Manuscript Evidence Proves the Gospels Were Not Anonymous
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 лип 2024
- Skeptical New Testament scholars argue that the Four Gospels in our New Testament are anonymous. There was no original “Gospel According to Matthew,” and the same goes for Mark, Luke, and John. Their titles were left blank originally. Or so the theory goes.
These four gospels allegedly were distributed without titles for almost a hundred years before scribes attached them to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, well after these apostles were dead. Names got assigned to give the four gospels more prestige. Skeptics like Bart Ehrman go on to conclude that because these books were anonymous, they probably aren’t based on eyewitness testimony.
While many NT critics have latched onto this anonymous Gospel theory, I believe that it suffers from some serious flaws.
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Blog post: isjesusalive.com/manuscript-e...
Sources: Brant Pitre, The Case for Jesus amzn.to/2u0mGsB
The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ, Martin Hengel amzn.to/3r65afx
Support me monthly on Patreon: / isjesusalive
Give a one-time gift: paypal.com/isjesusalive
source of map of 1st century Roman Empire commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/...
Even if they are anonymous it doesn't negate the fact they are historically reliable. Plutarch wrote anonymously and so did many other historians. This argument that skeptics bring up is such a red herring.
Yep. Paulogia brings this up a lot, here was my terse response
mobile.twitter.com/IsJesusAlive/status/1360667738725883910
This is excellent! Very well reasoned. And short, so it gives lazy people like me a chance to benefit from the author's hard work. Sincere thanks.
Definitely part of the lazy club😪
Same lol
Lol 😂 Same
"Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered... he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities, but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing... he took special care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements... Matthew put together the oracles in the Hebrew language"
(Papias, Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord, c.110 AD)
"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome... After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia."
(St. Irenaeus Against Heresies, 3.1, c.180 AD)
Before writing any rebuttals, please bear in mind that this is one argument in an upcoming series of videos on gospel authorship. I will be looking at internal as well as other external evidences and considering objections. I should have mentioned that in the video. Stay tuned.
You can head to isjesusalive.com/tag/authorship-of-the-gospels/ to see more of my thoughts on gospel authorship in the meantime.
Hi, will you be addressing the error in this video that there are no early manuscripts with the title missing?
Please note that p1 is contemporaneous to p4. Since p1 does not have a title (inscriptio or subscriptio) then the claim made in the video would be incorrect. Further note that the NA28GNT cites p1 for verses 3 and 5, but not the title.
Kind Regards,
Ijaz.
@@ijazthetrini That’s false there is an earlier manuscript of Matthew with the title attached to it: www.academia.edu/7968729/The_Earliest_Manuscript_Title_of_Matthew_s_Gospel_BnF_Suppl_gr_1120_ii_3_P4_
Also Papyrus 4 predates Papyrus 1 as our earliest fragment of Matthew with the title attached to it and we have Patristic witnesses that predate all these manuscripts that do not cite an anonymous Gospel or conflict on as to who wrote the Gospel attributed to Matthew.
@@ijazthetrini if you're interested in getting an idea of my thoughts on the topic ahead of time see my blog.
isjesusalive.com/tag/authorship-of-the-gospels/
I will address several of the issues you raised.
Internet atheists: “Well, the Gospels themselves don’t claim to be written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John!”
I remember watching a video recently where the Christian defending the Gospels said that of the 80 or so ancient manuscripts that survive today from this time period, 78 are anonymous. Only two had a claim of authorship embedded within them. Quite surprising.
Also, the claim, “We don’t know who wrote the Gospels, so they’re false!” is demonstrably fallacious.
Unknown authorship, even if true, doesn’t automatically disprove obviously eyewitness testimony.
Great video bro!
I agree, your second paragraph is an example of Ad Ignorantium.
Did you even look at when the earliest manuscripts of each of the gospels were written? In the second century, John would have been dead already and the same goes for the earliest manuscripts of each of the gospels. Church tradition is not a valid way of finding the authorship of the gospels.
@@GarrettRatliff96 late dating of the gospels is a bad theory that falls apart. Testify already has videos were he argued for early dating of the gospels.
@@GarrettRatliff96 scholars dont think think they were originally written then. So the dates still match up
@@GarrettRatliff96 mark was not written 50 years later . Even ehrman quotes it as 30. The church know Mark wasnt an apostle whats this have to do with anything.
"Now, skeptics can snobbishly appeal to their scholarly band-wagon." I'm starting to learn that even the scholars use the appeal to authority on Biblical issues. Why does Dr. Bart Ehrman say the Gospels are anonymous? "Because all the scholars say they are anonymous." Why does Dr. William Lang Craig take the Masoretic text over the Septuagint in regards to the ages of Shem's descendants? "Because all the scholars do so." But these are the scholars, -the professionals in the field. I recently heard Dr. Falk from Ancient Egypt and the Bible talking about the Documentary Hypothesis, and how he doesn't have to abide by it because he's not a "Biblical scholar."
The implication seems to be that if you want a degree as a Bible critic, you must conform to these things. If you think the Septuagint got something right over the Masoretic, then you're out of the group. It doesn't matter if the evidence is in favor of the Septuagint. If you disagree with the Documentary Hypothesis, then you're out of the group. It doesn't matter if it is completely lacking evidence. If you believe the Gospels were written by the stated authors, you're out of the group. It doesn't matter how much evidence there is for the authorship of the Gospels.
This is what I call Fiatism, or Fiat-Scholarship. Everybody agrees because they must agree. "Why do you agree?" "Because all the experts agree!" "But you are an expert." "And I agree!" "Why then do the other experts agree?" "Because all the experts agree!" "But if all the experts agree because all the experts agree, then what if some of them just stopped agreeing? What evidence would support what the experts agree on?" "The fact that all the experts agree!"
May God guide and lead you to bring the facts in easy and understandable way. Great video and work ! God bless you
Great apologetics. Short, sharp, and clear.
CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING…All the oldest surviving manuscripts we have were written AFTER author names were attached. We know they originally HAD to be anonymous because the earliest church fathers NEVER mentioned names.
Where are we leaving the holy spirit? Weren't we supposed to be endowed with power? Didnt Paul said that the preaching should be with power, signs and wonders so that mens faith is based on the power of God, rather than the knowledge of men? I say, we ought to start praying and fasting, gettting rid of all hypocrisy, and ask God for him to fills us with his mighty spirit.
He was talking about the apostles being endowed with power - we're not apostles. The gospel has been preached.
Wow! Very well made video! I recently did a series on this same topic! What a coincidence! Also, I really like your editing. What software do you use?
And great sources! Have you looked at the articles by Simon Gathercole on this topic?
Thanks. I use VideoScribe. I haven't looked into Gathercole on this topic, what works of his do you recommend?
@@TestifyApologetics Here’s the article by Gathercole (a Cambridge scholar) that I’m talking about. www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/267312/Anonymity%20of%20the%20Gospels%20Gathercole.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
He references Martin Hengel’s work a lot. It’s a recent article with some very good info.
@@loganpeterjones I too enjoyed the video, thanks for sharing that .PDF, interesting read.
Excellent video! I agree with it. I plan to share it! I thank God for the work put into this (I know a video like this, even though it is short, takes many hours, perhaps days, to make, and that doesn't include all the study that it is based on).
Thanks for sharing! It means a lot to me.
Good information, and well presented.
these videos are awesome, short and clear and helpful
Didnt expect *this* video to say we dont know Paul wrote Hebrews, when the same arguments apply, plus tons of internal evidence. Sure, there is *some* record of doubt, but its quite clear he wrote it.
I really hope your channel blows up
Great video. One correction however: Mark was Peter's scribe, so Mark's Gospel is included as an eye witness testimony. Luke was Paul's scribe.
Not intirely. Luke also has to investigate other people at various location to write his Gospel. That's why he is also known as "Luke the Historian".
According to tradition. There’s very little historical evidence that that’s the case
@@asentientroomba8054 "Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered... he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities, but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing... he took special care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements... Matthew put together the oracles in the Hebrew language"
(Papias, Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord, c.110 AD)
"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome... After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia."
(St. Irenaeus Against Heresies, 3.1, c.180 AD)
@@asentientroomba8054 The fragmentary Rylands Papyrus dates to within thirty years of the apostle John's death in 100 AD. That it is a copy, and that it was found far distant from either Palestine or Ephesus, indicates that the work had already been in wide circulation prior to the that manuscript being produced.
It's so funny how often I hear "majority of biblically scholars agree" to some goofy Bart Ehrman theory
Short, sharp, and clear.
All this suggest is authorship was assigned sometime prior to the second century.
I mean John was written in the 90s
A more accurate dating would be the late 2nd and early 3rd century. I think the case that biblical scholars like Ehrman make stems from not having the original (or 1st century copy) manuscripts and being left only with late 2nd-century material to work with. Sure, you can make a faith-based claim (and rightfully so), but historically, which is what these historians are basing their claim on, it is very hard to make a case for it. As for the similarities in names, are there any manuscripts (from Africa, for example) prior to the 4th century that contain the names of our four Gospels? I'm actually curious. Thank you.
1) Ehrman is an anti-apologist basing his work on the German "higher criticism" which in turn was based on the philosophy of Hegel and Kant, not on anything "historical" at all.
2) no scholar, no matter how critical, dates the gospels that late
3) if you think it's only "faith based" to date them earlier, then you have no idea how historical science even works
4) the earliest complete gospel manuscript is P66 which is dated to around 200.
5) there was no way that suddenly, after decades had passed, everyone just decided to attribute the names to the same gospels, so the names are original. The arguments to the contrary make no sense. To come up with nonsense like that, one has to assume the gospels were written in a "vacuum" and then just suddenly gained authority without anyone knowing who wrote them. This idea is so ridiculous that only persistent brainwashing by people like Ehrman makes anyone believe that. Mostly people who never read any books about the subject and never gave it much thought or looked into the arguments of both sides.
Only the Gospel of John is dated to the early 2nd century at worst, lmao
I have subscribed!
I know this is only your first video and there's only so much you can address in 4 minutes. But everything here is consistent with current Biblical scholarship that says the Gospels are anonymous.
As I'm sure you know, these four Gospels were widely cited in the second century by the early church fathers. None of these citations note a title to the Gospels. Not until the end of the second century do they have attributions associated with them. The titles were added about a century later. All the manuscripts you note in the video are from the period after the titles were added. Consistent with the Biblical scholarship on the subject. We see no attribution before the titles were added, and all the manuscripts you note are consistent with that.
So all the existing manuscript evidence we have supports this position. Which is why most Biblical scholars agree with it. There is no manuscript evidence for names on the four Gospels before this time period. There are other arguments that I'm sure you'll address in your upcoming videos, but the manuscript evidence itself does not support an early attribution to the authors as your title suggests. It shows the opposite. Sorry. It's a complicated subject I know.
I'm looking solely at manuscript evidence in a 5 minute video. It is just part of a cumulative case. In the pinned comment I mention I'll be doing an entire series including objections from modern scholars. Stay tuned or just head to my blog and see what I've written on the topic isjesusalive.com/tag/authorship-of-the-gospels/
@@TestifyApologetics I understand you're looking at manuscript evidence, I'm simply pointing out that all the manuscripts you note support the Gospels originally circulating anonymously and the titles being added at the end of the second century. If you had an earlier manuscript with a title before Irenaeus you would have mentioned it. But you don't. The evidence you note supports the position you want to debunk and not the position you are proposing. That's my point.
And I read your article on John. Very well done. But of the main two points (other than the author not telling us who he was in the Gospel itself) you only "address" one, but not the other. Those two issue are the late date for the writing of John, and the fact that it was written in highly literate Koine Greek. You try to address the latter, but not the former at all. John was the last Gospel written, and was written about 90 CE. Sixty years after Jesus died. Even if we take your claim that John was in his late teens when called to be a disciple (for which you have no evidence), that would make him in his 80's before he sat down and wrote his Gospel. At a time when the average lifespan is maybe 35. Couple this with the fact that it was written by a fisherman in Galilee who spoke Aramaic and you have a tall hill to climb. Especially given that the Gospel author also doesn't tell us who he is.
You do try and address the Greek language, although briefly. You suggest that either John went back to school and learned Koine Greek later in life, or actually knew it all along somehow. Even going so far as to compare scholars who point this out as "conspiracy crackpots". These are not good arguments as you must know. There is no evidence to support any of them. And I'm sorry, but John 18 does not name "another disciple" as John. There is to this day no consensus on who this disciple was. The author doesn't tell us, and your statement as fact that "John had access to Caiaphas’ courtyard" is pure speculation. But even if it were true, it wouldn't mean that John could speak and write Koine Greek in any way. It seems that you are the one who is more on the fringe of scholarship on this subject. And John is the worst Gospel you could have used to make your argument given it's late date.
Then present us with these alleged manuscripts that don't have titles addressed to them and end this debate once and for all.
Bishop Ignatius of Antioch and later Polycarp both quote these gospels long before any council of nicaea or anyone else gave these gospels alleged titles. If these gospels were indeed anonymous, these church fathers would not have taken them so serious and willing to die for them.
@@gregariousguru None of the earliest manuscripts survive, as you probably well know. But as you say, many early Church fathers quote from them. But interestingly enough, the earliest quotations do not reference them by name. Not one. They only start referencing them by name late in the second century. Why do you think that is? You would have to concede that this is consistent with the titles being added around then, right?
I mean this gets really deep and very complicated, but this video was only about the manuscripts. I'm simply pointing out that Testify is using evidence against his position to prove his position. And that seems backwards to me.
@@nickbrasing8786 //They only start referencing them by name late in the second century. Why do you think that is? You would have to concede that this is consistent with the titles being added around then, right?//
No, it's not consistent and the fact they don't mention the names is meaningless. An absence of evidence is literally nothing, and the bigger the absence the bigger your pile of nothing. Concluding anything from a big pile of nothing is an Argument from Ignorance Fallacy. It could easily be they never mentioned the author's names because their audience already knew who the authors were.
We also know what the textual history looks like for Christian writings that were anonymous, such as Hebrews, and pseudepigrapha such as the gnostic gospels. The canonical gospels have no such textual history.
Also, if we're dating things by when they first appear in the textual tradition, then nobody thought the Gospels were anonymous until the 4th century when Faustus raised that challenge against Augustine.
How do you account for the gospels using a literary structure taught as techniques for fiction writing in 1st and 2nd century Greek schools? This is analogous to a non-fiction subject today being written in the form of a novel, with scenes, dialogue, invented symbolism, etc.
You're going to need to provide evidence for this assertion
@@TestifyApologetics It’s not my assertion... I'm asking for your input on a common argument as debated by Burridge, Carrier, Lindell, and others. I’m not saying I assume a position; I'm asking because I want to consider your opinion when forming my own.
Edit: clarity and a typo
Burridge says the Gospels most emulate Greco-Roman biographies. Carrier's theories aren't taken all that seriously by academia for good reasons. I'm not familiar with the others which is why I said I need an argument and not just an assertion about what they resemble, I have nothing to go off of.
@@TestifyApologetics Thanks for the reply!
@Directruth yeah good ol' Richard "Space Cum" Carrier, real respectable dude
I'm curious. Does the papyrus 75 prove that Luke did write Luke and Acts?
yes
@@tafazzi-on-discord how? I'm curious to know how.
Come on, you state eg. papyrus 4 is second century. Scholars date it LATE 2nd century to 4th century. I notice how you use the earliest dates. And 175 CE is over a hundred years after Matthew was written. Almost all scholars give a range of dates as precise dating of ancient manuscripts is very difficult. Papyrus 62 is dated 300 to 400, not second century.
"you said 2nd century instead of late 2nd century"
wut
If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.
The atheist mantra
So your proof that the gospels aren't anonymous is because they're attributed to the authors Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? I mean, I know they're attributed with those gospels, but is that really hard evidence?
what would you consider "hard evidence" at that point?
@@InitialPC Being attributed isn't proof that they were actually written by those authors. In fact, they were all written anonymously and it seems like the Church came to that conclusion for the sake of convenience.
@@multi-milliondollarmike5127 so your counterargument is that they pulled names out of a hat basically, as if that makes more sense than just the gospels were actually written by their traditional authors
being attributed IS proof and its a helluva a lot more than the load of nothing youve offered to prove otherwise
@@InitialPC I don't have to prove anything. The Church made a claim that became Bible canon concerning the authors of the New Testament, but it's just a claim. I guess you don't understand that the burden of proof rest on the one who made the claim, but that's how it works. I understand this might be polarizing, but it's best to take emotions out of the equation and just acknowledge what the reality is here.
Do the four gospels even share a common theology? This would be the proper question.
I believe that they do. isjesusalive.com/18-passages-in-marks-gospel-that-prove-jesus-is-god/
@@TestifyApologetics I understand christians aren't supposed to believe this but the obvious differences of events and details in the 3 synoptic gospels point to the writer of Matthew specifically reframing certain points in Mark and then Luke's writer (also Acts) trying to smooth over between the differences in Mark & Matthew. Then on top of that John's gospel completely reframes the synoptics into a Dionysian style where Jesus who was seemingly confused (why has thou forsaken me) in the first gospel of Mark is shown as an all knowing God man who understood his mission. If the writers of the 4 gospels were inspired then there wouldn't be the need to jump hoops to tie these four gospels into one theology. Then on top of that we can't forget Paul who's writings (which are the oldest parts of the NT) sometime are a complete opposite of what Jesus was supposed to have said. If these were truly inspired texts then their theology would have been more in line with each other. As it stands on close inspection the gospel writers & Paul are not all on the same page. So have you heard of pesher? Pesher is taking a scripture out of the original context and repurposing a select potion as being a "new message" hidden within the old message. Many NT writers engaged in pesher and I would say christians are still using pesher to force fit their theology into the NT texts by taking sections out of their original context to fit their theological bent. Just something for you to chew on. ;)
@@Vina_Ravyn A lot of assertions. Let’s also note that when Jesus asks God “Why hast thou forsaken me” he’s quoting the Old Testament. He’s specifically drawing people to Psalm 22. It’s not Mark admitting He wasn’t omniscient anymore than Matthew (who also says Jesus said this) or even the OT when God asks Adam and Eve a question. No where in scripture does God asking questions ever imply a lack of omniscience. I literally do not see what you say is true at all. There is no contradictions between Paul and Jesus. There’s no conflict in theology at all. These are baseless assertions.
@@gospelfreak5828 So then why do we have lutheran, catholic, baptists, pentacostal etc .. ? Because each has a specific theology. But see if there were no "theology" to bind them and these books were taken each at face value as to what they plainly say the differences in the texts point to each having a specific "theology" they were conveying. See we look through the lens of the 21st century - we read into the texts our concerns. Our culture. The writers of the bible were living in an entirely different culture. We miss loads of nuance by not understanding the culture of the time. And that would lead us to Paul and his dealings with the Jerusalem church. They were not on the same page and argued over various subjects - circumcision dietary laws etc ... I mean it's fine if you wanna throw your church of choices theology on the bible but I would rather read them and study them in the context of what they actually say rather than what my specific theology tells me they say.
@@Vina_Ravyn I literally hold to no denomination. In fact, denominations are completely irrelevant to the discussion so I don’t know why you brought it up. They don’t have a difference in theology. That is looking at the original context. Paul addressed the bad theology of certain Jews still stuck in their Jewish legalistic mindset. Paul is in agreement with Jesus and the Gospels. Not against it. The Gospels teach we are saved through Jesus’ sacrifice and resurrection alone. Jesus was the perfect sacrifice. Jesus knew we couldn’t follow the law perfectly. If the law could save us, Jesus wouldn’t have died in the first place. Jesus had to die, cause we couldn’t be perfect. Jesus made it clear he is the only way to eternal life. When the rich man had said he had followed the whole law perfectly (obviously not) Jesus didn’t decide to correct him there. He said “Ok, but the way to eternal life is this. You must follow me.” That was it. That was the only requirement. Follow him. Paul is correcting certain people who add works of the law to salvation. But they missed the point. Heck, the Pharisees got on Jesus and his disciples for breaking the law. So obviously they were wrong. Paul is in agreement with the central message of the Gospel. Nowhere do the Gospels imply you must believe in Jesus and follow the law to be saved. The only instance of the main apostles even leaning toward this terrible view was when Peter wouldn’t eat with the uncircumcised. He wasn’t teaching you must be circumcised. Even then, he was called out on it by Paul. And nothing suggests Peter didn’t listen. In fact, Acts seems to teach us that Peter got that uncircumcised Gentiles could be saved. It seemed that peer pressure had him being a hypocrite when Paul calls him out, verses Peter originally thinking circumcision was necessary for salvation. It was Peter going against what he taught and being a hypocrite. Not Paul disagreeing with Peter on core theology on what it means to be saved. You obviously don’t know scripture well. I’m not throwing my theology into it. It’s just the facts. They didn’t disagree on the core theology of Christianity. This isn’t my modern lenses. It’s looking at the texts as they are in their context.
I would say there is a good evidence for authorship of Hebrews by Paul. Perhaps not as slam dunk as the 4 Gospels, but still good.
I would be interedred if you would look into the issue of which was first, the Gospels or the letters. One argument for the Gospels being first is the terminology used for Jesus. The terminology used for Jesus in the 2nd century matches the letters much better. Why would the Letters use one group of exalted similar terms, then move back to more resteained terminology in the Gospels, then back to the terminology of the Letters in the 2nd century? I saw a 19th century book making this argument and I know that the more popular view is that the letters are first anf then the gospels, even with early dated Gospels. Thoughts?
Honestly this is just a dumb theory to begin with. If the church wanted to give prestige and authority to the gospels why would they attribute them to Peter's translator and Paul's physician friend? As far as I am aware these are not prominent men who are really known for anything but their authoring of the gospels. Wouldn't they attribute the gospels to actual eyewitnesses if they were trying to give them false authority?
So how that observations disprove Jesus's resurrection?
I wonder how much money atheists like Bart Ehrman make writing books on dumb theories that they even know are false.
The greatest fear of the devil is not about any of the things that can be obtained in this world; his greatest fear is a Christian with a solid faith in the Son of God. Hence, sowing doubts about what God has said will forever be his mission. Bart Ehrman is doing his job aiding the enemy of the soul.
Hi Erik,
Great production quality on the video, I appreciate the work you put into it but I do have some disagreements.
1. P1 is contemporaenous to P4 and does not have any titles. (I'll link a paper in my reply comment to this one so that you can see the references on this).
2. The titles were later emendations to Sinaiticus. (see link in reply comment).
3. Scholars believe that whether or not names were included or later added, the Gospels would still be anonymous, a specific type of anonymous known as homonymous, potentially due to ipsissima vox for credibility.
4. Scholars do not believe that simply due to the titles they are anonymous, rather this is based on source and form criticism, not primarily textual criticism. That said, the case can be made from textual criticism as well.
5. I enjoyed your argument about no conflicting names, but it lacks explanatory scope and power for one simple reason, it seems to presuppose that the identities of the authors were always known and that there was no period when they were not known, if further begs the question by asking if anyone differed on the author's identities but there is an easy response to this. A document goes through various forms of publication, it is likely in the case of the Gospels that before the documents became widespread identities were circulated by word of mouth, eventually becoming tradition and then finding its way into the written text of the Gospels. This isn't some fanciful theory, but rather something demonstrable, much like the story of the adulteress being part of the kerygma, then a floating passage and finally a part of the archetypal texts of the Gospel of John. In this specific example, the words were always spoken by Jesus and the manuscript record demonstrates this attribution but it does not prove that Jesus did speak those words.
6. Plus, we do have disputation of authorship regarding John's Gospel, I believe Bauckham points this out but interprets prebyster to also apply to John, whereas the early Church attached this title to a different John altogether. Additionally, Papias does not seem to get the language Matthew's Gospel correct (though if one insists it meant the autograph and not the archetype the argument still applies).
There's a lot more that can be said on this, but I do note that your video is brief and meant for Christians and not necessarily non-Christians to engage with, though I thought I'd offer some non-Christian perspectives for your future engagement.
Kind Regards.
Link to article with references:
www.academia.edu/35252494/The_Inscriptio_of_the_Gospel_Attributed_to_Matthew
For the future I suggest that both parties look into Lapides and Haydocks(16th Century) prefaces to each gospel as they cover the churches view on the gospels and involve everything from the beginning .As for Matthew it’s said that the church ascribed the name to the gospel but they knew of him and his life etc and it’s canonicity compared to gospel of Thomas etc
WRONG!!! You conveniently left out Papyrus 1, the earliest Page 1 of Matthew, which has no author name on it. Plus, the earliest church fathers never mentioned names.
Actually Papyrus 45 is the older then Papyrus 1... Wikipedia debunks you
Also Church fathers mentioned names but kay
No, those two are dated to around the same time.
And no, the earliest church fathers never mentioned names.
Have you considered that the gosples were written in greek, while if Mark, Mathew, Luke and John were jewish they would have have spoken aramaic and likely be illitterate.
Matthew was a tax collector in Galilee and could have written in Greek and Hebrew. People also think Shakespeare could have not written Hamlet because he had an elementary school education. I write much more on the authorship of the gospels here isjesusalive.com/tag/authorship-of-the-gospels/
And as I said in the pinned comment I will be doing a whole series on authorship issues.
@@TestifyApologetics Do you have any independent attestation that Matthew was a tax collector and could have written in greek and hebrew? Most at that time wrote in aramaic. But nonetheless any independent verification outside of the bible for your claims?
@@Vina_Ravyn why outside the Bible?
@@RiverToTheSeaOfficial Why that would be circular reasoning to use the bible to confirm the bible. Wouldn't it?
@@Vina_Ravyn This is ridiculous. If you want to say “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so I won’t believe the Bible when it says Jesus rose from the dead” then fine. But this level of hyper skeptical is so unwarranted. The Bible makes a claim that Matthew was a tax collector. This isn’t extraordinary. This isn’t something that we have any reason to doubt. It’s not circular reasoning anymore than people examining your dollar bill to make sure it’s authentic is “circular reasoning.” All the information we have on Matthew gives credence to believe he’s a tax collector. Just as all evidence we have on Abraham Lincoln says he’s a president and all information on Josephus is that he was a Jew. These aren’t miraculous or any kind of claim one can reasonably doubt. If you want to doubt Matthew was a tax collector, you don’t have a good standard of history, and you would have to commit special pleading against the Bible. This isn’t how history is done. Let’s also remember the Bible isn’t even one source. It’s multiple sources with multiple books and multiple genres. So each book is evidence. It’s not one source of information.
1:39 There were multiple councils after the apostolic age that gradually standardized the gospels. Each successive council likely was influenced by a previous council. In the first Nicea council, there were bishops from all the Roman empire, so yes bishops from different regions of the Roman empire could communicate with each other.
We have no record of any such council convening to standardize the names of the authors of the gospels
Papias thought Marcion informed GJohn. Marcion's Gospel of the Lord (traditionally a short GLuke) was not attributed to Luke. We hear of some crediting GJohn to Cerinthus due to it's Gnostic overtones. Of the 40 some odd gospels produced we see the monikers of Judas Iscariot [the betrayer], the heretical Basilides and Valentinus , [doubting] Thomas, [prostitute] Mary Magdeline, Nicodemus, Pontius Pilate etc. There is plenty of "Apocryphal" works bearing marginal/problematic character's names.
We first find vague statements about "Mark" and "Matthew" by Papias which we find quoted in by Eusebius in the 4th century, he describes Mark as "chreia" of Peter and non-chronological lacking conjoining narrative which is not at all what we find in our Mark. So this single attestation to GMark being the sporadic "occasional" recollections of Peter should not be simply accepted because we literally have nothing else to go on. Papias seems to be looking at a different document. His descriptions of MAtthew as a translated Hebrew work is similarly puzzeling as Matthew is Greek through-and-through, wherein all Torah quotes come from the LXX Greek OT for example. Justin Martyr (~150CE) quotes gospels that he calls "The Memoirs of the Apostles" We don't even hear of the named gospels until Irenaeus (~180CE) a full century after their authorship, who actually has heard nothing of "Luke" mind you. These things are not so cut-and-dry...
This vid is for those without background in BC that just want to discount "skeptical" scholars for whom they disagree. It's not like this vid points to a paper on the subject challenging the consensus (although I'm sure some could be found) The hubris is unfortunate. Interested christians should be led to study this subject so as not to be duped by yet more simplistic dismissals of scholarship, in where we imagine there is some conspiracy to undermine Christianity by academia. That's sandbox apologetic rhetoric that dumbs everyone down imo.
Bang!
1:30 Those manuscripts where written after the synoptic gospels(more than a century after). So they cannot be used to verify the authorship of the synoptic gospels.
Acts 4:13
"When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus."
The gospel of John was not written by the disciple John because he was illiterate according to the book of Acts....so the author of the gospel of John is anonymous
I deal with this objection in other videos, please see the Who Wrote the New Testament playlist
He could have a scribe to write for him
@@fadisaad1042 there is no evidence whatsoever that a scribe wrote the gospel for him. Your just making random shit up to explain this contradiction
@@openmindedskeptic9014
"He could have hired a scribe"
People in the ancient world did hire scribe's to write for them
Becsuse most of people back then
did not read or write
at the end of john it say's
"This is the apostle john writing And we know that his testmony is true"
@@fadisaad1042 takes away the validity of the gospel had it actually been written by a scribe. And who's to say most of the contents of the gospel were not made up by this scribe? And my statement still stands that the gospel of John is written by an anonymous author
Are theses names even Hebrew names?
Matthew, Mark, Luke!!? John?, Timothy!?
None, Matthew in Hebrew is Mattityahu
Mark comes from the Latin Marcus, this name was given to him (his "actual" name is John, we'll get to that later) during his time with the Romans.
Luke comes from the Latin Lukas, which itself comes from the Greek name Loukas (which means someone from Lucania) which is likely what Luke's actual name was as he was a Greek convert and not a Jew.
John is the most complicated one, it comes from the Latin Iohannes, which comes from the Greek Ioannes, which FINALLY comes from the Hebrew Yochanan.
Like Luke, Timothy was also Greek. His name comes from the Greek Timotheos, which is a combination of the Greek words timao and theos.
TLDR
Matthew = Mattiyahu
Mark = Yochanan "Marcus"
Luke = Loukas
John = Yochanan
Timothy = Timotheos
@@InitialPC could you please explain why you think Mark was actually John that's interesting
@@afd4017 Mark and John, the authors of their respective gospels, are different people.
Mark's real name is believed to be John because traditionally he is said to be the John Mark mentioned in Acts.
I’m done. The very first argument made is atrocious. Our oldest manuscripts don’t have the titles Bc they are only partial remnants. Idk when you start to actually find manuscripts with titles but I know the earliest piece we have is the size of credit card and it’s from the 4th century and I think the old complete gospel manuscript is from the 13th. So somewhere in there I’m guessing you might have one with a title but that’s still hundreds, potentially a thousand, years after they were written. Horrible argument.
Ok bye 👋
He literally lists all of the manuscripts in a table with dates, why don't you just check them
@@papercut7141 can you explain why you think that counters my point? If our oldest manuscripts are not full copies, but merely small pieces of the gospels (perhaps only partial verse) how is that enough to determine if that document originally had an authors name or title on it? Instead of going off some random UA-camr who clearly has a theological bias why not read a book or two written by those who have degrees in this field? If you do that you’ll find that professionals don’t agree with these arguments
@@elguapochango You're right that the oldest copies of the Gospels are only fragments and that you can't tell if they had an author's name on it. That completely refutes the claim that scholars "know" that the author's names were only added in the late second century. Uh, duh, we only start finding substantial manuscripts in the late second century so it's not unexpected that those ones would still have the author's names.
If evidence A is consistent with the truth of proposition P, then the existence of A is not evidence against P. That means manuscripts with authors only appearing in the late second century is not evidence that the originals were anonymous. If you can't understand this, it's not even worth debating you; you're simply too stupid to bother with.
The oldest complete manuscripts of the New Testament documents appear in the early 3rd century and the first complete manuscripts of the entire New Testament appear in the 4th century. Scholars have known about manuscripts older than the 13th century for literally over 600 years. The oldest manuscript used in the original KJV in the 1600s came from the 11th century. You can also literally look up a catalog of what manuscripts exist and when they are from that completely debunks this idea.
Maybe YOU should read a book or two from real scholars so you won't be so obviously wrong next time. The obvious reason why skeptics say the Gospels are anonymous is because if they were written by the traditional authors that would make them more reliable. However, since the Gospels are obviously unreliable (based off of variations of David Hume's debunked argument against miracles) they clearly can't be written by them.
@@TamerSpoon3 I hope you didn’t spend too much time on that. The fact that we have small fragments of the oldest copies is just part of the reason why do you know these are anonymous. Other than the fact that they are never referred to bye they’re now giving names until much much later. The language they were written in, the writing style used by the authors, and certain details listed within them make it highly implausible that they were written by the individuals they are named after. There is essentially no reason to think they are written by the named authors other than church tradition which relies on dubious hearsay at best.
I'm Christian, this argument althought good, its flawed. The same could be said about gnostic gospels, they dont contradict its author's of each instance of a copy. The argument is good, but not strong enough to convince the biggest and baddest atheists.
Both internal and external evidence puts gnostic gospels too late to be truthful in authorship. The canonicals don't have this problem.
no evidence is strong enough for the biggest and baddest atheists
The gospel of Thomas must be true as well then
It started too late and contradicts everything else so we can throw it out
I am not sure you understand what the word "anonymous" means. Also, there are several errors in your ms. dating tables.
Yes, they are anonymous in the sense that they don't directly name themselves as say Paul would at the beginning of his letters. No, I don't think they are probably anonymous in the sense that we have no clue who wrote them.
This is just one video in the series and if I made any errors in the dating tables, feel free to let me know. Unfortunately, UA-cam is not like a blog post where I can change it but perhaps I'll make an updated version of this video at some point. This was one of the first videos I published when I began to regularly upload.
For a more in-depth treatment on the alleged anonymity of the gospels, I'd recommend this paper by Simon Gathercole: drive.google.com/file/d/1ZwgTAhth-tcliFL2YbHpWnC3jOPIJwnR/view?usp=sharing
The gospels are written in the third person, not by the disciples themselves. This is why they are titled "The gospels ("according" ) to Mathew, Mark, Luke & John) Since the titles do not give the original writers name, they are anonymous. This is common sense. Does not mean they are not true, that's up to the reader.
its written in third person therefore its anonymous...
so atheists just arent even trying anymore
I don't know who you are nor which credentials you possess to make this flawed presentation. I am hoping that those who viewed this will do their own research if they truly want the best historical interpretations of the origins of the gospels and their authors.
what are your credentials for you to say that?
"Just trust us bro"
There, saved you some minutes.
Me when I don’t pay attention to a video