Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Who Wrote the Gospels? (SPOILER We Know!) w/ Dr. Bergsma
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 июл 2023
- 📺 Full Episode: • YES! The Bible is Reli...
Dr. Bergsma breaks down Jesus' cryptic and thoughtful claims of Divinity in the Synoptic Gospels
🟣 Join Us on Locals (before we get banned on YT): mattfradd.loca...
🖥️ Website: pintswithaquin...
🟢 Rumble: rumble.com/c/p...
👕 Merch: shop.pintswith...
🚫 FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: www.strive21.com/
🔵 Facebook: / mattfradd
📸 Instagram: / mattfradd
We get a small kick back from affiliate links.
![EST Gee - NEVER NEED (Feat. Selfpaid Savage) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/f2cRtr52HXI/mqdefault.jpg)
A Case for Jesus by Brant Pitre is a short, highly readable book that packs a punch. It quashed all my doubts about the historicity of Jesus and the Gospels.
Why would we believe him if we don’t also believe in the claims of the gospels?
Thanks for the recommendation.
@@whenpiratesattackAnyone who has watched documentaries, tv shows about Christianity knows every show has expert professors who are saying that the original Bible books were falsely or incorrectly translated, archaeological & historical evidence actually prove the Bible go things wrong, etc. Until recently there was no intelligent, respectable scholars countering those accounts so people have lived through years & decades of people challenging & dismissing Christianity & the Bible in every aspect of society. That’s one of the main reasons that so many people have left Christianity because they believe those atheist, secular “experts” are telling the truth.
That was my exact experience!
Just finished this book-great book!
Yeah I saw that debate. Jimmy took him down pretty good. I also saw the clip where Brant Pitre forced him to admit Jesus declared himself as God in the Synoptic Gospels
Hmm. Catholic answers said in the printed issue a month ago that Ehrman won that debate? Am I mistaken? I’ll have to watch.
@@ChristianCathoholicWhere did you read this? I can't find it
@@crusaderACR I had recently read about a debate they had in a June issue of CA. Just went and checked and it was from June a year ago, on the historicity of the gospels. My mistake.
Where did he take him down. I want to see. I don’t know what debate you guys were watching. Bart didn’t take Jimmy seriously. All jimmy said was, “what ifs”. What if Joseph had 2 houses, etc. just look at all ehrman’s debates: William lane Craig, Dan Wallace, Tim Mcgrew, Craig Evans, Richard Baucham, etc. He schools them all.
Half of the debate, he just kept referring to his website and applauding Bart on the good work lol
@@Truth397 Why so defensive? Are you related?
Listen, this debate had an unfair topic. For something to be completely unreliable is extremely difficult, this would only really apply to books like Lord of the Rings or something.
Bart Ehrmann already agreed the gospels were mostly reliable years ago. To prove them unreliable would be to prove virtually NOTHING there happened. This is just silly. Bart would nitpick some parts, but would laugh you off if you said Jesus was fiction (he would, cause he always does when someone says that)
So no hard feelings. It was unwinnable, it's not your friend's fault.
I resent that framing of ancient tax collectors as the scum of society.
We think the same of the IRS today.
Bro ancient tax collectors were horrible especially in Rome.
Think of big dudes knocking on your door asking for money or you get either beat up or executed. Rome asked a province an amount and the collectors _had_ to get that amount, no matter what.
No better than hired thugs and worse than the mafia. Pretty bad.
Ya, he shouldn't insult drug dealers by putting them in thr same sentence as tax collectors
Kyle Whittington just hosted a debate on this exact topic on his channel, and one of the debaters was really really really really ridiculously good looking. And the other debater was me.
These are among the highest quality videos on You Tube. Congrats on the consistent quality of these guests and interviews.
Hahahahaha. You must looking at a lot of really bad videos.
That evidence for authorship seems quite selective. It's like saying "We asked 50 Christians today who wrote the gospels and they were unanimous it was Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John."
I just watched the Akin/Ehrman debate, and while Akin danced around terms and definitions, Bart came at him with hard evidence- I don’t know why anyone would think that Akin won that debate… unless of course you’re biased. Which these guys clearly are.
Exactly. Apologists are pretty much all intellectually dishonest to the core. Then, again, faith itself is intellectually dishonest.
If we're being honest, everyone is biased in one way or another. Personally, I don't find Ehrman's quibbling on small details convincing enough to discredit the agreement between the gospel accounts. Minor differences in detail has always been a feature of legitimate eyewitness testimony
Really enjoyed this conversation
There’s no telling how many people’s faith has been destroyed by Bart Ehrman. I know he was an evangelical Christian who turned atheist. Of course, he claims it’s because he became educated & realized the Bible is fake, has errors or some similar phrase, but I think it was actually a heart or pride or psychological issue. Does anyone have any idea what happened to him?
He never said anything about «the bible being fake» and he has even stated his deconversion had nothing to do with his biblical studies. It was becaus of the question of evil, because it is impossible for a rational person to reconcile a loving and omnipotent god with all the evil that exists in the world.
He also grew up in a tradition of Biblical literalism. So, when it turns out that the Bible is a collection of ancient documents that use the metaphors, symbols, and literary styles of the time periods in which they were respectively written, he balked. It's like when people walk away from the faith because they had a bad experience with a pastor. More of an emotional response than anything else. Then you commit to the idea, build your entire career around it, and being wrong simply isn't an option.
@@deadfileman He’s beloved by the elites, media, celebrities, etc. for “proving the Bible wrong” so he can hardly back away from that & lose all the $$$$ for his books & his seat at the cools kids table.
He tweeted something a few years ago on Christmas about how great, comforting it was to believe in Jesus, etc. It was something like how sad it is on Christmas for there to be no God, etc. It was heartbreaking because you could sense his desperation for Jesus, church services during Christmas, etc. I felt so badly for him.
@@southbug27he donates EVERYTHING FRKM HIS BOOKS SALES AND HIS WEBSITE. Last year alone, he donated over half a million. Look at his interview with Matt Dillahunty where he states this.
@@user-vh7ks8px3s
The evil comes from the Devil and from us, our behaviour when we walk away from God. Evil does not come from God.
How do you know Matthew wrote Matthew? Doesnt any remember how often this line would be used
If ancient peoples didn’t trust anonymous writings, what should we do with the book:letter of Hebrews of the New Testament?
Actually this was not in the original Muratorian canon. It was heavily debated in the 4th century because of its uncertain authorship, so indeed it was distrusted at first.
@@therealaquacreein the West it was, however in the east, they all say Paul worte Hebrew, Clemens of Alexandria Cyril of Jerusalem, and many more say it was Paul
We should still look at tax collectors that way.
But, Kata Lucas, Matthew, Mark... means "According to..." "in the Tradition of ..." It does NOT mean "Written By..."
So "The manuscript evidence very strongly supports the authorship of the Gospels" with one exception. But that same evidence also is 100% consistent with the anonymity of the Gospels authorship (based on the manuscript dates), and the one exception is consistent with anonymity. A point that isn't mentioned here. As are most problems with this position. Which is why many scholars completely disagree with Dr. Bergsma on this. Why is it that it's mostly Christian scholars that agree with him, but scholars without a dog in this fight do not?
Just saying.
Can we use your logic on gender ideology, green energy, and global warming ( only people with a dog in that fighr agree with their premises)?
@@el_killorcure Of course. If it's disproportionately people with a vested interest in an outcome that supports their preconceived positions that hold to that outcome, then that should cause you to question the veracity of their conclusions. That would seem obvious to me?
@@nickbrasing8786 I can respect consistency (like pro choice people who are thus against vax mandates: for "my body my choice" either applies to everyone or no one)
To your suggestion that it is Christian scholars' beliefs, and not the historical evidence, that lead them to these conclusions. The non-Christian scholars you mention may not believe in Christianity, but they do have a world view and certain grounding assumptions that mean they are not neutral either. What is at stake in the question of Gospel authorship? If the Gospels were in fact written by apostles or their disciples, that makes it more difficult to say they are not historically accurate. It means they contain eyewitness testimony to miracles and the resurrection, which purport to be direct interventions of God in history. Just because eyewitnesses make these claims doesn't mean they are true, but it makes them more difficult to explain. They are much easier to explain if you can say that the authors were in fact not eyewitnesses. Back to the many scholars who disagree with Dr. Bergsma. They are essentially university-trained historians of religion and miraculous events are by definition excluded from the explanations they offer for historical events. So, if you are one of those historians, confronted with evidence for and against traditional authorship of the gospels, you are necessarily going to be skeptical of traditional authorship, because otherwise you have to confront the much more difficult problem of explaining well-attested accounts of divine intervention.
@@joehay5094 An interesting response Joe. But you misunderstand my point. I'm not at all saying what you claim here. I'm saying that scholars DO look at the historical evidence (that's what scholars do after all?) and it's almost always only the Christian scholars that come to the conclusion that the Gospels are written by the people whose names appear on them today. And asking why, if the evidence is so good and compelling, that it's only Christians that come to that conclusion?
And it has nothing to do with miracles and everything to do with the historical evidence. Authorship has absolutely nothing to do with whether the work contains miracles or not. Did Homer write the Iliad and the Odyssey? Historians and scholars couldn't care less that the book says that Achilles was dipped in the river Styx to make him unkillable. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether Homer wrote it or not. Not even the worldview that the underworld doesn't have a river with magical powers. Or does for that matter. It has no bearing on the authorship. And the same is true of the Gospels. Sorry. My question still stands.
The degree of intellectual dishonesty used by apologists is breathtaking. I have heard "Christians" say that the bible does not say god is all-knowing (it does). I have heard "Christians" say that God is not going to punish those who do not obey him correcty (he does). I have heard "Christians" deny that a God who creates small animals, like humans, knowing he will be eternally punishing almost all of them (because he says few will obey) is committing worse than textbook psychopathy. Budding psychopaths torture small animals. Mature psychopaths torture and kill them. Only the biblical God creates beings knowing that he will be torturing, with suffering in this life, and punishing eternally just about all of them. It makes it hard to imagine how causing and executing the suffering itself was part of the purpose of creation. I mean, the point is that he wants to obeyed, adored, and grlorified. Nice guy. Now, he had limitless options. But THIS one, full of suffering for both defenseless animals and defenseless himans, in the latter case eternal, was the one he chose? Yet we are told he LOVES us? THIS is how he chose to LOVE us? But "Christians" will squirm out of this with, again, breathtaking intellectual dishonesty. The same sort employed in this and every other apologist video. The sun is blue. They insist the sun is blue.
I'm pretty sure tax collectors are still regarded as the same in modern day...
Let's be honest.
The earliest manuscripts of the Gospels, like the ones found in the Chester Beatty Papyri and the Bodmer Papyri, do not include titles. They were written anonymously.
> Chester Beatty Papyri
The beginning and ends of the fragments in this set of Gospels aren't there; you can't say they are anonymous (as discussed in the video.) On the contrary, the Gospels are ordered in their traditional order (Matthew-Mark-Luke-John), suggesting a conformity with the traditional authorship.
> Bodmer Papyri
I couldn't find a definitive answer to this. Regardless, the end is missing. I believe Dr. Bergsma mentions this, but because the end is missing you can't conclusively call it anonymous.
@thefly6537 These manuscripts are fragmentary, but their content and structure reveal that they did not originally contain the titles like “The Gospel According to Matthew,” which were added later. The titles “According to Matthew,” “According to Mark,” etc., appear in the manuscripts from the 4th century onwards. Historical evidence shows that these titles were added as the Gospels were becoming canonized, rather than being part of the original texts. The earliest direct quotations from the Gospels come from Justin Martyr and the Didache, who referred to these texts as "the Memoirs of the Apostles" and "the Gospel of the Lord," respectively, without attributing them to the disciples. Justin Martyr also claimed that the Apostles were illiterate and spread teachings orally, which implies they could not have written the Gospels themselves. This suggests that the Gospels were considered anonymous in the early years of Christianity.
> The titles “According to Matthew,” “According to Mark,” etc., appear in the manuscripts from the 4th century onwards.
Misleading. The current consensus is that Papyrus 75 dates to around 200, and it gives the appropriate credit to Luke and John.
@@thefly6537 The presence of titles in Papyrus 75 showing “According to Luke” and “According to John” indicates that by this time the Gospels were being attributed to these figures, but it does not provide evidence of who actually wrote the texts. Attribution was based on tradition rather than historical fact. There is overwhelming evidence that the Gospels were written anonymously. 2nd century attribution isn't evidence.
@@josephhamilton6724 You said, and I quote:
The titles “According to Matthew,” “According to Mark,” etc., appear in the manuscripts from the 4th century onwards."
You're moving the goalposts.
> There is overwhelming evidence that the Gospels were written anonymously
You keep repeating this when the earliest sources keep insisting that these four wrote the Gospels. There is no compelling evidence that the Gospels were written anonymously; it's all conjecture and an argument from silence.
Thank you.
Well sir, what is the oldest manuscript? Which date? 99AD?
Big down vote for the "don't read it" - let people read stuff and make up their minds. Why should they just take your word for what's in the book?
I advise Christians to tone down their arrogance, it is off-putting which is counterproductive.
It was obviously meant as a joke, relax
The same could be said of any other writing from antiquity How old is the oldest extant copy of julius CaesRs Gallic wars
Well, I guess Thursday didn't put the link in the description after all.
Perhaps in the longer version of this interview?
@@Vincenzo-wn1or ohhh, right.
ruclips.net/video/Zn7lmu0pek0/видео.htmlsi=y-XUaIXJhwuOEoJK
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and the Holy Spirit.
I prefer Holy Ghost. It puts it in the right perspective. Boo!
People distrust unattributed information? My unskeptical friends' Facebook feeds say otherwise.
So who wrote them?
The apostles
We should continue to look at tax collectors in that way
Only to skeptics
Too short.
Biblical scholars tell us that Mark came before Matthew. But the church fathers tell us that Matthew came first. The "scholars" base their dating on textual analysis. They say that Matthew must have copied Mark because it contains material that is also contained in Mark. That is utter nonsense.
Suppose we had four biographers of Edison. One was Edison's best friend. He was a member of Edison's inner circle. (Let's call him John.) Another was one of Edison's chief scientists. He was not absolutely in the inner circle, but he worked with Edison on a daily basis. (Let's call him Matthew.) Then, there was one who hung out at the labs as a kid and later went to work as an assistant to Edison's chief researcher and foreman of the Edison labs. (Let's call him Mark.) And finally, there is a careful historian who talked to all of the people close to Edison and did meticulous historical research. He is the friend and assistant to the top salesman of Edison's inventions -- though neither the salesman nor the historian ever met Edison alive. (Let's call him Luke.)
Would it surprise anyone that these biographers had material in common? Even if they wrote completely independently. wouldn't all of the biographers talk about the invention of the phonograph and light bulb? Wouldn't they even contain some of the same quotes from Edison?
If all of that is true for Edison, why must it be different in the case of Jesus? Many biblical "scholars" park any common sense they have at their office door. They seem to do their best to avoid applying any common sense whatsoever to their work.
@@JustADudeGamer Again, go back to Edison. Would it be any surprise if there were passages in the biographies that were nearly identical? How many ways can you say, "Edison invented the lightbulb"?
Seriously, people reporting the same incidents about the same people are often going to have similar wording. That is almost unavoidable.
@@CCoburn3 No, for instance the Gospel of John does not have the exact same wording
@@tomasrocha6139 You haven’t READ the Gospel of John. If you had, you would know John says “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The first chapter makes it CRYSTAL CLEAR that Jesus is the Word made flesh. Thus, Jesus IS God.
@@CCoburn3 What does that have to do with John not having the exact same wording as the Synoptic Gospels do?
@@tomasrocha6139 Sorry. I got you mixed up with someone else I was talking to about John. Mea Culpa.
If John HAD the same words, you would suspect that John copied the Synoptics. Of course, in some cases, all four Gospels might have the same words -- or close. But each Gospel was written for a different audience. They covered the same theme but from different perspectives. And they chose different elements of Jesus's life to illustrate.
It is no surprise that the Gospels don't all have the same wording. Nor is it any surprise when they use the same words (or similar words) to report the same occurrences.
Scribes wrote most of the Gospels for the "Gospel writers"
I don't have strong reasons to doubt that, but why do you think that?
@@FrJohnBrownSJ (two Popes ago) I was given the choice of "Bible Historian" or "Theologian". I chose Bible Historian lol
No longer certified but clear recollection of that.
@@FrJohnBrownSJ just like that "aleph tav Bible" in reality certain apostles hiding from certain death in Rome at the time would sign their letters "aleph tav" to hide the authorship and Christian subject matter from authorities. It's a nice novelty idea, but the truth is far from the presentation of the "Aleph Tav Bible"
@@ArchDragon888 I'm just curious because I was told the same thing but never shown any evidence in support of the idea.
@@FrJohnBrownSJ little physical evidence will withstand the test of time but historic evidence remains by the grace and power of God to support this teaching.
Just like the story of Moses having the creation dream we have 3rd hand accounts of a second hand account but by faith in God and the wonders of science, big bang, evolution, and Pangaea can be read about in the Bible through the eyes of God's chosen over 3,000 years ago.
We have the evidence in hand to support what was once "faith alone" in the book of Genesis.
Same goes for surviving fragments of Gospels and the Coming of Christ as well as first and second hand accounts that have survived into modern era.
I am sorry but the gospels were not written by anyone we know. Brant Pitre and Dr Bergsma make the EXACT same mistake at 1:19 in this video. Yes all the manuscripts we have are attributed but all the manuscripts we have are AT BEST 1st half of the second century and that is a very conservative take. We have no Gospels before the time of Iraeneus that indicate the name of the gospels ALONG with the fact that outside of the title of the gospels there is absolutely no internal evidence (outside of John) that the gospels were written by the persons name in the title. Luckily as Catholics THIS DOESN'T MATTER. We believe the gospels because of the Witness of the early church not because of the authors. If St Pauls missing letter showed up that wouldn't necessarily be considered scripture just because he wrote.
The manuscripts are earlier than those of many other books from antiquity. So I don't see why the date of the manuscripts is a point against the titles being original to the gospels. We do have internal evidence for Luke from Acts (which even sceptical scholars admit is by the same author), and indirect internal evidence for both Matthew and Luke (Matthew includes a lot of money and tax related material, Luke uses detailed medical terminology, and his introduction is in the style of a medical textbook).
And even as a non-Catholic, the witness of the early church is good evidence (since external attestation is one of the major methods of determining the author of a work from antiquity).
@@stephengray1344 Yeah there is no debate on whether the gospel of Luke and Acts are by the same author, just like the pastoral letters of Paul are probably by the same person (despite not being written by Paul) however my point is there is absolutely no internal evidence which indicates a person named Luke wrote either book. Also recall the early church evidence actually indicates the Gospels are anonymous, for example Papias of Hierapolis quote the gosepls we have (I believe Matthew and Mark) but never once referred to them as Mark or Matthew but only the "sayings of Jesus" so the earliest Church fathers before St Iraeneus even referred to them as anon.
@@eogh All we have of Papias is a handful of citations. Which include him saying that both Matthew and Mark wrote gospels. Yes, it's possible that he's citing sayings of Jesus as he heard from eyewitnesses or those one remove from eyewitnesses (which are the sources he used for his own, now lost, work), or from some lost gospel. But given that his quotes match books which bear the names of Matthew and Mark in all manuscripts where the title is extant, and which every other ancient source attributes to Matthew and Mark it doesn't seem very likely. The fact that the extant citations of Papias don't attribute the citations to a gospel author doesn't tell us anything about whether they were circulating anonymously - ancient authors frequently cited something without giving us the title of the work. You see it all the time within the gospels, when they are citing the Tanakh.
Yes, ignoring the title, Luke only explicitly tells us that he was a companion of Paul, which parts of Paul's journeys he was present for, and that he is very familiar with medical literature. But that's more identifying information than we get from John when ignoring the title (who only identifies himself as a disciple who was very close to Jesus).
“But all the manuscripts we have are at best 1st half of the 2nd century”
The entire premise that the gospels are anonymous are literally based off of an argument from silence. What reason would you possibly have to believe that they didn’t attribute their names or that people didn’t even know who wrote them. It’s such a ridiculous claim
Well as I said, the earliest references too mark and Matthew don't call them that. All the manuscripts we have of them date much later to their date of composition and after Ireaneus gave them the traditional names. None of the gospels themselves internally say they are written by mark, Luke Matthew or john.
So it's not so much an argument for silence but a recognition that the names given to the gospels are not original to the gospels.
Gospels have names, but the person is not identified. Blind sheep
So it every ancient boom
All of the gospels in the Canon are authored anonymously. This is abundantly clear.
It's almost as if you didn't watch the video. You certainly don't make any arguments in support of your lie. Go talk among your lying atheist community, you liar.
"The sky is red. This is abundantly clear." See, I can do it too. What manuscript evidence do you have that supports the idea that the gospels were anonymous?
@waffleman1299 Let's start with the Gospel of Mark. Does the author identify himself? Yes or no.
@@Theo_Skeptomai First, I will begin by saying that the earliest manuscripts of Mark that preserve the beginning and endings (Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Washingtonianus, Codex Vaticanus, etc.) attribute the gospel to Mark. So yes, given the manuscript evidence, the author is identified as Mark. You may object and say that these examples are from the fourth century, but the burden of proof is on those who make the positive claim that gospels were originally anonymous and names were given to them later on-of which no manuscript evidence exists that I am aware of.
Next, the assertion that Mark's gospels was an invention of the 2nd century doesn't pass the common sense test. The theory assumes that scribes somehow coordinated in Jerusalem, Syria, Egypt, Rome, France, etc. to attribute this anonymous gospel to Mark. It seems more incredible to me that they supposedly pulled off this hoax without failure - without wrongly attributing Mark to some other gospel writer or vice versa than Mark just being the original author of the gospel.
Third, Mark was not an eyewitness of Jesus, which doesn't make sense if the goal were to pass off a gospel as legitimate (why not pick an apostle who knew Jesus?)
The letters of Paul in the NT identify Mark as a "man of circumcision" (Jewish), a cousin of Barnabas, Paul's fellow missionary and Peter's interpreter. We know that Mark was with Paul during his imprisonment. We know that Mark's mother, Mary, lived in Jerusalem and that he traveled with Barnabus and Paul. Acts describes an episode where Mark had a dispute with Paul, where Mark and Barnabus part ways with Paul on their missionary journey. Mark is described to have been with Peter in Rome.
Extrabiblical sources also speak authoritatively on Mark and his gospel.
Papias of Hierapolis (written ~130 AD): "And the elder [John] used to say this: "Mark, having become Peeter's interpreter, wrote down accurately everything he remembered, though not in order, of the things either said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, followed Peter, who adapted his teachings as needed but had no intention of giving an ordered account of the Lord's sayings. Consequently, Mark did nothing wrong in writing down some things as he remembered them, for he made it his one concern not to omit anything that he heard or make any false statement in them."
Irenaeus of Lyons (written ~180 AD): "After their [Peter and Paul's] departure, Mark also, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the things which were preached by Peter."
Clement of Alexandria (written ~200 AD): "But a great light of godliness shone upon the minds of Peter's listeners that they were not satisfied with a single hearing or with the oral teaching of the divine proclamation. So, with all kinds of exhortations, they begged Mark (whose gospel is extant), since he was Peter's follower, to leave behind a written record of the teaching given to them verbally, and did not quit until they had persuaded the man, and thus they became the immediate cause of the scripture called "The Gospel According to Mark." And they say that the apostle, aware of what had occurred because the Spirit had revealed it to him, was pleased with their zeal and sanctioned the writing for study in the churches."
@@Theo_Skeptomai First, I will begin by saying that the earliest manuscripts of Mark that preserve the beginning and endings (Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Washingtonianus, Codex Vaticanus, etc.) attribute the gospel to Mark. So yes, given the manuscript evidence, the author is identified as Mark. You may object and say that these examples are from the fourth century, but the burden of proof is on those who make the positive claim that gospels were originally anonymous and names were given to them later on-of which no manuscript evidence exists that I am aware of.
Next, the assertion that Mark's gospels was an invention of the 2nd century doesn't pass the common sense test. The theory assumes that scribes somehow coordinated in Jerusalem, Syria, Egypt, Rome, France, etc. to attribute this anonymous gospel to Mark. It seems more incredible to me that they supposedly pulled off this hoax without failure - without wrongly attributing Mark to some other gospel writer or vice versa than Mark just being the original author of the gospel.
Third, Mark was not an eyewitness of Jesus, which doesn't make sense if the goal were to pass off a gospel as legitimate (why not pick an apostle who knew Jesus?)
The letters of Paul in the NT identify Mark as a "man of circumcision" (Jewish), a cousin of Barnabas, Paul's fellow missionary and Peter's interpreter. We know that Mark was with Paul during his imprisonment. We know that Mark's mother, Mary, lived in Jerusalem and that he traveled with Barnabus and Paul. Acts describes an episode where Mark had a dispute with Paul, where Mark and Barnabus part ways with Paul on their missionary journey. Mark is described to have been with Peter in Rome.
Extrabiblical sources also speak authoritatively on Mark and his gospel.
Papias of Hierapolis (written ~130 AD): "And the elder [John] used to say this: "Mark, having become Peeter's interpreter, wrote down accurately everything he remembered, though not in order, of the things either said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, followed Peter, who adapted his teachings as needed but had no intention of giving an ordered account of the Lord's sayings. Consequently, Mark did nothing wrong in writing down some things as he remembered them, for he made it his one concern not to omit anything that he heard or make any false statement in them."
Irenaeus of Lyons (written ~180 AD): "After their [Peter and Paul's] departure, Mark also, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the things which were preached by Peter."
Clement of Alexandria (written ~200 AD): "But a great light of godliness shone upon the minds of Peter's listeners that they were not satisfied with a single hearing or with the oral teaching of the divine proclamation. So, with all kinds of exhortations, they begged Mark (whose gospel is extant), since he was Peter's follower, to leave behind a written record of the teaching given to them verbally, and did not quit until they had persuaded the man, and thus they became the immediate cause of the scripture called "The Gospel According to Mark." And they say that the apostle, aware of what had occurred because the Spirit had revealed it to him, was pleased with their zeal and sanctioned the writing for study in the churches."
He failed to mention that these complete gospel manuscripts come from 200 AD at the EARLIEST. Most are from after Constantine and the Middle Ages
And? The burden of proof is on those claiming that the gospels were originally anonymous, since they are making the claim. What manuscript evidence is there for anonymous gospels?
LOL! They're both delusional
Show lots of bias is here already lovely exactly what I expected
What is your rebuttal? How are they biased?
@waffleman1299 I'm biased to the information that can be validated with sufficient evidence with logic and reasoning. So my preferences don't mean or make something true. Even in many of the red letter Edition Bibles discuss how the gospels are anonymous. Furthermore the gospels of chock full a historical inaccuracies and contradictions plague throughout
@@bpdrumstudio You described being objective, which is the opposite of being biased but whatever. Why do you think the Gospels are anonymous? Saying, "because the red letter Bibles said so" is circular reasoning and a fallacious appeal to authority. You need actual evidence to back your positive claim. In regards to the supposed contradictions, legitimate eye witness testimony-which is what the Gospels are-will always differ, as it does today with police interrogations. The idea that the cannon of scripture came down from heaven is more of an Islamic of Fundamentalist view of the Bible.