Why Are There Four Gospels?

[@MattWhitmanTMBH]

I just started the new Ten Minute Bible Hour Podcast, and I'd be grateful if you'd check it out. Get it anywhere you get podcasts, or here: thetenminutebiblehour.com/podcast

[@paradisecityX0]

I think CSI would have been a more apt comparison

[@thecrew777]

Are you going to move to podcast only?

[@kodingkrusader2765]

You hit the nail on the head about why we have more than one gospel though. Apostles were in different areas evangelizing to different cultures. Its great really. Written in ways to concert all peoples! Based on specific cultural priorities. Having 4 different versions was because of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit

[@pkmcnett5649]

@@aaronberta3958 because it isn't. ☺

[@AnaleenAelwyn]

Can you upload the podcasts to youtube? Perhaps on a separate channel, if you don't want to overwhelm this one. I don't really do podcasts, but I would totally just listen to them on youtube. :-)

[@blacksheep_77]

Matt...very well said. Loved the interactive "tools". But truly, what most struggle to understand is context. What many fail to teach is context. You seem to be tackling that issue here and I love it. Many people miss that John is not trying to be historical but do exactly what you are talking about, challenge Gnosticism. All his writings do the same thing: which makes perfect sense from the man that actually knew Jesus the best. Many people can't imagine that the Gospels aren't a text book on Jesus' life. Which they aren't. They're not a historical compendium. They're not the Encyclopedia Britannica on everything that is "Christian". They simply share one singular event in human history from a number of points of view BUT they are being communicated to different people groups to, as you so aptly state, address different questions and fullfill different needs. Which is why you used "the office". Just a side note: Did you know that Matthew, as a tax collector, was the only gospel writer to have access the temple archives? Why is this important? Because he would have first hand access to all the genealogical records before the fires of 70 AD would destroy them which allowed him to build his record of Jesus connection to David for the Jewish people. This was an absolutely necessary project for that time and is one of the reasons why Matthew is regarded as the first written. He was presenting the case to Israel when it was wrestling with the issue and this discussion was taking place before the story started impacting the nations. Brother...keep after it! This is the TMBH that drew me in when you were in Acts. Also...it's super fun to see how different your on camera presence is from the first episode. So much more relaxed now.

[@MattWhitmanTMBH]

Great comments and thoughts across the board as always. This channel is better because you participate. This certainly has been a journey in terms of figuring out how I want to present myself on camera and how I want these episodes to feel for the people who consume them. It's kind of jarring to go back and watch the early stuff now.

[@misseli1]

That's really interesting

[@jnastally196]

All compelling thoughts. Have you heard of Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew? I tend towards its authenticity due to how it treats idioms and other things. Have you also heard of the Gospels being compared to the PARDES model of Jewish exegesis? Peshat would be comparable to Matthew being straight forward, tell it how it is. John would be comparable to the sod. It's the mystery, more mystical. Hence, "In the beginning was the Word...." Anyway, I find it interesting that there are 4 levels of PARDES and 4 Gospels; one to go with each.

[@blacksheep_77]

@@jnastally196 Hey no name...not sure if you were writing that to Matt or me...but in case it was me...I have heard of PARDES...two decades inside Messianic and Hebraic Roots communites. But, if I could offer some warning, I believe that PARDES is a rabbinic tradition not a Pharisaical one. The reason this is important is because all the writers of New Testament would have been pre-rabbinic and therefore under Pharisaical influence and that means they would not have had any capacity to "code" PARDES into their writings. I saw so many people try to make the Bible do tricks and I was guilty of the same. In my experience PARDES only created a system of special knowledge that separated those that know from those that don't. That part destroyed communities, so I'm just a bit wary of it. Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew: Hmm...I know that there is a school in Jerusalem that one Dwight Pryor was a part of that was very committed to the idea that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. Not sure if I had heard of Shem Tov's version of that though. It certainly has some compelling evidence from those that are super deep into Hebrew and Greek language...which I most certainly am not. (Matt: Had you ever considered doing a church tour of a Messianic congregation? If so, let me know, I knows some peoples)

[@jnastally196]

@@blacksheep_77 thank you for the reply. I am leery as well but know that God in His wisdom uses things like the PARDES correlation to stir us. I, too, am more than 2 decades in, and very much am aware of what you are talking about. I believe Satan is on to us and he is trying to thwart us. God bless and press on.

[@BibelFAQ]

This is like seminary but for normal people. Awesome, love it!!!

[@trep2219]

What do you mean, normal? lol

[@jamesmcalister1383]

Every. Single. Time. You always explain things so concisely & you never shy away from the tough stuff. Love it! Great job.

[@MattWhitmanTMBH]

Thank you James.

[@MessianicJewJitsu]

My man...this was spot on! Had I knew you were in my town for the Super Bowl I would've braved the foot traffic to walk by and hit you with two thumbs up from roughly two meters in person. 👍👍 God bless!

[@grantisanintrovert]

“...It’s a lot like the Bible!” **whispers** “Segway” 😂

[@evancruse8106]

I see ten minute bible hour, I click. I'm a simple man.

[@Brownie12335]

You got the phrases the wrong way round lol

[@iamtheSoup]

It's not much, but it's honest work.

[@clips4u2006]

What a trip Matt. I've been pondering this theme in a major way recently. And last night, got into some heavy prayer over exactly this. One topic in particular the order the gospels were written (I'm having a little trouble with how longer after John was written compared to the other Gospels and how much more "mystical" it is). Of course, what should pop up on my youtube "recommend" list but this puppy. I won't go into the why's of how I've been struggling a bit with this theme but, I'm VERY much looking forward to more "nuts and bolts" you eluded to in the above video. Love what you do man. You're a wonderful conduit for our Father. (Don't let it go to your head ;) .

[@discipletabitha1724]

Check out Ministry Revealed channel...He goes over WHO gospels are speaking to, as well as other books. Certainly not what's been taught in church... Scripture understanding. Be blessed.

[@gabesmallwood138]

Hey Matt, I just want to say that I appreciate the time and effort that you take on videos! I’ve definitely gotten a lot out of your videos and they have advanced my faith in multiple departments. One thing that God made aware to me is to tell you that a channel trying to spread God’s message, we should not be supporting a tv show that is worldly and has worldly content in it. Recently I’ve been doing this with things on KZbin, movies I watch, etc. Now I’m not judging you but as a fellow Christian I am holding you accountable and trying to share what God has laid on my heart to share with you. I hope you take heed of this or at least have a conversation with me about it if you disagree. We are meant to be set apart from the world! Thanks again for all you do!

[@moderndaydreammm]

Never been this early (time difference)! Thank you for the hard work and time you put into these!

[@EmethMatthew]

Thank you for this. Especially talking about how it's supposed to be for everyone in different circumstances.

[@francescamele8077]

Video veramente interessante, grazie della condivisione!! Era un po' che non vedevo video tuoi e non sapevo del podcast. Adesso me lo recupero con piacere!

[@MattWhitmanTMBH]

Lo apprezzo sempre quando ti fermi a salutare Francesca!

[@robstevens9590]

Nice, brief covering of the topic. I am waiting for the more detailed talks about the apparent "conflicts." I heard about Tatian, a student of Justin Martyr, who created a written harmony of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John around the year 175. It’s called the Diatessaron, which means, ‘through the four’: it was a blend all four Gospels together in the Syriac language.

[@BirdieSenpai]

I love the use of the Falco amiibo for John, lol. Stellar explanations on the multiple gospels! I'd wondered about this a number of times throughout the years and I at last have my answer! Definitely sharing this if anybody brings up the topic to me!

[@MarcusSwope]

Just finished reading the book "Making Sense of the Bible" by Adam Hamilton which does a wonderful job of walking through a lot of these questions as well. Highly recommended, and a quick and easy read.

[@lovemakestheworldgoround6726]

That sounds interesting indeed! Thanku! 😊👍

[@jg2072]

A Catholic here, I appreciate the breakdown of the gospels. It will help me teach my faith to my children.

[@Dreammaster695]

J G can’t the pope teach them? ;)

[@jg2072]

No need to be snarky.

[@houseofsofia6650]

N1ghtmare3ntity I get that the Catholic Church has many faults and I don’t agree with many of their practices. However Romans 10 tells us who a Christian is, and Catholics believe Jesus to be G-d, so they are part of the Church. Also, there is a verse in the Quran (surah 5:14)that says that Allah will spread enmity between the Christians, let’s not prove the book of the Devil right.

[@thecrew777]

I really enjoy your very relaxed manner and that somehow, at the same time, you are very careful about not glossing over or changing the doctrine that comes from the Bible. Oh, and also, that you have the Super Capacity to say "I don't know" - when you don't know. Thank you, especially, for that!

[@extremeurbex392]

I’m loving your Podcast it’s an absolute Blessing thanks mate for your hard work

[@theajshortman]

I've just got into the American office and it's so good! I was a bit wary that I wouldn't get the references, but it translates really well. Great video topic. Thanks again chap

[@misseli1]

The Tetramorph! Also I always liked how these four different creatures are represented in the Cherubim who have four faces: man, lion, ox, and eagle

[@sendieloo]

Sir, you’re awesome and am thankful for your insight!

[@Tinker_it]

I asked you some time ago during a live stream about how to read the bible (just drive through it, try to let it sink in, or try to uncderstand it as I read it.) You gave a great answer; I don't want to paraphrase what you said, because i'd probably get it wrong. I just wanted to say I've failed in constantly reading like I had planned (plans...), but now I'm "stuck" in Proverbs, because Proverbs seems to draw me in to try and absorb it more than I've felt to since I've started reading the whole bible. Thanks agaIn for your feedback and videos.

[@TonyTones123]

Great video as always! Great job I was really itching for another video lol

[@ericslinn5579]

Watching this episode just had a lightbulb moment for me. While studying in university, I reflected on the Moses burning bush moment when God says "I am". Years before in French class at school the teacher would always go on about "conjugate the verb". In other words, the different tenses of a verb such as the verb "to be", ie, I am, you are, he is, she is, we are, they are. From that I understood God's message of "I AM" to be existence. I exist. Moses is saying if he goes to tell that he met God the people will want to know His name. God responds with I AM meaning I exist, I don't need a name, I am existence. I'm not sure anyone sees that as what is meant, but that is how I interpreted it. But watching this video, Matt describes Jesus' 7 "I am" statements in the book of John which shows his divinity. Could this be a followup to my thoughts on God stating that He is existence? Would love to know Matt's or anyone else's thoughts on that.

[@laurithompson8496]

You are an amazing teacher. Thank you for your service.

[@JohnWhittaker]

Great stuff Matt! I’ve been favoring the Matthew-first theory for a while myself!

[@judeemert3406]

ever heard of adventures in oddesey

[@JohnWhittaker]

@@judeemert3406 Ha... yes! I used to say they stole my identity! I was a college prof and my nickname from my childhood was Whit.

[@judeemert3406]

@@JohnWhittaker YESSSS!!

[@sandresstudios]

Makes me think of 4 people who witness an accident from different locations and then have to remember what they think they saw happen but it's three years after the accident and they can't remember some of the finer details but their stories are very similar. I like your approach to this topic, thanks.

[@Salsmachev]

I had always heard the Marcan Priority version of the gospel chronology, and was very surprised to hear about alternative theories. I would love to see a video breaking down the various orders and the debate surrounding them. From my five minutes of wikipedia research, it seems like a fascinating subject!

[@Hablizel]

Another great video. Thanks, Matt.

[@gideonjudges7]

I really like a combo of the Patristic Theory (Matthew in Aramaic first) and the more modern Markan Primacy theory. You get the question of why Matthew (an Apostle/direct eyewitness) follows the account of Mark (who, while he might be mentioned in Mark, is not one of the Twelve/not an eyewitness to the whole thing)--why wouldn't he just write his completely original thing, why use another source at all? Luke makes sense, he is just using other people's accounts. But why Matthew? It comes from who Mark was. Mark was the "interpreter" of Peter. The early Church said that Mark was Peter's secretary/that he was writing down the preaching of Peter. This was how Peter preached about the stories and messages about Jesus. Both from Christian history and the accounts of the NT, Peter has a special authority as leader of the Apostles. So, what is his account of the story of Jesus becomes really important throughout the Christian world. But, as the faith keeps spreading and Gentiles are being converted, people of the more Pharisaic bent/those who thought that people ought to become Jews in order to become Christians start attacking those leading the charge for inviting Gentiles in. Peter was the one who baptized Cornelius and told people to stop following the kosher laws. Peter was the one at the Council of Jerusalem who silenced the assembly/stopped the debate, and introduced Paul's testimony, paved the way for James to say yes. He was the one who listened to the correction of Paul at Antioch (likely before Jerusalem Council). So, the Judaizer Party likely attacked Peter. Why listen to Peter, why is he so important? Why are we abandoning our ancestral traditions? In response, Matthew writes his account in Syria. And what is different about the account? Along with more of Jesus' preaching, some of the big differences between Mark and Matthew are the details he adds about Peter. When Peter makes his confession of faith, Matthew adds in what Jesus says, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah...You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church...etc". When Jesus walks on water, Matthew adds that Peter walked on the water with Him (and that he sank, but that he actually walked on water). Etc. While Mark (who is recording how Peter would preach) records the humility of Peter--the story is not about me, it is about who Jesus is--Matthew, another eyewitness to the events, records what Jesus says about Peter and his role, defending him against those attacking his authority in regards to the kosher laws (and, in a more Judeo-centric way, because that is the audience that needed to hear it) Luke is also writing in defense of Peter (which is why, for example, he just omits the "Get behind me Satan" passage from Mark; or when he adds in Peter's role to the discussion of who is the greatest in the upper room in Luke 22), but he is setting out to do something else as well. Matthew follows essentially the same order as Mark (the Apostle is following the order told in Peter's account), but Luke was specifically undertaking to compile a narrative of everything that had taken place from eyewitnesses, "to write an orderly account for you"--that is: Mark is based on Peter's preaching--whenever he would preach about XYZ; Luke was going to write one in chronological order. And so, compiling material from Mark, another Apostolic source from the next paragraph, Paul and his preaching (especially look at his last supper and Paul's in 1 Corinthians 11; or Paul's references to "my Gospel"), Mary for the infancy narratives (as they spent a good deal of time in Ephesus), and others, Luke wrote his account of the Gospel and the Acts of the Early Church. What about the material common to Matthew and Luke? The Q/Source Theory says that there may have been an earlier sayings Gospel Source (Quelle/Q) for that. The early Church said Matthew wrote first in Aramaic. What if they are both true? Matthew distributes a collection of sayings of Jesus in Aramaic, the whole controversy with Circumcision/Peter's role in that comes up, then Matthew and Luke write Gospels based both on Mark and Matthew's Aramaic sayings Gospel. John writes in the 90s.

[@MattWhitmanTMBH]

Excellent post.

[@chupie3085]

Trying to wake up first thing in the morning I was kind of dozing off. That music at the 9:25 mark startled me. Haha thank you

[@giulianacr2638]

I first saw you on your visit to a Catholic church. I love that you are a positive and appreciative Christian. Keep going strong in Jesus name amen 💞

[@MarcusSwope]

Also, I would be interested in a video (if you haven't already made one) about all that crazy stuff at the end of Mark in later translations... I get that most translations don't include it any more, but curious what the motivations might have been to have added it in the first place to later manuscripts

[@spencerbrown315]

The version I use (NIV 84) has the last part of Mark bracketed, indicating it is not present in the earliest manuscripts, same thing with John 7:53 to 8:11. Like ^ so Matt sees this

[@discipletabitha1724]

Ministry Revealed channel speaks about that...and who gospels are speaking to.

[@Qenton]

I will now always associate Luke with a stuffed moose.

[@Salsmachev]

Your mileage may vary, but for me Luke kind of is the stuffed moose of the gospels.

[@fmcevoy1]

It doubled as an ox in a pinch.

[@MitchellRose-gi2ln]

I read somewhere in a Christianity history book that there was a relationship between the four number and the four elements ( wind fire earth and water ) and four corners of the world. Four was special to those creators of the compendium.

[@Pickup_man_1973]

You should do a video on the early church fathers. For example Papias, he was taught by the Apostle John. He is the man who tells us who wrote each gospel because Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did not write down their names on their own gospel when they wrote them. He also tells us that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic. That’s important because in original Aramaic, Matthew calls Peter Kepha, which is large rock. When it gets translated to Greek it becomes Petra, which is a feminine noun for rock. So since Peter was a man you’ve got to change the ending to it Petros, a masculine noun which changes the name from large rock to Small Rock. Here are some examples of the early Church fathers calling Peter the rock. These are just 5 of the hundred of quotes Tertullian The Prescription Against Heretics ch 32 [160-240 AD] "[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]). Caius Fragment 2 AGAINST THE HERESY OF ARTEMON ch 1 (180-240 ad) For they say that all those of the first age, and the apostles themselves, both received and taught those things which these men now maintain; and that the truth of Gospel preaching was preserved until the times of Victor, who was the thirteenth bishop in Rome from Peter, Cyprian of Carthage epistle 39 par 5 [200-270 AD] There is one God, and Christ is one, and there is one Church, and one chair founded upon the rock by the word of the Lord. Another altar cannot be constituted nor a new priesthood be made, except the one altar and the one priesthood. Whosoever gathereth elsewhere, scattereth. Peter of Alexandria Genuine Acts of Peter (260-311ad) ...and guardian of all preceding and subsequent occupiers of this pontifical chair ...Peter was the first of the apostles... practicalapologetics.blogspot.com/2013/07/early-church-fathers-on-peter-being.html

[@ronaldlbell]

I love your heart Matt, one day tell your story of apostasy and redemption I would love to hear that as would many of us who have struggled at times

[@chrisoost4795]

Thanks for this Matt!

[@CatoELYounger]

Thanks for making this video. I enjoyed it.

[@Dreammaster695]

Thanks for sharing very interesting 👍

[@RJFares]

if you want some inspiration for the next video on dealing with these differences, I can suggest a book from my own library "Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts"… it's a good read and very informative without blabbering. It grabs a lot of passages which are seemingly contradictory but show that together, and maybe paired with more verses, show that they coincidentally bring the big real picture, like a painting with seemingly different parts, when viewed from far, suddenly make sense… I'm in no way affiliated and if you mention other books to me I'd read them :) the subject should be fascinating and all Christians should not shy away from them!

[@Cybornut]

Can’t wait for the next nuts and bolts... that is the highlight of the channel for me

[@Sgt-Gravy]

Thank you, my bell notification is on. I can't wait for your next video.

[@daviddee7175]

Great analogy.

[@peruseperusing5027]

Awesome clip!!!! Keep going brotha!! :)

[@BillWalkerWarren]

Humm What have I just learned ? One you never threw out your toys . Two you read comics. ( come on you know Angel ‘s real name from X Men ) Three That you are a pretty good teacher . Great channel brother. Keep up the good work ! Blessings

[@linaso9739]

Great explanation, thank you!

[@reubenfromow4854]

It’s a well known fact that if you plug your Falco amiibo into your bible, to can unlock additional content

[@Dino7759]

Another important reason is the biblical principle that 'A matter must be established by the testimony of 2 or 3 witnesses.' Deut 19:15 (Num 35:30, 2 Cor 13:1) The Bible is consistent in following it's own rules.. So in a matter as important as the life of Jesus, the not only gives 2 or 3, but 4 witnesses! Btw. The book of Mark is actually the gospel of Peter... It is all about Peter's experiences with Jesus.

[@TheMrMKultra]

We know from the book of Acts that Peter was friends with Mark, and therefore we know where Mark has got his information from. Also, some of the things found in the account written by Mark really look like from Peter's point of view, which is quite interesting.

[@Dino7759]

@@TheMrMKultra Yes. Acts 12:11,12 is where Peter gets out of prison and the first place he goes to is John Mark's place.. Conjecture.. was Mark the man carrying the pitcher in Mk 14:13? Was Mark the 'young man' in Mk 14:51,52? Was the large upper room of Mk 14:15 the same room where they all gathered for Pentecost?

[@RexNicolaus]

Speaking of questions being addressed later: I would really like to have a more in-depth discussion about Christians and the use of self-defense (lethal force). You get some who say it is okay and some say it is never okay to take a life, no matter what.

[@kauffner]

The consensus of modern scholars is that Mark came first. Mark was not familiar with Jewish ritual or with the Holy Land, so Matthew and Luke felt the need to explain how Jesus fit into Jewish tradition. For example, Matthew and Luke both stress that Jesus was born in Bethlehem as this fulfills a prophesy by Micah. John was written a generation later, by which time the earlier gospels were considered too friendly to Judaism. Matthew's gospel was the favorite of the Church Fathers. If it had been written first, no one would have felt the need for further gospel writing.

[@iwontliveinfear]

Somehow, I always knew that Matt had a Falco amiibo.

[@jenniferlawrence1372]

I read every single copy that my library had of Encyclopedia Brown and I never ran across him and the Crapbag Bible Swindler. I assume cracking the case involves the big red Strong’s he always carried in his backpack. Off to google to see if I can find a used copy. brb

[@MattWhitmanTMBH]

Best of luck with that. It's a fantastic, if little known, gem in the Encyclopedia Brown canon.

[@memorylapsedm8262]

Many people around the world, and mostly the Jews and Muslims, try to say that Jesus never claimed to be Christ. I beg the differ. I once prayed for God to show me a place where Jesus very clearly said that he is Christ, whether he said the words "I am Christ" or was in another way doesn't matter. My prayer was for it to be clear as day so no one could deny what he said, and three days later I got a huge feeling to read John, and I found my answer. KJV John 4:25-26 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he. How can anyone dare say that he didn't claim to be the Messiah/Christ? The reason why this passage is so important is because every time Jesus was speaking directly to the Jews, he used parables mostly to reveal it, so that he would fulfill the prophecy of "That they may see but not see, and hear but not hear." But this is unique, because he is not speaking directly to a Jew, and instead to a Samaritan Gentile. So in this unique situation, he is not bound to the prophecy needing to be fulfilled, and can speak plainly.

[@harlanlang6556]

We can't really say that Jesus never said a particular thing. All we know are His sayings recorded in the Gospels. It's very likely that Jesus said many more things than just what's in the Bible.

[@benjaminwilkin2960]

Bible project is doing the same topic in a podcast series. Check it out!

[@josher-ch6sf]

Glad to see the Manatee is back in frame. Never give it to shady guys from Florida that email you!

[@hansweichselbaum2534]

Your videos are like a breeze of fresh air after watching some of those extremist, militant religious channels. People who claim to have all the TRUTH are dangerous.

[@amielehalt3458]

Hi!! I wanted to make you aware of a channel called Ministry Revealed. He has many videos, but he has one on the four Gospels and who they are speaking to. I think you might find it interesting, along with his many other videos. I think he is on to something.

[@poppyozark]

Those 4 symbols were really close to the four faces of the cherub 😉

[@reallifeistoflat]

I think this all makes sense God or no God as to why we see multiple versions and i can't wait for the nuts and bolts. It does kind of make me wonder why these four people might've been inspired to write Gospels but since then there has been seemingly no need from God to adapt the Gospels to fit other cultures. Even the work we do here has to be done in the context of the Jewish, Roman or Greek people of that time period. I guess those were God's favorites and we aren't worth a sequel. Haha.

[@travisrennie9863]

John wrote his gospel to refute a gnostic named Cerinthus.

[@tntforever1786]

I always thought this is a truly biblically awesome and funny

[@paradisecityX0]

I think CSI would have been a better comparison

[@cherylong6800]

I can't believe I never noticed the manatee

[@jasonpratt5126]

I for one welcome grimdark Encyclopedia Brown joke stories for the next ten years!

[@jasonpratt5126]

Oh, and I guess a Gospel harmonization series, that would be okay, too. {g}

[@kcmozart]

Here is a thought... I was taught and believe there is only one gospel. SO.... Let's look at it like pancakes. Every time you make pancakes you use batter and you fry them on a griddle. That being said, if you make and eat plain pancakes, and I make and eat pancakes with blueberries inside of the batter, and my brother makes and eats pancakes with strawberries and sauce drizzled all over the the top, does that mean we ate different pancakes? NO. The batter is the same, therefore, all each of us still ate pancakes! Lets look at it differently, what if you read Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, in England, and I read Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the United states, and someone else reads Harry Potter Und der Stein der Weisen (and the stone of Knowledge) in Germany, did each of us read a different book? No we all read the same book.

[@astrol4b]

If Mark wasn't the first one it's not clear to me what was his purpose and why he wrote it shorter if he drew from the other two.

[@ajhigginscomposer]

Okay, what is this Encyclopedia Brown and the Bible Swindler? What is the inside joke.

[@harlanlang6556]

You didn't mention that it was the Council of Nicea which looked at the many gospels which were circulating within the Christian community by AD 325 and voted to recognize only the four Gospels we have today as "gospel". So these four were the favorites of the majority of Bishops at the conference. All others were ordered destroyed. Luckily some, like the Gospel of Thomas, were hidden and then found in 1945. My feeling is that the truth is not always what the majority believe, and quite often it's the opposite, and so I would think that these re-discovered gospels rate an examination. It's also worth noting that the Gospels were all oral renderings of the memories of the first Christians until they were finally written down between 66 and 110 AD. About 90% of the early Christians were illiterate and so story telling was their mode of learning and teaching. The art of story telling is to make the story as interesting as possible, not necessarily retelling a story exactly as heard. Everyone probably had their own ideas as to what was essential in the story and what needed to be added to dress it up. And for over 30 years there was no written document to refer to for accuracy. This probably explains why there are two genealogies for Jesus which don't agree. The details were just not considered important. The main idea was that Jesus was a real human being with an important ancestry, not just a spiritual figure in the heavens as some believed. I think that this shows the fallacy of debating the exact meaning of every word or phrase in developing the "true" meaning of the Bible. It also shows the harm that this has done to the freedom of thought within Christianity where those who didn't conform were labeled evil and burned at the stake. The result has been the loss of trust in church leaders and institutions. Insisting on the "literal" truth of every word of the Bible for "true believers" has led people in droves to leave Christianity because of finding just one obvious inconsistency.

[@MattWhitmanTMBH]

That's a common misconception. The Council of Nicaea decided nothing regarding the canon. It simply wasn't a topic of conversation.

[@harlanlang6556]

@@MattWhitmanTMBH Thanks. I'll check it out. It is true that we do often misunderstand or just take the word of an unreliable source.

[@CaryHawkins]

Oh no! Angels don't have wings!

[@roundtuit2587]

Action figure flannel graph!

[@dimesonhiseyes9134]

🎶they see me roll on my Segway. In my heart I know they see me as white and nerdy. They see me as too white and nerdy 🎶

[@calebhooper4266]

The Ten Minute Office Hour

[@ELECTRICBIGE]

The short answer to why there are 4 Gospels included in the Bible instead of 1 or 5 or 15...the Catholic Church. This video does a good job of explaining the logic the Catholic Church used, but if it weren’t for the authority of the Church to make that decision, we would likely have something very different than we do today. If you think a Bible should have 4 Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John) you probably recognize the authority of the Catholic Church more than you thought...

[@MattWhitmanTMBH]

Or the Catholic Church got on board and recognized the authority of the early apostles and the primitive church that existed before it had the power to make official pronouncements.

[@ELECTRICBIGE]

The Ten Minute Bible Hour It received that Power in John Chapter 20/Matthew Chapter 16. The early apostles are members of the Catholic Church. There was no “primitive” Christian church before the Catholic Church. It was founded by Jesus and still exists today.

[@markhorton3994]

@@ELECTRICBIGE No. The early church was not based in Rome. Antioch Alexandria and before 70 A.D. Jerusalem were the early centers of leadership. Rome gained importance because it was the capital of the Empire that then ruled the world.

[@ELECTRICBIGE]

Mark Horton I never said it was based in Rome...in fact, the word Catholic literally means “universal”. That being said, Peter did die in Rome. Nice strawman tho

[@briandiehl9257]

@@ELECTRICBIGE So your not talking about the roman catholic church?

[@misseli1]

So Matthew emphasizes Jesus as the jewish messiah, while Mark emphasizes that he is the suffering messiah. Luke emphasizes Jesus' humanity, while John emphasizes Jesus' divinity, right?

[@harlanlang6556]

Here's a question. Why didn't Jesus write, or have someone record, His teachings in His own lifetime? This would have saved all the arguments, wars and conflict over the centuries between Christian factions. Is the fact that He didn't do this evidence that unity and harmony within the Christian community was not important in His eyes?

[@geneparadiso6258]

There are more than 4. Only 4 were accepted into the canon as inspired by God.

[@MrOmaha-gy6py]

In my opinion the four gospels were written well before 70 ad because Jesus prophesied the destruction of the temple and it happened in 70 and if the apostles were alive at the time then they would have written of it's destruction

[@derdritteafrikaner6944]

Should use this in Sunday school. Got to love the americans.

[@hannannah1uk]

They're cohesive because the Early Church chucked out the ones that didn't fit.

[@harlanlang6556]

Are you saying that they didn't fit a particular theology?

[@jorowi]

"Encyclopedia Brown and the Crapbag Bible Swindler"

[@bbman4]

Nice! I saw what you did there...😜

[@billschrader5139]

John declared himself the writer of the book of John. How do we know that Matthew, Mark and Luke wrote the other books? The authors in the 3 gospels never are mentioned by name.

[@MattWhitmanTMBH]

John did not declare himself the author of his Gospel. All of them are technically anonymous. However, there is literally zero support for any other authorship of those gospels at any point in Christian history other than very recent critical scholarship. All the church fathers agreed on who authored the gospels, and there was no debate surrounding it. There is literally zero tradition for any other author being attributed to those Gospels.

[@billschrader5139]

@@MattWhitmanTMBH Thanks. .... Always wondered how the authors were determined.

[@MrImagin]

that's a lot of toys.....nice.

[@DanTheMan0922]

The symbols are the face of cheurbim

[@matthewgoodman7588]

The Office is divinely inspired CONFIRMED!!!

[@andrewholdaway813]

Because you can have too many, there are more than enough contradictions with just four.

[@deaconken3752]

They were answering heresies and writing so that the truth would be known. The bigger question is why are there only four Gospels in the New Testament? Because the Catholic Church judged, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that these are useful for teaching. There are more than 4 Gospels written, these were selected.

[@medzuslovjansky3075]

Deacon Ken These 4 were accepted as scripture long before any councils declared what’s canonical and what wasn’t

[@deaconken3752]

@@medzuslovjansky3075 Yes, but there were other accounts that were in circulation. Same with epistles, why not include letters by Clement? They were in wide circulation. The Catholic Church decided those were useful for teaching.

[@TheMrMKultra]

Matt has made another video about this. I think he said that the letters and writings that are compiled in the part of the Bible that many call the "New Testament" are the ones that were "most accepted" for various reasons. Some, they were not sure about authorship. Also, keep in mind that the Bible includes most stuff only to a specific point in time, I'd call it the "early church". What's written later might be good for teaching if it holds true with the rest of the stuff. The same thing today. If someone says a thing it must be holding up against the scripture and the writings of the New Covenant to be found "true", speaking from a biblical point of view. So the best thing is to read the Bible that we have and learn who God is and what his will is, to be able to distinguish good from evil. That's the only thing we need. And we should be very careful of what we add to what's in the bible, for in Revelations 22 it says “if anyone adds to [the prophecies in this book {meaning firstly what John wrote, but secondly the whole bible, because that's equally as important}], God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.”

[@deaconken3752]

@@TheMrMKultra Okay, but... If you take Revelations 22 seriously, you should accept the canon established at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage. If you don't and take use the canon established by Martin Luther, aren't you bringing plagues on yourself?

[@patquint3291]

Marvin Klein Those verses in Rev do not refer to the whole printed and bound Bible as we’ve know it since the 15th century. There was no bound copy of the whole Bible until much, much later, like the 4th or 5th century, and each of those bibles was copied by hand, mostly by monks. The Catholic Church wrote all the NT and compiled all the OT and NT scrolls in one “book.” It’s called Tradition. Read some history. You got the Bible from the Catholic Church. No getting around that fact

[@daniellloyd1923]

Are you a Buffalo Bills fan?

[@joescoggins5937]

There are four gospel accounts. There is only one gospel.

[@jackmason5278]

Wasn't it the case that there were a multitude of gospels, and the Council of Nicaea selected four for inclusion in the Bible?

[@MattWhitmanTMBH]

There were no reliable traditions for any other early gospels accepted by the church. Two local western councils formalized what had been reality since the late first century regarding the Gospels.

[@briandiehl9257]

I don't think the council of nicaea selected any books of the bible

[@limegreenelevator]

_segwayyyy_

[@maggierobles2608]

Only four gospels that made it to the Bible because of St. Ireneus.

[@Dreammaster695]

Maggie robles yeah because one man is so powerful to choose what goes into the whole bible.. would have been a big group of them to decide what goes in do you think it was just thrown together? It became the most sold book of all time so I’m sure they must have picked the right stuff in the end

[@billphillips8348]

OK some of the stuff he gets pretty good however you’re really getting a lot of stuff wrong for starters Matthew was first but it was in Hebrew and if you was to actually do more research you would find the cover copies of Matthew and Luke John I forgot now in the Vatican library but trust me the Vatican has more shit than you will ever know or learn of ,and all of them were in Hebrew . Not inAramaic or Greek.

[@MattWhitmanTMBH]

Thanks for weighing in Bill. If Matthew wrote his book in Hebrew, he wrote it to basically no one, because the Jews didn't speak Hebrew at the time, they spoke Aramaic, so even though Papias says it was written in the language of the Hebrews, he would have meant Aramaic.

[@billphillips8348]

The Ten Minute Bible Hour how do you know this ? The smart guys who told us this when your family and mine couldn’t read or write and the true stories died with us , more research my friend , as Jesus said they have eyes to see but see not ,

[@billphillips8348]

The Ten Minute Bible Hour but don’t get mad I love your show you do a great job , your just off on this point .

[@MattWhitmanTMBH]

I'm not offended or put off at all Bill. It just seems like an odd point to dig in on. We have countless sources that all support the idea of Aramaic being the common tongue both written and spoken in the first century ad in Judea and Galilee. What data exists to suggest that Hebrew and not Aramaic was the language of the Jews at that moment in history?

[@alexbooyse9053]

Segwaaaaaaaay

[@evanb244]

First!

[@patquint3291]

‘Cause the Catholic Church says so. Period.

[@TheMrMKultra]

But he said in the video that some of the earliest christians compiled these accounts long before the "church" was associated with power and such. He even made another video about what books are in the bible for what reason. I highly recommend it if you want to discern the things. Not, of course, if you just want to sneer about everything.

[@patquint3291]

Marvin Klein The earliest Christians were all Catholic. Read the Church Fathers. You will find no sola scriptura or sola fide anywhere. And what makes you use the word sneering? I am conveying facts and telling the truth. Not sneering. Period.

[@markhorton3994]

@@patquint3291 The Roman Catholic Church is a later development. Most of the "church fathers" would be appalled by the idea. There were no denominations as such, but different leaders (bishops) disagreed on various points of theology. The councils starting with Jerusalem recorded in acts and presided over by James brother of Jesus and continuing with Nicea made clear that certain ideas were not true. Heresies such as excluding gentiles and gnostisism which denied the humanity of Christ. Given the history of the RCC and its popes there is no possibility of an unbroken inheritance from Peter. Also if there was a first pope it was either James who was bishop of Jerusalem or Paul who founded most of the early non jewish congregations and administered them through his epistles, only a few of which are Scripture and his co evangelists including Timothy and Titus. Peter was the main apostle to the Jews and a highly respected theologian but never in charge.

[@fmcevoy1]

There are more errors in this video than I can count: 1. The symbol for Matthew is a man, not an angel. Yes, the symbols all have wings, but they were tossed on the gospels by St. Jerome, and they first appear in the flaming wheel of Ezechiel. 2. Four gospels? Yes, four CANONICAL gospels. The full total is probably around 34. We have full manuscripts, fragments, and then references. The Gospel of Thomas is a collection of sayings, dug up in the Near East around 1948. The Gospel of Nicodemus, the Protovangelium (sic) of James, the Gospel of Peter... there are tons. Some of so bogus it's no wonder the Church Councils threw them out. 3. The amount of original material is up for debate. Mark was first, along with a lost document of sayings. Matthew and Luke had those documents, plus their own conflicting sources. St. John is a different kettle of fish. 4. St. John the Apostle St. John the Evangelist St. John the Divine. The Catholics conflate them, but they're not the same person. For the record, I did a paper on New Testament Apocrypha when I was in college. It was the most original work I did.

[@stanbrown32]

You should watch more of Matt's videos. When he says there are four gospels, he is referring to the biblical canon. He certainly is aware of apocryphal texts. Check out his videos on why some texts were recognized as canonical and other texts were not included in the canon.

[@philipbuckley759]

get to the point...

[@philen]

I find the theory of the Quelle/Mark gospel most true/probable.