Excellent. I heard somewhere the gospel of Luke and Acts was written by Luke the Physician who followed Paul and perhaps for a time also followed Peter. That is why Acts has so much about Peter in the first half and Paul in the second. Not sure if that can be affirmed.
Something to consider, in 1 Timothy 5, Paul quotes the Gospel of Luke and calls it Scripture. 1 Timothy couldn't have been written any later than the mid 60s AD, which means Luke was probably early 60s at the latest, and both Matthew and Mark would have to be even earlier.
While that is interesting, Paul is most likely citing a tradition of Jesus, just as he cites a tradition that comes from Jesus in 1 Corinthians about the bread being the body of Christ. It is very likely he received this tradition from the Apostles.
@SanctusApologetics That is certainly possible, no question. Though I would add that Paul doesn't say "As the Lord commanded", "As the Apostles teach," or "In accordance with Tradition," etc, but rather "As the Scriptures say" which suggests some sort of written record viewed as holy.
Except that most modern Biblical scholars (including Christian Biblical scholars) consider 1 Timothy to be pseudepigraphic. Meaning Paul didn't really write it. It was likely written at the end of the first century, or probably early in the second. So the fact that it quotes Luke is not surprising, given that Luke existed at the time that the letter was written. You have to be very careful when you get into things like this. Saying that 1 Timothy was written in the mid 60's goes against the majority of Biblical scholarship here. So you can't just state that as if it were fact unfortunately. It gets complicated...
@@SanctusApologetics Except Biblical scholarship overwhelmingly agrees that 1 Timothy was not actually written by Paul. But was written by someone else after the Gospel of Luke was written. So no surprise it could quote Luke at all. You can't use a pseudepigraphic letter on this point. Which I know you're not doing, but Luke was receiving the same tradition in his Gospel. He as much as tells us that up front.
@nickbrasing8786 That is an interesting theory (everybody has theories). However, among the earliest post-Apostolic church fathers (I know Ignatius for sure, but there may be others), folks who knew at least one (possibly multiple) disciples personally reference 1 Timothy as scripture, so it was either written by Paul or someone with similar church clout right around the same time, who then claimed to be Paul and no one who either knew Paul or the other Apostles noticed.
if you’re still interested, @valorthodoxia makes very good videos and made one ~a month ago over the perpetual virginity of the blessed mother. another video i can reccomend is one by @anandaapologetics , along with his other videos and videos of his past debates. if you have any further questions please let me know.
Justin Martyr specifically calls all 12 of the disciples "illiterate". You're using the word "apostle" as if it means "disciples" and it does not. Apostle could mean anyone preaching the word. And when you combine that with the fact t hat Martyr says the original 12 were illiterate, then you end up arguing that the authors of the 4 Gospels were not any of the disciples. Plus, the author of Luke/Acts also specifically says that John was illiterate too. Which would be consistent with 97% of the people of the time there. As to Papias, we don't really know what all he said since none of his writings have survived. What we do know is that Irenaeus who provides some quotes from him thought he was prone to exaggeration, and was a man of very low intellect. But even ignoring that, Papias only mentions two of the Gospels anyway. And based on his description, neither of these can possibly be the Gospels we have today in the Bible. So I'm not really sure how far Papias really gets you? The fact is, the earliest Church fathers (prior to the second half of the second century) that we have, quote extensively from the Gospels and never once attributes a name to them. Not one. But everyone after the second half of the second century does? This is positive evidence that the names were added later, probably based on the fact that there were many Gospels coming out at the time that did have names attached to them. Consider this question. Why would Matthew (if he were the author), in describing how he first met Jesus, copy that story from Mark? A person who was not there? Because that's what we have. Copied nearly word for word in the original Greek. Why? Why would he not tell us himself in his own words, but instead copy the story from someone who was not there? The majority of the evidence points to the names being attributed later. And the arguments in favor of the names are mostly arguments from silence. That's just unfortunately what we're left with.
@@wungabunga You should have kept ready frankly. This is only one fact. There are many many better that support the later anonymous authorship. As an example, why would Matthew, and eyewitness to Jesus, when telling the story of how he personally met Jesus copy that story from Mark? Who wasn't even there? Something to think about if you're not interested in researching
@@Dee-nonamnamrson8718 So you disagree with Paul then. On what basis? And there is a big difference between being able to do basic reading and writing, and being able to create literally works.
Jesus Christ wrote the Gospels. And the Old Testament. And the balance of the New Testament. Hebrews 12:2 King James Version 2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. John 1 King James Version 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
I really don't understand why there is always such controversy over the Gospels, and who wrote them. In addition I would tend to believe Christians of the 1st century who understood the sequence to be Matthew, Mark Luke and John. Matthew was a tax collector, and as such must have spoken, Aramaic, Greek, Latin and probably Hebrew. His Gospel is essentially and "accounting" through inspection of the Old Testament of how Jesus fulfilled all prophesies and was the promised Messiah, the Son of God. He wrote before 70 AD as his mention of the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD was a Prophesy from Christ, not a discussion of current history. Mark, it is well established was a follower of Peter, who was spreading the word of Christ as was Paul. Peter's followers commented that it would be good for Mark to document what Peter was preaching, and Peter agreed. Luke, regardless of his being Jew or Gentile was a follower of Paul, and a very accurate historian, who wanted to, as he said, communicate the events that defined the Life and Death of Christ before they were lost to time. John was the "Beloved Apostle" who spent his time spreading the word, through both historical accounts from his memory, but more importantly a more clear theological understanding and explanation of who Jesus was, and his being one with God the Father. Are there differences? Yes but in fact very few. The vast majority of each Gospel tells the same story from 4 different personal perspectives, with 3 Gospels being derived from the Apostle Matthew, Peter, and John, with the last being a follower of Paul. Paul himself was immensely knowledgeable in the relevance of the Messiah to the Jews being a member of the Pharisee.
Wonderful video. How would you resond to the charge that the earliest attributions we have, excluding Papias, who is controversial, are late late 2nd century manuscripts and Irenaeus, who is also late 2nd century. This objection would state we can only be confident that these titles were given to the Gospels in the mid 2nd century, bolstered by Ignaius of Antioch, the Didache, Polycarp, and Justin Martyr quoting these books but not giving their author?
Well firstly I would say that Papias is early second century, and furthermore if we’re being consistent in our historical standard then there’s no issue with their attributions being in the second century. as Tacitus’s authorship comes from the 4th century(300 years after Tacitus). so the gospels already have a leg up historically. Justin Martyr also attributes the gospels to the Apostles, so I would still 100 percent use him as cultamative evidence.
@@SanctusApologetics But Justin Martyr specifically calls all 12 of the disciples "illiterate" too. You're using the word "apostle" as if it means "disciples" and it does not. Apostle could mean anyone preaching the word. And when you combine that with the fact t hat Martyr says the original 12 were illiterate, then you end up arguing that the authors of the 4 Gospels were not any of the disciples. Plus, the author of Luke/Acts also specifically says that John was illiterate too. Which would be consistent with 97% of the people of the time there. As to Papias, we don't really know what all he said since none of his writings have survived. What we do know is that Irenaeus who provides some quotes from him thought he was prone to exaggeration, and was a man of very low intellect. But even ignoring that, Papias only mentions two of the Gospels anyway. And based on his description, neither of these can possibly be the Gospels we have today in the Bible. So I'm not really sure how far Papias really gets you? The fact is, the earliest Church fathers (prior to the second half of the second century) that we have, quote extensively from the Gospels and never once attributes a name to them. Not one. But everyone after the second half of the second century does? This is positive evidence that the names were added later, probably based on the fact that there were many Gospels coming out at the time that did have names attached to them. Consider this question. Why would Matthew (if he were the author), in describing how he first met Jesus, copy that story from Mark? A person who was not there? Because that's what we have. Copied nearly word for word in the original Greek. Why? Why would he not tell us himself in his own words, but instead copy the story from someone who was not there? The majority of the evidence points to the names being attributed later. And the arguments in favor of the names are mostly arguments from silence. That's just unfortunately what we're left with.
@@nickbrasing8786Disciple is not exclusively separate from Apostles and the latter is both a subset of the former and at times are referred to in the name as the former. We would have to examine context in each case to determine if mentions of words like disciple, student, follower, servant etc may apply to one of the Apostles or not. One also must contend that even if the Apostles were illiterate, the use of scribes even for the literate was common practice in the Roman Empire at the time. And there is the possibility that even were the Apostles illiterate largely at the time they followed the Lord, that does not mean the necessarily remained such. I am certain of the case for or against it, but it may show we simply have insufficient evidence to rule out the matter and so it being worth investigating and that the Faith is not necessarily undermined as being accurate which, is the entire point of this. What arguments from silence do you mean though? You yourself use at least one argument from silence in presenting the counter case besides.
Comment Feedback!
Tell you what, I'll even leave another comment for traction. Your channel is going to grow quickly, my friend. May God bless your work.
Thank you brother, may God bless you as well!
Thank you for your beautiful work my brother, Praise God!
This is a very good channel . The small sub 10 min clips are amazing . I’ve watched a few of them already and I just found it
Excellent. I heard somewhere the gospel of Luke and Acts was written by Luke the Physician who followed Paul and perhaps for a time also followed Peter. That is why Acts has so much about Peter in the first half and Paul in the second. Not sure if that can be affirmed.
Something to consider, in 1 Timothy 5, Paul quotes the Gospel of Luke and calls it Scripture. 1 Timothy couldn't have been written any later than the mid 60s AD, which means Luke was probably early 60s at the latest, and both Matthew and Mark would have to be even earlier.
While that is interesting, Paul is most likely citing a tradition of Jesus, just as he cites a tradition that comes from Jesus in 1 Corinthians about the bread being the body of Christ. It is very likely he received this tradition from the Apostles.
@SanctusApologetics That is certainly possible, no question. Though I would add that Paul doesn't say "As the Lord commanded", "As the Apostles teach," or "In accordance with Tradition," etc, but rather "As the Scriptures say" which suggests some sort of written record viewed as holy.
Except that most modern Biblical scholars (including Christian Biblical scholars) consider 1 Timothy to be pseudepigraphic. Meaning Paul didn't really write it. It was likely written at the end of the first century, or probably early in the second. So the fact that it quotes Luke is not surprising, given that Luke existed at the time that the letter was written. You have to be very careful when you get into things like this. Saying that 1 Timothy was written in the mid 60's goes against the majority of Biblical scholarship here. So you can't just state that as if it were fact unfortunately. It gets complicated...
@@SanctusApologetics Except Biblical scholarship overwhelmingly agrees that 1 Timothy was not actually written by Paul. But was written by someone else after the Gospel of Luke was written. So no surprise it could quote Luke at all. You can't use a pseudepigraphic letter on this point. Which I know you're not doing, but Luke was receiving the same tradition in his Gospel. He as much as tells us that up front.
@nickbrasing8786 That is an interesting theory (everybody has theories). However, among the earliest post-Apostolic church fathers (I know Ignatius for sure, but there may be others), folks who knew at least one (possibly multiple) disciples personally reference 1 Timothy as scripture, so it was either written by Paul or someone with similar church clout right around the same time, who then claimed to be Paul and no one who either knew Paul or the other Apostles noticed.
Great video, as always. Please, if possible, could you make one about the virginity of Mary in the New Testament?
if you’re still interested, @valorthodoxia makes very good videos and made one ~a month ago over the perpetual virginity of the blessed mother. another video i can reccomend is one by @anandaapologetics , along with his other videos and videos of his past debates.
if you have any further questions please let me know.
Justin Martyr specifically calls all 12 of the disciples "illiterate". You're using the word "apostle" as if it means "disciples" and it does not. Apostle could mean anyone preaching the word. And when you combine that with the fact t hat Martyr says the original 12 were illiterate, then you end up arguing that the authors of the 4 Gospels were not any of the disciples. Plus, the author of Luke/Acts also specifically says that John was illiterate too. Which would be consistent with 97% of the people of the time there.
As to Papias, we don't really know what all he said since none of his writings have survived. What we do know is that Irenaeus who provides some quotes from him thought he was prone to exaggeration, and was a man of very low intellect. But even ignoring that, Papias only mentions two of the Gospels anyway. And based on his description, neither of these can possibly be the Gospels we have today in the Bible. So I'm not really sure how far Papias really gets you?
The fact is, the earliest Church fathers (prior to the second half of the second century) that we have, quote extensively from the Gospels and never once attributes a name to them. Not one. But everyone after the second half of the second century does? This is positive evidence that the names were added later, probably based on the fact that there were many Gospels coming out at the time that did have names attached to them.
Consider this question. Why would Matthew (if he were the author), in describing how he first met Jesus, copy that story from Mark? A person who was not there? Because that's what we have. Copied nearly word for word in the original Greek. Why? Why would he not tell us himself in his own words, but instead copy the story from someone who was not there?
The majority of the evidence points to the names being attributed later. And the arguments in favor of the names are mostly arguments from silence. That's just unfortunately what we're left with.
Illiteracy would not stop someone from dictating a Gospel to a scribe. I stopped reading there.
@@wungabunga You should have kept ready frankly. This is only one fact. There are many many better that support the later anonymous authorship. As an example, why would Matthew, and eyewitness to Jesus, when telling the story of how he personally met Jesus copy that story from Mark? Who wasn't even there? Something to think about if you're not interested in researching
Mathew was NOT illiterate. Hard to collect taxes if you cant read or write.
@@Dee-nonamnamrson8718 So you disagree with Paul then. On what basis? And there is a big difference between being able to do basic reading and writing, and being able to create literally works.
@@nickbrasing8786 What are you talking about? Paul never said the disciples were illiterate.
Can you make a video about what Josephus said about Pilate?
Very smart chanel love it
Thank you
WHO ARE THE SCHOLARS ?????
Jesus Christ wrote the Gospels. And the Old Testament. And the balance of the New Testament. Hebrews 12:2
King James Version
2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. John 1
King James Version
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
They were not hand written by Jesus himself but inspired by him
The greatest scam in human history!!
Yes, atheism is.
@SanctusApologetics no, Jesus is the biggest scam in human history.
@@SanctusApologetics True. Not only is atheism the biggest scam; but by far the biggest war-monger and murderer of humans.
dam, bro charred him into coal
Islam is tied with atheism.
I really don't understand why there is always such controversy over the Gospels, and who wrote them. In addition I would tend to believe Christians of the 1st century who understood the sequence to be Matthew, Mark Luke and John. Matthew was a tax collector, and as such must have spoken, Aramaic, Greek, Latin and probably Hebrew. His Gospel is essentially and "accounting" through inspection of the Old Testament of how Jesus fulfilled all prophesies and was the promised Messiah, the Son of God. He wrote before 70 AD as his mention of the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD was a Prophesy from Christ, not a discussion of current history. Mark, it is well established was a follower of Peter, who was spreading the word of Christ as was Paul. Peter's followers commented that it would be good for Mark to document what Peter was preaching, and Peter agreed. Luke, regardless of his being Jew or Gentile was a follower of Paul, and a very accurate historian, who wanted to, as he said, communicate the events that defined the Life and Death of Christ before they were lost to time. John was the "Beloved Apostle" who spent his time spreading the word, through both historical accounts from his memory, but more importantly a more clear theological understanding and explanation of who Jesus was, and his being one with God the Father. Are there differences? Yes but in fact very few. The vast majority of each Gospel tells the same story from 4 different personal perspectives, with 3 Gospels being derived from the Apostle Matthew, Peter, and John, with the last being a follower of Paul. Paul himself was immensely knowledgeable in the relevance of the Messiah to the Jews being a member of the Pharisee.
Very well done. I have a PhD and STL-- I think I know what I am talking about.
Wonderful video. How would you resond to the charge that the earliest attributions we have, excluding Papias, who is controversial, are late late 2nd century manuscripts and Irenaeus, who is also late 2nd century. This objection would state we can only be confident that these titles were given to the Gospels in the mid 2nd century, bolstered by Ignaius of Antioch, the Didache, Polycarp, and Justin Martyr quoting these books but not giving their author?
Well firstly I would say that Papias is early second century, and furthermore if we’re being consistent in our historical standard then there’s no issue with their attributions being in the second century. as Tacitus’s authorship comes from the 4th century(300 years after Tacitus). so the gospels already have a leg up historically. Justin Martyr also attributes the gospels to the Apostles, so I would still 100 percent use him as cultamative evidence.
@@SanctusApologetics But Justin Martyr specifically calls all 12 of the disciples "illiterate" too. You're using the word "apostle" as if it means "disciples" and it does not. Apostle could mean anyone preaching the word. And when you combine that with the fact t hat Martyr says the original 12 were illiterate, then you end up arguing that the authors of the 4 Gospels were not any of the disciples. Plus, the author of Luke/Acts also specifically says that John was illiterate too. Which would be consistent with 97% of the people of the time there.
As to Papias, we don't really know what all he said since none of his writings have survived. What we do know is that Irenaeus who provides some quotes from him thought he was prone to exaggeration, and was a man of very low intellect. But even ignoring that, Papias only mentions two of the Gospels anyway. And based on his description, neither of these can possibly be the Gospels we have today in the Bible. So I'm not really sure how far Papias really gets you?
The fact is, the earliest Church fathers (prior to the second half of the second century) that we have, quote extensively from the Gospels and never once attributes a name to them. Not one. But everyone after the second half of the second century does? This is positive evidence that the names were added later, probably based on the fact that there were many Gospels coming out at the time that did have names attached to them.
Consider this question. Why would Matthew (if he were the author), in describing how he first met Jesus, copy that story from Mark? A person who was not there? Because that's what we have. Copied nearly word for word in the original Greek. Why? Why would he not tell us himself in his own words, but instead copy the story from someone who was not there?
The majority of the evidence points to the names being attributed later. And the arguments in favor of the names are mostly arguments from silence. That's just unfortunately what we're left with.
@@nickbrasing8786Disciple is not exclusively separate from Apostles and the latter is both a subset of the former and at times are referred to in the name as the former. We would have to examine context in each case to determine if mentions of words like disciple, student, follower, servant etc may apply to one of the Apostles or not.
One also must contend that even if the Apostles were illiterate, the use of scribes even for the literate was common practice in the Roman Empire at the time. And there is the possibility that even were the Apostles illiterate largely at the time they followed the Lord, that does not mean the necessarily remained such. I am certain of the case for or against it, but it may show we simply have insufficient evidence to rule out the matter and so it being worth investigating and that the Faith is not necessarily undermined as being accurate which, is the entire point of this.
What arguments from silence do you mean though? You yourself use at least one argument from silence in presenting the counter case besides.
If the apostles wrote the Gospels it wouldn't say according to. It would say authored by. 💯✅✅✅