Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Who Wrote the Gospels?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 авг 2024
- Are the Gospels anonymous? Many scholars say the titles were only added long after they were written, but what does the evidence say?
Don't forget to help us create more videos! We need your support:
/ inspiringphilosophy
/ @inspiringphilosophy
inspiringphilo...
Don’t forget to watch part 1:
ruclips.net/video/SUI-7durA1g/видео.htmlsi=Fmerc2L_D_VB_qsc
Hey IP, look into the safety of those earbuds, because RF waves so close to your brain is not optimal, I would not trust manufacturers saying "our products are safe", given the long history of their lies, if you've been feeling a little scatter brain lately, I'd wouldn't put the earbuds passed that. Remember their lies on the safety of lead, asbestos, DDT, tobacco, C19 vx. 🙏God bless you and your family.
There's more manuscript support for the new testament than any other piece of ancient literature.
Thanks, will go to part one now :)
Yet another instance where an argument against the Bible relies on criticism a real historian would never apply to an ancient work.
Also relies on the assumption ancient people were stupid and gullible, unlike us enlightened modern folk.
@@tomasrocha6139 You need to be consistent. You are right that there were disputes on some of the Epistles because we have records of Church Fathers giving different opinions on the authorship. It should be also be telling these same Church Fathers all agree on the authorship of the Gospels. We also have their writings denouncing the Apocrypha Gospels on grounds of their late and fraudulent construction. The authorship of the Gospels were not a problem until modern scholars made them a problem purely on conjecture.
Actually ancient people are wiser than people of nowadays
"Real historians' all agree that the gospels are anonymous.
My absolute favorite part of any IP video is when Michael says "However"!
Then what follows is a reaffirmation of Faith.
At least for me it is.
Thank you Mr. Jones!
May Jesus Christ see your fine works and bless you for it! ✝️
I actually started using however a lot more in debates because of IP 🤣
Another great entry from IP. I knew Matthew being falsely labeled made no sense due to his place in Jewish society, but I had not thought about why Mark and Luke made no sense until now. As for John, it definitely makes sense that he is the author of only because it took 1900 years for a debate to even arise
That makes no sense and doesn’t follow. The authorship of the gospels didn’t take 1900 years to be debated. It was debated less than a hundred years after they were written when the names where attributed to them. We know that the people who attributed the names to them didn’t actually know who wrote them and we know why they decided to give them those names. None of this is a mystery like it is presented in the video. Heck the video gives other examples of writings from around the same time that did not have the authors name in them internally. But this video completely skips over how we knew who wrote those. My guess is it was skipped over because if it was explained then people wouldn’t give much credence to the argument the video is presenting. In other words they purposely left it out the information to deceive people.
@@lubrew5862you should be debating Michael on this, not me, I am going off what he said
@@lubrew5862It is my understanding that within the Church itself in the early 2nd century it is not their authorship which was debatted but their reliability to the Oral tradition already circulating, from Papias we know it was already being known for example that Mark was attributed to Mark, and that Mathew composed a "logia" in Aramaic which was either the Gospel or the source behind it. To me this is a proof that a hundred year later ( which is by the way really misleading but move on) the authorship was not the problem but their reliability as per the tradition, From what is known Papias investigated not the authorship but the authority of the Gospel which to me shows that the he wanted to know if the author was reliable. And it seems that he concluded they are after investigation and affirmation from "John the elder ". This is to me enough to conclude the author were known from the moment they circulated to the point where some who received them question who was that "Mark" anyway or Why should i listen to a "Mathew" instead of what the Apostle taught directly.
@@lubrew5862 literally you're whole argument is false. The only mention of an authorship other than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, is an example from the 3rd to 4th Century Gnostic who attributed Cerinthus, the heretic, to making the gospel of John. This is simply false information since all the evidence prior to that attestation attributes John as the author
@@lubrew5862I call BS on that. Based on what sources do we know why the Gospels were attributed the way they were?
Great point about Caesar not naming himself as author and even refering to himself in the third person in his Commmentaries, yet nobody seriously denies his authorship...
That's one of the weakest parts of the argument. I burst out laughing when he made that ridiculous statement about Caesar, smh.
@@johnmichaelson9173 And I can't take seriously your post which is evidence and counterpoint free...
@@johnmichaelson9173how is it weak ?
@@Your_Dad-f5z You're online do your own research?
@@el_killorcure Bothered, you're a total dick.😁
Thank you for this brilliant summary. You are generously doing this research so we don't have to, and handing us all the facts we need to face the doubters and malicious debunkers!
The word 'malicious' is really key here. The standards the gospels are being held to is absurd, given the same intensity isn't applied to other sources. The time of their writing comes to mind as an example. Plenty of historical figures are only documented in sources a hundred years or more after the fact, yet people are perfectly happy to accept these. Yet, the gospels emerging 40-60 years afterward is somehow an issue.
I've always found the timing of the skeptics argument kind of convenient. From the second century onward we know 100% that the gospels had titles. We also have zero attestation that they ever didn't have the titles or had different names attached. Yet for the one century where we don't have anything it is assumed without evidence that they were anonymous. We have no evidence of this and we do have 19 centuries of the contrary yet for the one century with a question mark it is simply assumed that these documents couldn't have had names attached.
They are still formally anonymous. Someone could write a manuscript, you saw them write it in front of you, yet it could be formally anonymous. The identity of the Gospels and their authors is known historically
@@TheThreatenedSwan I wonder if anyone will ever claim that we have no idea who wrote the Gettysburg Address? :P
@@Crosshair84 Well it's not a published work, but it is a historical fact Lincoln said it. It's also an extra-Biblical historical fact of who wrote the Gospels even if the authors are never identified within. This is still a problem for people that hold to sola scriptura. Some atheist authors conflate the text being anonymous with being unable to identify who wrote them even through natural reason probabilistically.
@@TheThreatenedSwanThat’s not a problem for those who hold to “sola Scriptura” . Sola Scriptura only suggest that only scripture is completely infallible.
.
That DOES NOT mean that one can’t look at historical evidence and come to a rational conclusion that it’s accurate….
@@sjappiyah4071 The point is people are trying to avoid a circular criteria by saying it must have been written by an apostle or apostolic man, but then they have to appeal to extra-Biblical information for the Gospels plus we have no idea who wrote Hebrews
IP's videos should be shown in all Christian classes
I agree. This dude is brilliant!I don't agree with everything he says, but man! He's astute!
Yeah much better than the typical fundamentalist 20 year old outdated material that’s still being shown.
This is brilliant showcase of why the 'anonymous gospels' argument is so farfetched.
People like Bart Ehrman who advocate it seem completely oblivious about why it is a stupid idea. I think the reason they believe it is that they have a conscious or unconscious assumption that “Christians are gullible morons who blindly believe whatever they are told” Sure they never put it that way, but how else would just believe a random document you accidentally stumbled upon that describes this Jesus guy dying and coming back to life despite having absolutely no idea who wrote it or why. If anything, “ gullible moron” might be too polite a term to describe such people
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did write the 4 Gospels, but it's also true that they wrote the anonymously. They didn't put their names on them. In the 2nd and 3rd centuries, "gospels" started cropping up specifically attributed to a writer (like Thomas, Judas, et. al.) in order to give it a credibility that it did not have. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were known to be written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; they already had that credibility, and didn't need the names attached in the text.
@@michaelkelleypoetryI would argue that it was probably due to modesty on their part. To the authors, who wrote them wasn't important. It was the message that they were telling people about that was important.
I agree with your opinion. I always felt the gospel writers loved christ so much they omitted their names.
@@michaelkelleypoetry Yes, by that definition, 99.999999% of all books are anonymous as there are very few books where the author names himself in the text. The anonymous gospel theory really holds that people read, distributed, believed and suffered painful, agonizing deaths, for the gospel despite having absolutely no clue who wrote them, and put that way, it should be obvious that the theory is false
Ip continues to honour Jesus so wonderfully may God inspire him to fight for the christian faith in trying times.
You probably weren’t trying to be rude, but please capitalize Jesus’s name, and God. You can also capitalize every time you use He or Him when talking about Jesus. Thank you
@@reachforthestars7040 My bad!
@@colinsmith1288 oh no it’s okay. Just wanted to let you know
@@reachforthestars7040 All is good.Honouring our heavenly father properly shows respectful standards.
That point on Theophilus(6:48) was so mind-blowing. I never would have thought of something like that. Great video!
Same ! It’s so obvious yet I never put 2 & 2 together
I find it to be kind of a strange point. If we assume there was in fact a specific individual named Theophilus who received the first copy of the Gospel of Luke from the author then yes, it follows that that person likely knew who the author was. But how do we know that Theophilus is the source of the attribution of the work to Luke? We know nothing about Theophilus other than his name and the fact that the author addresses him as "most excellent".
It's also possible that Theophilus (meaning "friend of God") was not actually a specific individual, and the text was intended for anyone fitting that description.
@Electricalpenguin but the attribution in Acts strongly suggests that the author knew that Theophilus was familiar with his earlier work. That is harder to explain if Theophilus was a generic. Also most names back then meant something, and a lot of names today have meanings even though we don't pay much attention to them.
@@DarrenGedye
Why would that be definitive? Works in a series, particularly works that purport to be historical, will typically assume the listener’s or reader’s familiarity with prior texts in the series.
One has to make a much stronger case that “Theophilus” isn’t simply “Dear Reader.”
It's unfortunate that Theophilus means "friend of God" and was also a reasonably common name. It's probably impossible to determine for sure whether this was a specific person or just a compliment to the reader.
I think Theophilus was probably not a real person. The reason is that if Theophilus was a specific individual, he would have had to be a wealthy patron. The cost of producing Luke + Acts would likely be equivalent to about two million dollars in today's money. Someone capable and willing to commissioning this work should have been important enough to warrant a mention by some church father somewhere.
This is essentially an argument from silence, so it's not definitive proof, but I think it tips the scales.
But I do agree that if Theophilus was real, that is strong evidence that Luke was actually the author of Luke.
I've been a supported of "why do you believe?" not just believing. Your content has been a great source of historical and logical arguments for the authenticity of Christianity and the Bible.
@@theguyver4934 stop lying
@theguyver4934 these are all common arguments Muslims use to discredit Christianity. There is more than enough evidence proving that the Quran isn't the same as it was when your prophet wrote it. I am a Christian. I stand for and by the God of the Bible, ans Jesus is His Son.
@aSUGAaddiction
And as a Muslim I take exception to your comment and felt the need to correct you. But let me say that Christians discredit their own Bible without ANY help from the Muslims. This video is a testimony of that in itself. If you stand for what the Bible says, then explain why Jesus LIED to the Young man next to him on the cross?
@aSUGAaddiction
Jesus says to the young man on the cross next to Him; TODAY you will be with me in Paradise"! Now you and I both know THAT was a LIE!
@@Toronado2this is because you are using such a small mind to think you’ve found inconsistency … but you haven’t. The moment Christ’s heart stopped beating He was in Paradise - and He received His new convert with the Father precisely as promised to the man… The second day He (so many believe) went down into the underworld - and quite possibly saved people cast down there whose hearts He could reach.
The Third Day His Spirit was rejoined with His “dead” flesh and He Resurrected his body into a beautifully transfigured new version of it - passing through the burial shroud in an instant “impossibly” - and He left NOTHING remaining for any man to find, but a ghostly imprint upon the material of the cloth.
EVERYTHING in the Holy Bible is accurate, for the simple reason that God came down to walk among us - to enter into “His-story” and the realm of Time and Matter - to endure enormous suffering as a legacy of His adoration of His Creation - the love of Man - and by way of dividing us up into those who will follow Him (the Chosen flock) and those who will not.
IP is a gem!! Love this. God bless your family and Ministry ❤️🙏✝️
what kills me is if I write a letter the only thing that proves it's from me is on the envelope so why would anyone assume that there has to be some official seal on the letter itself back in their time? it was common practice then and it is so now.
If I write a letter, it has my signature at the end. And the *letters* in the NT do have the authors' names. Even today, if you pick up a paperback detective story, the author's name isn't in the *text*. It's on the cover and in the front matter, but you don't find it in chapter 1.
@richardokeefe7410 many of the letters do say who they are from just not signed at the end and if I'm real with ya the last time I sent a letter I did not sign it at the end because it was not necessary.
Excellent work, IP. I knew a couple of these considerations already, but you definitely added to my apologetic knowledge on this topic with this video.
Yeah videos are not the best to be referenced.
It’s easy to miss the forest for the trees here…
The burden here lies with those who reject the authorship attestation of the gospels to present evidence to prove that these documents were *not* written by the ascribed authors. Not the other way around.
Why? Because gospel authorship has already been asserted and attested by secular and non-secular sources, which this video touches on via the manuscript evidence of notable ancient historians.
The nature of ancient textual analysis means dealing with manuscript evidence that is likely partial fragments of originals or of copies of originals. To my knowledge, there are no surviving original copies of the gospels; but there are many thousands of copies written in several languages that spawned from the originals, and those copies are remarkably consistent.
The earliest copies of the gospels we have for which the title tags have survived attribute the gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. And as the video mentions, these titles align with attested authorship noted by ancient sources and recorded oral tradition which all attributed the gospels to the same authors.
No ancient documents have nearly as much historical evidence in support of their authorship and authenticity as the gospels do, despite what some skeptic ‘scholars’ would have you believe.
And no figure in ancient history, or all of history, has been cited as prolifically as Jesus of Nazareth; nor has anyone sparked such unprecedented change in the ancient world which persists to this very day.
Take any historical figure in ancient history, or even all of history, and trace their impact on all aspects of society throughout the ages, and you will find none who come close to Jesus of Nazareth - a carpenter who lived 2,000 years ago in a little town underneath the heel of the Roman Empire that no one outside of that region had ever heard of before, and who was in the public eye for only about 3 years.
Move along, definitely nothing to see here.
Dude, you are a rock star. Can I copy and paste this?
@@BoyKagome Sure, be my guest. 😊 Happy Resurrection Sunday!
bro this is shockingly accurate despite my faith wavering and running low.... I really needed this bro thank you I really appreciate it
Eric Manning over at Testify often points out that Matthew has more references (and accurate calculations) of money than any of the other Gospels, which would make sense if it was written by a tax-collector. I have noticed that there are points (specifically the Resurrection narrative) where John's Gospel will brush over details John wasn't present for (Jesus' appearance to the women) before flushing out details he is present for (Peter and John going to see the empty tomb). So even internally there are some compelling reasons to connect the traditional authors. If later Church Fathers came up with these authors out of nowhere, they got really lucky or were really thinking brilliantly outside the box in a way that might seem unlikely for them to do.
thanks for the plug for more good content like this!
Good points. It also makes no sense to attribute names to people who weren't necessarily renown or that would give the manuscripts more weight and credibility. The fact that they're attributed to normal people that nobody ever heard of makes it feel more compelling to me 🧐
"Matthew" also has 3 times more "copy and pasted" scriptures from the "Old testament" compared to the other gospels.
Matthew also copied most of his content from Mark. A real eye witness of Jesus would be a source, not a copier.
Matthew's gospel seems to be little more than an altered version of Mark with interpolations added to fit the author's agenda.
Justin Martyr, who was the first person to make detailed references to the content of the gospels, never once mentioned the supposed authors, Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. Paul didn't even seem to be aware of the most of the content in the gospels.
It's not exactly "brilliant" to simply put together specific scriptures which would be fitting for a supposed "tax collector author."
It would be at least a little more impressive if they edited out the blatant religious contradictions in Matthew (and other gospels) where Jesus said things like, "you can't serve both God and money." Where as in Judaism (Deuteronomy 28) those who serve "the Lord" are blessed with wealth.
@@therion5458 Matthew didn't just copy Mark but yeah, Mark was sort of it's skeleton but using other sources to embellish ur own biography doesn't mean anything. Ancient Authors did it, Soljonisken(spelling that wrong) did it in the Gulag Archepelago.
And you know, it is hard to trust ur characterization of Justin Martyr when you give no examples and in the next paragraph when you give an example for something, it is a none contradictory "contradiction". You know having alot of money and worshipping money aren't the same thing right? Or do you need a series of basic Sunday school lessons to understand that?.
@@ikengaspirit3063 The Gulag Archipelago by Solzhenitsyn is almost a 700 page book. Solzhenitsyn didn't need to copy someone else in order to be reminded of what happened to himself.
He gave credit to other sources when he used them in his book. Matthew's gospel does no such thing.
The gospel of Matthew is a short book who's author needed to copy 90% of Mark for it's content.
It is simply a fact that Justin Martyr never mentioned the gospel authors. What do you not understand about that?
Jesus said it is practically "impossible" for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus was also a homeless man.
As opposed to the patriarchs of Judaism who were very rich. Being rich and serving God are compatible in Judaism.
The teachings of Jesus concerning worldly riches are the complete opposite.
I recommend creating a blog and uploading all the information you present in your videos. In this way we will have the information available in writing to be able to use it in research, debates, talks or talks on social networks or in person, to have sources or for academic work. Of course, always giving you your respective credits.
The dude already has a blog. ^-^
Also, he cites academic sources which are better to cite than any summary of them. One big problem in society is that we want soundbites from echo chambers more than scholarly works. Most of IP's shorts are him criticizing said soundbites.
When I was an undergrad theology student, I would be told this stuff, and figured there were great scholarly reasons for this, even though they were never given. Now that I’m older I’ve learned that most of them are really just wildly speculative and ignore all external evidence.
ignore what external evidence? the authorship of Gospels?
Yeah, I was told that we have no reason to believe the traditional authorship of the gospels, and that these were names added later.
But what they meant was there was no internal evidence. Nothing saying I, Matthew, the Apostle of Jesus Christ and eyewitness to the events described herein, write this Gospel.
They ignore the external evidence, like the early and unanimous identification of the traditional authors with each gospel. Plus, the fact that we never have a manuscript of an orthodox gospel with a different name attributed to it, etc.
Like we have a manuscript of John from ~125 AD that attributes the gospel to John. Given that most scholars believe the gospel was written approximately AD 90, that means about 30 years later people attributed the gospel to John. That’s pretty good evidence for authorship. The best we can say is that from an early date, people unanimously agreed on who the author of each gospel was.
Thank you so much for your comprehensive review, which shows that critical arguments based solely on internal anonymity require more special pleading than required by acceptance of the traditional authorship.
Glad it was helpful!
Get ready for a Paulogia video
haha
@@danielesorbello619ORTHODOX TRINITY
You should have mentioned the use of first-person pronouns in the Book of Acts.
I plan on saving that for another video when we get to the reliability of acts
@@PureCurebyFaith as always ask for their sources first.
@@PureCurebyFaith The first response I would give is asking "What evidence is there?" There are a lot of claims floating around with no real evidence. You can automatically point them to the Dead Sea Scrolls and how accurately it was handed down for a minimum of 2000 years. We have the same reliability with the New Testament.
Council of nicea! That is your source
@@phoenixtoash2396the council of Nicea didn't set the Canon or attribute the gospels
Hello! This video is exactly what i have been needing, thank you and God bless
Sorry, but the "anonymous" argument is another that falls apart through proper scholarship.
So most scholars on the New Testament don't do proper scholarship, but IP does?
@@andrewtsai777, actually many people call themselves "New Testament scholars", but clearly have agendas. The vast majority agree more with IP, but people like Bart Ehrman get all the attention because he renounced his faith and became an atheist. "New Atheism" is the Media's favorite bunch.. but even those like Ehrman take time to utterly destroy the worst of "academics and scholars": adherent to Christ Myth Theory. Ehrman himself pretty much has little time to push the "anonymous argument" as he spends much of his time debunking (actually DESTROYING) CMT easier than it is to wipe after using the bathroom.
I’ve been searching information on this topic for the past month, and you’ve brought the arguments all together for me so succinctly! Thank you!
So glad you covered this topic. I recently read Brant Peters “the case for Jesus” which went into detail about the authors. Think you did a great job of covering the same stuff
I've heard of that book, but I think his last name is spelled Pietre
@@owenkilcup6504 yes! That’s the one.
Out of 100 Roman biographies 98 of them the authors are mentioned in the third person and first person self reference is lacking.
Well said. The standards of the 1st century are not the same as the standards of today.
which 100 biographies are you referring to?
@Greyz I don’t know all of them, but I do know that Plutarch left most of his 60-ish writing as anonymous without mentioning his authorship, yet his authorship was uncontested because his recipients knew who wrote them.
@@samueljennings4809 plutarch has a bunch of falsely attributed writings too
Incredible work. Thank you so much.
Great video IP. Very informative and helpful, eloquently presented.♥️✝️💯
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did write the 4 Gospels, but it's also true that they wrote the anonymously. They didn't put their names on them. In the 2nd and 3rd centuries, "gospels" started cropping up specifically attributed to a writer (like Thomas, Judas, et. al.) in order to give it a credibility that it did not have. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were known to be written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; they already had that credibility, and didn't need the names attached in the text.
Mark and Luke didn't have "credibility". Mark was Peter's interpreter and Luke followed Paul. It was the credibility of Peter and Paul that people took the writings of Mark and Luke seriously. Ironically, having Mark and Luke be attached to the two Gospels is evidence against them being fabrications. As you mention, the later fabrications ALWAYS attach themselves to one of the apostles. Because a later forger in the 2nd century wouldn't know details like, "Who is a close and credible follower of Thomas".
@@Crosshair84 Yes, they did. Part of the early church's criteria for canonicity was for a book to either be written by an apostle or an associate of an apostle. I suggest you watch the short lecture by Daniel Wallace at Biola University, "Did the Ancient Church Muzzle the Canon?". The fact that Luke was associated with Paul and Mark with Peter gave their gospels credibility. Also, the forger of the Gospel of Thomas put Thomas name on it because Thomas was an Apostle. They were trying to give it a credibility it didn't inherently have.
We can't know exactly what means of identifying themselves they used, but they must have been identified somehow - and quite early as well, for there to be consensus so early on all four.
@@michaelkelleypoetry We're agreeing with each other, but using slightly different terminology. Mark's credibility comes from Peter and Luke's credibility comes from Paul. Absent their association with them, they don't have any credibility.
@@Crosshair84if i m wrong correct me,
i saw in galatians that Paul met Peter and stayed at his home 15 days...in that time we can conclude Peter told the detailed gospel to Paul,and Paul inspired Luke's gospel..so bot Luke and Mark can possibly have something from Peter' sayings.
I m not well educated on scripture..its just my oppinion..if i m wrong please correct me👍
Here's the big enchilada people. Every bit of best evidence we have points to the fact that the Gospels were written by the men they are named after. I mean John identifies himself as the beloved disciple. There's no reason to lie about mark writing a gospel. if you were gonna lie you would say a disciple wrote it for validity purposes. People need to stop going into this debate having already made up their mind that these men didn't write the Gospels. Hardly anyone disputes that Homer wrote the Odyssey and that was passed down by spoken word for years before it was ever even written down. People dispute the Gospels because of the stakes at hand. If they are wrong it literally means their whole outlook on life is wrong. Look at it historically before any emotions come into play. Same thing goes for Christians.
This information is invaluable. Your channel is a tremendous blessing. Thanks, as always, for your diligent scholarship.
I’ve been waiting for a clear-cut video on this. It will be such a big help when trying to explain to others. God Bless you!
Thanks Irenaeus
THEY ATE FISH@@theguyver4934
@@theguyver4934 Whilst I am not sure about Hell, vegetarian, what about the Passover Lamb, would you please cite your sources so that I can investigate.
If you were gonna toss some random names on there, why not use more popular Biblical characters like Peter or Andrew? I think Jairus from Capernaum gets more lines in the gospels than Matthew does, you could probably claim he wrote one of the gospels if you were really just picking names out of a hat.
Also if they were just giving random names as authors why didn't the early church give a name for the book of Hebrews
If I was gonna pick 4 names to attribute the Gospels to, then I would go with Peter, Mary Magdalene, Paul, and John.
@@Rocky-ur9mn Hebrews is an epistle and named for who the letter was written too. Like Galatians was written to the church at Galicia.
Poor Philip gets hardly mentioned at all.
I would add that even if they are "anonymous " we can still show that the authors where well informed, .....we know this most (if not all) the verifiable historical facts mentioned in the gospels are true ..... so if the authors where well informed they are reliable regardless if we know their names or not.
“The gospel is that I am so sinful that Jesus had to die for me, yet so loved and valued that Jesus was glad to die for me. This leads to deep humility and deep confidence at the same time. I can’t feel superior to anyone, and yet I have nothing to prove to anyone.”
- Tim Keller
The point about the discussion of the authorship of Hebrews vs the complete agreement on the gospels is really good. I'd love to hear how critics deal with that.
They don't. They just ignore everything in the video and say the exact things IP debunked 😂
This was excellently done IP
I see you are updating your arguments for the new testament.
Nice video, Keep it up Michael!
Thanks Jones. This is a beautiful addition to what I had read in Dr. Brant Pitre's book. Thanks again for the great work.
Spectacular work
May god bless your service
Terrific video.
Professor David Alan Black's work
Why Four Gospels
does an excellent job defending traditional authorship and sequence.
Damn IP this is great
Thank you
You welcome
Uhhh if they were anonymous, how come on the top of the page in my Bible has the author? Too ez man.
They were not,
And it's because they were not that everyone said they came from the same people, until new atheists in modern and post modern era had an agenda to unreasonably question everything linked with Christiannity.
Checkmate, atheists.
@@dodleymortune4312 Look at the guy’s comment again, he’s being sarcastic
@@ashixxk7614
I know, that's why I answerd....
He competely misreprented what the argument of the video was and I answerd him back by actually giving the right argument.
😂😂
2:41 Josephus does not leave his name out of “The Antiquities of the Jews”. Josephus identifies himself by name in several instances. Here is the clearest example, which is found in the Preface:
“Antiquities of the Jews”, Preface, Section 1:
“I, Flavius Josephus, the son of Matthias, by birth a Hebrew, and a priest, and one who at first fought against the Romans myself, and was forced to be present at what was done afterward, am the author of this work.”
This passage clearly shows Josephus self-identifying as the author of “Antiquities of the Jews,” by providing his own name, and background.
That’s from the preface of Jewish Wars, not Antiquities of the Jews.
@@InspiringPhilosophy Good to know! Josephus says a couple times in “The Antiquities of the Jews” that he wrote “The Jewish Wars”, couldn’t you then infer he wrote “The Antiquities of the Jews”? I’ll grant I have no proof of an internal claim of authorship, now I’m merely pointing out how we know Josephus wrote “The Antiquities of the Jews”. Thanks!
Brilliantly researched and referenced. When we know that the titles are correct we here confidence of the historical accuracy of the content.
The four gospels are anonymous.
@@MrMortal_RaAre you a parrot?
When Michael says, "However..." Get ready for a mic drop.
We must remember what John wrote.John 7.18.'" The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory, but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood" So the omission of the writers names by the writers themselves was to not seek personal glory and allow the evidence to be those who would identify them as the original writers. They sought on only to honour Christs name not their own.
Love your work IP. God has blessed you with a sharp and studious mind.
Excellent video. Very interesting and informative.
The unanimous attestation claim is false. Marcion 140AD "attributes no author to the gospel, that is, his own gospel (Luke)" - Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.2.3
And some thought Cerinthus authored the gospel of John.
I know of no early sources that claim Cerinthus authored John. Also, my point was unanimous attestation among church fathers, as I said in the video, “when we study early church sources we can see there is unanimous agreement among a multitude of witnesses.”
As for Marcion, we do have his writings so that is not a fact. If we are going on what Tertullian said, then it was recognized as a mutilated copy of Luke. So it would make more sense to note that Marcion removed the title in his corruption of it. But again, we don’t know what Marcion had to say, and there is no evidence he attributed it to a different author.
@@InspiringPhilosophy It was the Roman presbyter Gaius who attributed the Gospel of John and Revelation to Cerinthus who was a gnostic. See Epiphanius, Panarion 51.3.1-2. So aside from Marcion, it's "unanimous" but only after 180 AD (except for Gaius). After Irenaeus is when we see the works quoted alongside explicit authorial attribution. Still a significant time gap there. Papias never quotes from the documents he assigned to a "Mark" and "Matthew." There is no evidence Marcion's text had the name "Luke" attached to it. In fact, the evidence says otherwise as Tertullian was writing after Irenaeus who was the first we have on record to mention Luke's name as the author.
Yeah, but Epiphanius is 4th century. He is not counted as an easy source in my survey. If that was the case, I might as well include St. Augustine’s opponent Faustus. Also, again, we don’t have Marcion’s writings. Tertullian also doesn’t say he claimed a different author for Luke after his mutilation. Also we don’t know if it could still be considered Luke’s gospel, given it was changed and corrupted.
@@InspiringPhilosophy Gaius lived near the beginning of the third century so roughly contemporary with some of the other church fathers you cite. We do not know if the text Marcion mutilated had the name "Luke" attached to it or not. Assigning no author to the gospel would seem to count in favor of anonymity.
Every church father up until Irenaeus, when they quote or allude to the gospels, do so without explicitly naming the authors. This attestation is more expected under the hypothesis that the gospels were originally anonymous than it is that the names were known from the beginning.
I don’t see Gaius mentioned in Panarion 51:3. I can only find a fragment of Gaius where he attributes Revelation to Cerinthus, but not John. www.newadvent.org/fathers/0510.htm
Again, this is very speculative, since we don’t know what Marcion had or said about it. If we are going on what Tertullian said, he didn’t have a copy of Luke but something that was mutilated from the text of Luke. Tertullian even implies Marcion had something else entirely, not a copy of Luke’s gospel, because he calls it Marcion’s gospel.
As for church fathers prior to Irenaeus, that is an argument from silence. Plus, Justin Martyr doesn’t imply the gospels were anonymous as I discussed in the video.
Thank you for that. Outstandingly concise and overwhelming evidence showing the Gospels were not anonymous.
Great video InspiringPhilosophy! God bless you!
One could argue that Matthew and Mark in particular could not have written their gospels because they did not know how to write, and thus they relied on a transcriptionist to write their gospels for them. It could also be argued that a scribe took it upon themselves to put the teachings of Matthew or Mark into writing on their own accord, and in turn attributed their writing to Matthew or Mark. These are the BEST arguments against traditional attribution, but even they fall short of discrediting Matthew or Mark entirely, because either way you slice it, Matthew and Mark are still integral in the compositional process. The "anonymous authorship" position is only raised as part of an ensemble of other half-baked positions that seek to avoid the uncomfortable conclusions one would be logically led to given the authenticity, veracity, and historicity of the New Testament.
I always thought it was classist to make the argument that the disciples couldn’t read or write because they came from poor or illiterate backgrounds. Generalizations about certain classes of people doesn’t give anyone the right to make judgments or assumptions about specific individuals. That kind of reasoning is behind why some people think Shakespeare didn’t write his plays. Besides, even if they couldn’t read or write, many ancient writers had scribes.
I can't remember where off the top of my head, but I recall that one of Paul's letters references someone writing the letter on his behalf (that is, a scribe).
People forget that Scribes were basically ancient webdesigners and that (with the writing technology at the time) calligraphy was really the only way to write legibly. Print ten pages of text (double spaced, 12 pt, A4/Letter), and use a calligraphy pen with any historical style(s) you're comfortable with to hand copy that text single space onto A5/Stationary, and imagine that each letter costs five cents and each paper costs ten dollars. It's not just "good handwriting," it's hard work. Paul probably could have scrawled words on paper (just as we can save Word files as HTML) but anything done by his physical hand have only been notes for what he would later dictate to a scribe.
It's also ignorant of the cultural context. At that time, pretty much everyone used scribes. If you are rapidly gaining new converts who are eager to spread the message, funds to hire scribes to work with the disciples could have easily been raised. Some of the new converts would have been scribes, who could donate some of their time.
It also ignores that the disciples could have learned to read and write later in life. Learning to read and write later in life isn't easy, but hardly impossible.
ut Oddly enough I just suggested to my daughter that it was much easier for a first century native speaker of Aramaic to learn to write Aramaic than for us to learn to write English. English pronunciation changed a lot, while the spelling (except American speling) stayed put, and that's actually a good thing, because people who can't understand each other's spoken English can usually understand written English. But 1st century Aramaic writers had a system to work with that was pretty phonetic.
There's also an ambiguity in "write". Even people like Paul who *could* write often didn't. Instead they dictated. Come to think of it, my Dad had a Dictaphone. Very literate man, but a lot of what he "wrote" he actually spoke. One time he dictated a lecture on the law of contracts, and I typed it up on a computer (a Sun 3/50) as he spoke. Did he "write" that lecture? Every thought and every word was his. But his fingers weren't involved at all. So yes, "many ancient 'writers' had scribes". To be perfectly honest, the somewhat clumsy Greek of Mark strongly suggests that Mark *did* originate all the text himself rather than letting a secretary polish it for him.
@@abyssimusGalatians and 2 Thessalonians both mention it, but in both cases Paul says he doesn't use any scribe.
Neither is quite strong enough to prove that Paul *never* used a scribe : in Galatians he only says that he's not using one right then, and it's not certain that he actually wrote 2 Thessalonians.
Good work as always
Hey, I know the answer to this one:
Matthew
Mark
Luke and
John
Great points here! I like how you ended by asking for counter-points to explain the anonymous author theory.
Assuming Bart E. knows all of this, if he is such an expert, then is he purposely being deceptive? Or is it just confirmation bias? Or something else?
The gospels ARE anonymous.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu Doesn't mean we can't figure out who wrote them. Just like with a student's paper with no name on it. There are ways to tell. Especially if, like Luke, you wrote two famous works.
@@Myrdden71 We know the author of Luke and Acts is the same person (apart, maybe, from the last few chapters of Acts) - but there is no evidence that it was anyone called Luke.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu Why do so many who despire God conflate 'evidence' with 'proof'? Is it mere ignorance, or outright dishonesty? Who knows. 'Proof' we do not have. But then we have no 'proof' of any ancient writer's true identity. Even if they signed their name, who's to say someone else didn't sign it centuries later to add it? That has happened. But no one really doubts that Virgil wrote The Aeneid. Or that Ovid wrote Metamorphoses. But no one really hates those, so why question them, right?
Now, if 'evidence' is really the measure, we have evidence. Evidence may be good, bad, accurate, inaccurate, strong, weak, etc. Every church father who wrote about the gospel called Luke said that he wrote it. Many of those knew the apostles personally. Irenaeus, Ignatius, Clement, and Tertullian all affirmed Luke's authorship of the gospel that bears his name today. That IS evidence, though not proof. Let's try to be accurate.
I have been waiting for this! Lets Gooo!! To Glory of our Lord Jesus Christ!
Im a catholic, Im personally agnostic on the authorship of the Gospels and other NT books like half of the Pauline letters. In our church, we dont have any dogmatic statements to affirm which human authors wrote which books, our dogmatic stance is The Holy Spirit was the main author, and also the inspiration of whoever the human writers were. None of our councils affirm the human writers, only the canon.
N.T Wright even admits we dont know who authored the gospels but that the gospels are reliable historical testimonies of someone living in 30AD.
I hope fellow Catholic viewers see this and not be disheartened by the unknown human writers. 🙏🏽🙏🏽
And I think this should be the position of every Christian frankly. To dogmatically cling to authorship only leads to numerous very good and scholarly challenges. Which is why videos like IP did here are necessary. With God as the author through whatever human he chose to write shouldn't matter one iota.
Well this was What the early church was using
Hey IP! Paulogia recently published a video refuting the traditional Gospel authorship. It would be cool if you could do a response video to that if you have time. Anyways, lord bless.
You’ll enjoy this: ruclips.net/user/live06CrQuS-isE?si=Ov8R5gg_z0aKFOFZ
9:33 John the elder was apostle himself as told by Ireneaus.
AH 5:33:4 4. And these things are borne witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book; for there were five books compiled (συντεταγμένα) by him
The argument on "anonymous authors" didn't exist at the time when the gospels were written. Christians of that time didn't have a problem with their authorship, and they didn't have alternative names attached to the gospels. It simply remained to be Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
Even if the Gospels were anonymous (which they aren't) it wouldn't matter cause it was still written by eyewitness accounts or reports from eyewitnesses
80% of Marcus is quoted in Matthew, word for word, I have never heard of 2 biographies that are put together by 2 different people, that 80% of what the first wrote, appears in exactly the same words in the book of the second author.
Another thing, what is the probability that John, who is supposed to be the disciple of Jesus, did not write his gospel in the first person, or at least part of it?
@@user-tj5mi5bb9mSome - apparently including Benedict XVI - have suggested that John the Presbyter is a good candidate for John.
Really great stuff
@@theguyver4934No ..sorry Jesus And his followers were not vegetarians and were Not ebionites. .. Jesus's disciples the early christians were Nazarenes who were Jewish christians who believed in the deity of Jesus and the father as God and the son as the redeemer from sin of which the doctrine of the trinity is based on . so you are wrong...... And early christians who were Jewish fully believed that Jesus was divine and was theologically in line with modern Christianity. Ebionites are not the direct followers of Jesus and there is no historical evidence that Jesus's direct followers were ebionites ...
Muhammad and Allah Are false. Jesus is lord.
Great video InspiringPhilosophy!
Awesome work.
Paulogia made a response that made a lot of sense. I advice checking it out.
No, Kamil did, and response coming soon. It was riddled with problems. All that time for not much substance.
@@InspiringPhilosophy Why are you running from Parker and Danny? You don’t agree with classical logic????
@@InspiringPhilosophy YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
@InspiringPhilosophy
Something has concerned me.
That there are sites that list contradictions. Literal from as early as genisis.
Like the bible actual saying one thing then another. Could u do a vid on things like that.
Sites also tend to pull history.
Like apparently acts gets historical info wrong.
I'm not historically inclined enouph to deal with that.
Most crap these sites say are of course silly ignoring perlicution allocation.
Or ignoring things in poetry.
And taking hyper wooden literal readings.
Others pull science and math onSolomons.. huge bath bowl being like a hair off of pie.
Which is dumb.
God had it written build bowl.
They built huge bowl.
Who cares if it's exactly pie.
But what about internal contradiction
And external contradiction with historically data
What do we do with that
*The Documentary Hypothesis "reasoning": the Thora was written by JEPD, because everybody knows that if you use the word Jahweh, you're a Jahwist and if you use the word Elohim, you're an Elohist. We all know that, right?
*The Gospels were written anonymously "reasoning": because everybody knows they were first written anonymously and in the second century they attributed the names to give them credibility. Even if we don't have the originals to compare them whith. We all know that, right?
This reasoning is even worse than the Documentary Hypothesis.
Good job, IP.
The logic of this video has more holes than fishnet stockings. Numerous unfounded assumptions.
Example?
Thank you for pointing out these key aspects concerning the authorship of the Gospels!
This video is really interesting and insightful!
Many thanks!
Do you plan on addressing the disputed Pauline epistles in a future video?
Hey brother, at about 15:25, you say that "we have no indication that the Gospels were ever thought of as anonymous". What do you make of the fact that the Apostolic Fathers do not name the Gospels, even though they quote from them. Here, I am talking about the Didache, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp and Justin. Just does call them "Memoirs of the Apostles", but never mentions Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, by name. Also, his version of the Gospels seems somewhat different than ours, since the River Jordan catches fire in his version. This never happens in the Gospels that we have today. It also seems like the Apostolic Fathers treated the Gospels as one amalgamated work. Justin's student even assembled the "Diatessaron", which is a single Gospel that mushes the 4 canonical Gospels together. All of this leads me to believe that, for the first 100 years of their circulation, the gospels were treated anonymously, and treated as if they were all one text.
Also, I would be super happy to talk to you about this topic. I did a debate with Dave Pallmann on this topic over on Catholic Apologist Kyle Whittington's RUclips channel in case you want to vet me and make sure that I know what I am talking about.
I have to admit that I'm not always as clued up on which church father said what, about what or who....but from your question....if Clement of Rome (who was contemporary 1st century) and Ignatius and Polycarp (who were students of apostles) called the gospels "memoirs of the apostles", then wouldn't it stand to reason that they KNEW the gospels to be sincere eyewitness testimonies EVEN IF we got the names of the eyewitnesses wrong? Just a thought
@@John_Six_Twenty-Nine Clement and Polycarp never refer to the Gospels as Memoirs of the Apostles, only Justin does that. And that's a whole thing too - why would Justin refer to Mark and Luke as apostles? Only Matthew and John were apostles.
Commenting to help. Great work, Michael
We now have evidence that the gospels were not written by their names. And now with scholars like Bart Erhman showing more evidence as time progresses.
Nice claim, now show your proof lol. This entire video disclaims your statement. Did you watch it?
@@sliglusamelius8578 This entire video does not disclaim my statement. The majority of scholars agree that the gospels were not written by their original names. This is well known. If you want evidence just look it up.
Excellent.
@@theguyver4934You say, >Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that Jesus and his apostles were vegatarians
_you speak non sense.
then you add even more non sense and contradict the point you are trying to make by saying
>historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity
_The historical evidence, in the real world, that is, the stage of history, does not originate in a cave. It goes back to the line of "promise." The events of historical Christianity did not happen in a cave. Neither does the reality of the Children of promise, the children of Israel. But as it is written, "such as I have, I give thee." Your best regards are taken in the spirit they are given. You speak according to what you have to give, "for out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks" -Jesus of Nazareth.
10:15 love how when trying to prove the names were not added in the 2nd century you use the nag hammadi library (written in the 2nd century) as proof the gospels were named. Umm yeah, that’s what we all agree on. They were named by this period. 😂
Name a single piece of positive evidence for "the gospels were anonymous" hypothesis
That's not late by historical standards
@@ramadadiver8112 What does this have to do with anything? Did I say late? Did anyone? Nope. The youtuber is using texts written in the 2nd Century to prove that their were authors prior to the 2nd Century, which is obviously nonsense.
@@billyziggler1862
It demonstrates that the names were already on the gospels at that time and was commonly accepted amongst Christians .
This means it's easy to infer the names were on the gospels earlier than the second century especially because it takes time for something to be commonly accepted
@@ramadadiver8112 “easy to infer” is not a method of science. If the earliest record of them having authors is the 2nd century then that is the earliest “proof.” You can make wild claims until you are blue in the face but this in no way “proves” they were named before this. Not at all.
Ignatius of Antioch, aka Ignatius Theophorus, was a disciple of John the Apostle and had handwritten copy of John's Gospel and this is how we know John wrote John.
Many people are scared of the unforgivable sin, u should make a complete video about it, many will approciate.
Great points starting 8:00 about no claims to the contrary in the Early Church
Exactly. Some of the first people who read Mark would have been people who heard Peter speak firsthand. Had Mark gotten something seriously wrong, people would have brought it up. If the wrong passages weren't fixed, you would have seen fragmentation and feuding in the early church over "wrong" passages. People would have made versions of Mark that "corrected" his errors and those versions would have spread alongside the "original".
Yet we don't see this. Everyone read Mark and went, "Yup, that's what Peter said. Lets make more copies of this."
Thanks!
Thank you for the donation
I got hit with this argument yesterday. Thanks, your work is very helpful. God Bless.
These are the type of videos those Erhman supporters would be petrified to watch.
Now make a video about: who wrote 1 John, 2 John, 3 John and Revelation? We need it
I think it was John.
@catfinity8799 I also believe so! But some sources say that 3 different Johns wrote the Gospel of John, the letters of John and Revelation! Saw a video that said, "early church fathers thought, Revelation was indeed written by the disciple John"
@@KaushikAdhikari I have never heard that. When I read them, I think that they sound like they're from the same person.
@catfinity8799 the original texts use very different writing styles (as per the claim... I can't read Greek)
I could be wrong, but I think 2 John is obviously John the apostle. He was told to care for Mary, the mother of Jesus, and it appears to me this letter is written to her from John.
No informed person has any reason to argue for anonymous authorship. They're hyper-skeptical, unreasonable and arbitrarily believe whatever they want. Hello Mr Ehrman?!
@@Theo_Skeptomai
Talk is cheap Theo. Go through the video and refute it point by point.
The gospels are by definition anonymous and do not have any identification of their author, It’s only in the 2nd century to mid-2nd century that authorship and titles started getting attached to them. Papias is an absolute joke for an early church father.
@@MrMortal_Ra
The gospel had superscripts attached to them. When you receive a letter in the mail with the sender's name on the envelope, do you doubt it was from the sender if the content of the letter is anonymous?
@@kurtgundy “The gospels had superscript’s attached to them” and your primary source for this is?
@@MrMortal_Ra
Church history.
Great work yet again
I don’t know who this man is, but he’s a genius. I talked to very intelligent atheist and I need to have my fax. Thank you for your videos.
*luke sends anonymous gospel to theopilus*
Theopilus : who the frick sent this and what for??
Critics logic
Ooh this should be good. Edit: I was right, this is great.
IP always with quality crystal clear contents ❤
"Many scholars have been pushing back." I don't think so.
1, Honest scholars work with facts, not beliefs. The fact is that the earliest manuscripts we have found are not named. It is possible that other copies were named but we do not have such evidence and so cannot simply make that assumption. We can only go on what we know, not what we want to be true.
2. If the gospels were written by apostles and thus were eyewitnesses to the events they describe, why do none of them say so? Could there be a more persuasive argument than a gospel which says, "I saw Jesus perform this miracle"? Or "Mary came straight to me and told me of the empty tomb"?
3. If they were eyewitness statements why are they so radically different and contradictory in some areas (far more than just a different physical perspective)?
We should also consider that many events are covered in the four narratives which no-one could have witnessed and others where no one person could have been present at all times. So, even if the gospels were written by apostles, it does not make them any more reliable.
False. No mss are not labeled with the names appended to them.
As for claimed disparities, none is important or even a real disparity.
The events that you claim were not witnessed by the apostles were likely told to the apostles by Jesus himself.
The events sound like first person accounts. Luke is the only third person account, he said so.
@@sliglusamelius8578 I urge you to do some checking for yourself and you will find that our earliest manuscripts of the gospels are not named. There are various theories about why but this is a simple truth, not disputed by any religious authorities or genuine scholars.
There are many disparities, between gospels and between the gospels and Acts, some significant, some not.
E.g. How the field of blood was named. Did Judas buy the field with his blood money (Acts) or did he return the money and the priests bought the field (Matthew). It cannot have been both.
E.g. Who carried the cross? 3 sources say Jesus but Mark, the earliest gospel, tells of Simon of Cyrene.
E.g. When did Jesus die? 3 sources say the day after Passover but John says the day before Passover.
E.g. When did the crucifixion take place? Mark says the 3rd hour (9am) but John has him still before Pilate at the 6th hour (noon).
I could list many more but I think the point is made.
You say the events that could not have been witnessed were told by Jesus but that is merely your own invention and wishful thinking.
My question stands, if the gospel authors were his disciples and if they witnessed events or were told of some by Jesus himself, why are these things not mentioned? The omission is strange if the idea was to give testimony to be believed. Can there be a more persuasive testimony than , I saw it myself and Jesus told me the rest?
Also, we are only debating 2 of the gospels, Luke was, supposedly, Paul's companion and as John was written around 90-100CE, the author can only have been a child during Jesus' ministry, at least 60 years prior.
As for Matthew, he writes of earthquakes and zombies that even the other gospels don't mention, let alone other sources, so his account must be doubted.
The gospels sound like first person accounts because they were meant to. It does not mean they truly are. Many works of fiction today are written in the first person.
I understand that you are a Christian and this is important to you but facts are important to me.
I'm not saying Jesus didn't exist, I'm not even saying he was not the messiah (although I do not believe so), I am merely saying there are uncomfortable facts about the bible that must be honestly admitted, even if you choose to think them insignificant.
What good is a faith which is based on untruths and a denial of easily checkable facts?
If Christianity is true, it is true despite these issues. If it is not, surely it is better to know the facts than believe lies?
Are you a Christian who values truth or a Christian who denies truth? I don't care either way but it is something to be considered.
@@sliglusamelius8578 You are free to invent stories of Jesus telling the authors what happened but the only information we have are the texts themselves. Why don't they tell us something so convincing?
They sound like first person accounts because they were deliberately written that way, it does not make them true. Many works of fiction today are written in the first person.
As for disparities, I can name so many and will be pleased to debate you on any of them if you wish. For now, I will offer an example.
How did the field of blood get its name. Did Judas buy it and fall and burst open (Acts), or did he give the money back and the priests bought it (Matthew)? It cannot have been both.
You are free to consider this unimportant but you cannot pretend it does not exist.
@@theoutspokenhumanist
I did not invent any stories. The texts are very coherent given the events that are claimed. The lives of the apostles and disciples attest to their sincerity.
Nobody falls and "bursts open" lol, Luke was a physician, dead bodies and decaying bodies were quite well-known to all people in those days (see Lazarus story in the tomb). The explanation is that Judas hanged himself, his decaying and putrefying body would have gas-creating bacteria rotting his flesh, he fell from tree he was hanging from and his body burst open. The headlong word in Hebrew means prone position.
Good grief, we have NT stories of miracles and resurrections of the dead, and you're hung up on a second hand account (luke was doing history as he stated) about how a body decayed and a field was bought? If that's your criteria, you sure are a tough critic. Certainly the authors would know to get a story straight for the contemporaries who lived not long after, why would they make up a name for a field out of whole cloth? Who are you to come along 2000 years later and pretend that you know better than the people who told the story and lived at that time? Are they just very bad storytellers and bad fantasizers??
@@sliglusamelius8578 You invented the supposed explanation that Jesus told the authors of the gospels things about his life they couldn't have known. The gospels themselves say nothing of this, therefore, you invented the idea as an answer to my observation.
I hope you understand the difference between a coherent story and the truth. J.K. Rowling wrote a number of Harry Potter books that were coherent all the way through but they weren't true.
You seem to have totally missed my point regarding the field of blood. I don't care how Judas died, whether one of the two biblical accounts is true or your personal elaboration. The point was that either Judas bought the field or the priests did. It is not a major issue but I used it an an easy illustration to show that you were wrong when you stated there were no discrepancies.
You cannot make that assertion and then modify it when one is clearly pointed out.
If you don't like that one, how about who carried the cross, Jesus alone or Simon of Cyrene? Or when was Jesus crucified, the ninth hour (9am) or later, because he was still before Pilate at the sixth hour (noon)? Or perhaps what day was it, the day before Passover or the day after?
You can invent all sorts of explanations to these issues and you might even be right, we simply cannot know for certain. But it is dishonest to assert there are no discrepancies.
Again, I have plenty more if you want to discuss them.
"Are they just very bad storytellers and bad fantasizers?
Maybe. Or maybe they were true believers in Jesus who never met him and who accepted the tales of other people as truth.
The point of all this is simply that we cannot know for certain who wrote the gospels or whether any of the stories found in them are true.
I know you believe in them and you could be right, but there is a vast difference between saying "I believe" or "I am convinced" and saying "I know."
I wrote it. It was me all along.
get off youtube and sort of the catholic church god
I knew it! The Gospel of ikengaspirit3063
I wrote mark though
And I was that one person who wrote the gnostic gospels as a joke. After all this time I cannot believe that the gospel of Thomas is taken seriously, I mean, I was obviously trolling.
Plot twist! 🤯
So you basically just showed that it is very common to have anonymous authorship --- just like the gospels.
"It's plausible the gospels always came with titles attributing them to their respective authors" - yeah but we don't have any early mss suggesting that now do we. And it was as you noted common not too.
After demonstrating the above you then go on to try and say you have many reasons that the titles were original. What?
"They needed to be identified when added to libraries" - and why would that be the case when they were originally written to small local congregations and when the church was small and no library for the Church was even in existence?
"If they were going to be circulated" - who said that was their intent? And if so - It could easily be possible that only after it was locally recognized who the author was and that spread orally that others wanted copies in nearby communities and then copied without the author in the title since orally they already knew.
As far as Luke - your point about the recipient still does not mean it was Luke - Theophilus could have known who for sure but that does not mean we know it was Luke.
As for Paul you do realize that Paul put his name in his letters and even said that in all his letters he did so - which makes some wonder why some letters attributed to him don't have it. Even Romans let's you know who dictated it for Paul. At the end of Colossians and I Corinthians Paul says he wrote it with his own hand. And in II Thess. he says the same things but adds - "which is a sign in every epistle I write." Gee I wonder why? Maybe fake and imposter letters going around - ya think!
And then you say 'likewise" - this must be good evidence that the gospels had them as well or no one would except them - yet they don't in the body just like Paul - so if using Paul as an example don't try to downplay the body having their names as you did in the beginning.
Early Church witnesses - who cares too late! They definitely had dissenters but like all authoritarian religious male nutters they controlled every damn thing that did not agree with those in power. We see this in their own writing when they condemn other sects. The Alogi did not believe John wrote the Gospel or Revelation. More can be said!
So Who wrote the Gospels - we still don't know!
I don’t get when people say “it was common for your work to be anonymous” and then use that as some type of argument. Because all that’s shows is that the gospels are still anonymous.
Excellent discussion on the attribution of the four gospels to the four traditional authors and how their authorship was maintained from first publication until present.
Thank you for making this video.
"Who wrote the Gospels?"
Duh, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, of course.
Glory To The Triune GOD
If we can accept Aristotelian authorship, then accepting Gospel authorship is the most common sense thing.
Two-thirds of Aristotle's work has been lost and the only anthology of his works are a collection of lecture notes. Why we are only in possession of lecture notes is in itself a mystery and a source for speculation, but even his surviving works weren't always cared for well (Neleus of Scepsis' treatment and neglect of Aristotle's works stands in stark contrast to the diligence of religious scribes) and Andronicus of Rhodes even actively edited and modified Aristotle's works to make it different from the Aristotelian works that were used by the Peripatetic school of thought.
The scholarly consensus is that Andronicus of Rhodes "edited" the works, not "distorted" them, which they ironically accuse early Christians of doing with the Gospel. These scholars would also ironically like to claim that Paul is the founder of Christianity, but will not say that Andronicus of Rhodes is the "founder" of Aristotelianism.