independently confirm any of the details found in Mark.
@@ghostriders_1 How do you know Mark was written first? The traditional first was Matthew.
@histguy101 we know because both Matthew & Luke are redactions of Mark. Matthew incorporates 90% of Mark, 600 verses to be precise, often verbatim. As he goes Matthew makes corrections to Mark's text as he makes mistakes of geography, law & custom. Answer me this if Matthew precedes Mark, Why on earth would Mark abridge Matthew & leave out the Nativity, Sermon on the Mount & post resurrection appearances??? Not to mention reversing all of Matthew's corrections & replacing them with false information?? If that wasn't enough scholars have determined that the Sermon on the Mount was a post war (66-73CE) written composition whose base text was, you guessed it…the Septuagint. What crazy agenda are you following that contorts logic so violently?
@@histguy101 Christian tradition is notoriously unreliable.
@@ghostriders_1 First of all, that is a complete lie. Mark is the shortest gospel, pretty much half of all of the other ones. That would mean that Marks' gospel would have to be in the 50% range. Luke copying Mark makes sense, as he makes it pretty clear he's getting information from trustable sources and eyewitnesses, and that would indeed be Mark. Matthew wasn't apart of Jesus' ministry for a good amount, so he'd need to copy. If anything, plagiarism didn't even exist in the 1st century, so copying was deemed acceptable. If they told the same story, there wouldn't be a need to change anything.
There has never been any evidence that oral history played much role. These are complex and highly developed stories. They emerged in cultures that had long histories of written records. The Gospels are essentially rewritten accounts of earlier written stories. The supposition here is there was historical events that were recorded; which we can't know. they are just as likely writing of myths. There were were certainly other written accounts prior to the Gospels; eg, the Epistles and proto-gospels. If there was ever oral records you ought to offer evidence of such.
This ignores the fact that these men came from the tradition of Judaism - a culture which relied heavily on oral tradition.
If you were to actually read those old stories and compare them to the gospels, you would realize you have been given bad information.
I saw a debate between James White and Bart errordman and James White handed Bart his lunch!
Doubtful. Please send me a link.
"Dr." James White embarrassed himself trying to use low error rates by trained medieval copyists to mean the earliest copies made by amateurs also had low error rates.
1:17:37 I would consider gods' question rhetorical.
Each gospel is like it own denomination in today's perspective.
On the question of what future historians will fascinated by the rise of woke culture, and the change to how free speech and the right (or not) to offend has been eroded.
John mentions his name in revelation.
The John of Revelation is not John the Apostle. Unlike the Apostle, this John wrote in very, very bad Greek. John was as common a name back than as it is now.
@@Monkofmagnesia any evidence for this?
The authors of Mathew and Luke had, at their writing table, a copy of Mark, a copy of the Q Source and a copy of the Greek Septuagint. They also had traditions unique to themselves. Later editors with directives to include reference to virgin birth, and having resided in youth in Nazareth.
It is possible that the author of Mathew intended to upgrade and replace Mark. He uses, almost verbatim, 600 of the 666 versus from Mark. He silently corrects Marks mistakes in scripture and geography. The earliest copy of Mark has been dated to around 400ad, so what happened to all the previous copies?
Er, what? The earliest full copy of Mark is probably from around A.D 300-350. There are early Papyrus fragments of the Gospel though.
678 versus of Mark
Excellent post. But remember Q is hypothetical at this point.
IN JOHN... JESUS SAYS the god the jews follow....Abrahams.... is the devil. that is probably why Marcion thought that also
The Tanak is just one sacred text of Judaism. There is also the Talmud, which, according to the jewish author Yuval Noah Harari is a more compassionate book.
Sorry to rattle the fundamentalists but Mark, Mathew, Luke, and John are not eyewitness accounts of Jesus. These books were written in the 2nd and 3rd centuries
Where do you get that? Luke admits he was getting first and secondary sources but all four of them come from the 1st century CE
Never understood how HEBREW Deciples went out & taught "christianity". What they had & taught was the Hebrew Torah, especially since Yahashua/Gesus also taught from the Tarah. They were Hebrews teaching The God of Abraham, YHWH by name. Paul went into western Europa & taught where after him death the focus went to Gesus & became the principle teaching. And the Catholic church formed & pressed this teaching. Pressing so hard it began to destroy the Hebrew teachings thru war & violence which stretched Europa into Jerusalem & the destruction of the second temple. "Christians" now being successful across Europe & either killing the Hebrews or scattering them into Africa & middle east. Scholars need to clarify this instead of referring to the Hebrew synagogues as being christians & Christian churches. Hebrews rejected the teachings of a man being the center of their belief. That idea is rooted in European deity belief.
Try telling bored-again Sunday Clubbers this..... 🙄
The question in the title is not really answered. Good point at 30 minutes, 34 minutes is a big assumption. Than Lenin quote was great. I just felt like we didnt truly take a deep dive at who the authors were. Either way I enjoyed it. Your both incredibly well read and spoken.
It's easy to make all kind of theories and conjectures about the authors of the Gospels. What is not easy to do is to talk about its content: Hell, damnation and the wrath of God for all the unbelievers.
The Gospel is not a written text; check out the message Paul preached at Mars Hill in Athens. That's what the Gospel looks like. As for the writings by Luke, Matthew, Marc or John they are just what they are: The Acts of The Jewish Messiah, i.e., HaMamaschiock...
The point being Mary gave birth to the Messiah and not to the Son of God...
Therefore the Gospel must be about the Christ and not the Son of God! Holaaa!!!