Who Wrote the Gospels? 6 Ancient Sources Tell Us

Skeptical New Testament scholars like Bart Ehrman argue that the Four Gospels in our New Testament are anonymous. In his bestselling book Jesus, Interrupted, Ehrman writes: “Some books, such as the Gospels…had been written anonymously, only later to be ascribed to certain authors who probably did not write them (apostles and friends of the apostles).”
But wouldn’t the early church be in a better position to know who wrote the Gospels than contemporary critics? I’d certainly think so, and as it turns out, the early church fathers were unambiguous and united about who wrote the Four Gospels.
Blog post: isjesusalive.com/who-wrote-th...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Sources: Brant Pitre, The Case for Jesus, amzn.to/2u0mGsB
William Paley, A View of the Evidences of Christianity, books.google.com/books?id=0ak...
Tim McGrew, Who Wrote the Gospels?, • Who Wrote the Gospels?...
Support me on Patreon: / isjesusalive
Eusebius, Church History 2.15.1-2,3.39.15-16, 3.24.1-13, 5.8.2-3
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 103.8, First Apology 66.3, 67.3-4
Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.2.5
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1
Outro music:
Equinox by Purrple Cat | purrplecat.com
Music promoted by www.free-stock-music.com
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
creativecommons.org/licenses/...

[@TestifyApologetics]

Bear in mind this is just one video in a series on gospel authorship. I'll be looking at internal evidence and addressing objections in future videos.

[@paulmanoha]

Went through some of your sources, hope you'll also quote some neutral (academic & non-christian) works to support the same points in the next videos.

[@VeritasEtAequitas]

I wouldn't say it was completely agreed upon until 400 AD, but anything is better than Ehrman who is not just non-Christian but (somewhat) secretly belongs quite specifically to the most anti-Christian demographic there can be.

[@fluffysheap]

Scholars just enjoy casting doubt on ancient... everything. Scholars tell us Homer didn't really write Homer's plays, and Shakespeare didn't really write Shakespeare's plays. In a couple hundred years, they'll be telling us Tolkien didn't really write Lord of the Rings.

[@user-ws1li8ed2c]

The major difference between Homer's Play and Shakeara's plays is that they are not the word of God. There will be no law created because of it there will be not society created because of it. Works of fiction are for entertainment and should stay just that, no one should claim it's reality then get surprised that people will question it.

[@mr.mustachefreak9644]

​@@user-ws1li8ed2cthis isn't talking about whether the bible is fiction or not this is talking about authorship that's why it's called a double standard , u people say because it's supposedly a book from god we can't know anything but we can know about things like authorship

[@BastiatC]

The question of who wrote the bible has no bearing on whether it's the word of god, because it's authorship is not the basis for that.@@user-ws1li8ed2c

[@anarchorepublican5954]

@@user-ws1li8ed2c "postmodern deconstruction"...that's only a difference in magnitude...not in destructive attitude...nor sneering "scat"-itude...

[@BKNeifert]

That's if we get to 100 years from now.

[@Christian_Maoist.]

Great video as always. Out of all the Christian apologetic channels out there I'm confused why you don't have more subs. Your content is well presented, tackles important objections and is overall 🔥

[@TestifyApologetics]

Thanks! I'm working to improve my content, presentation and consistency. I know I got a ways to go but I'm feeling more confident as I go. I've tried to do a blog and a channel at the same time and just kept defaulting to my comfort zone, but this time the focus for this year is KZbin.

[@ExNihiloNihilFit319]

​@@TestifyApologetics I have watched only this video from you and I can say that the information is very well presented and explained. I think you just need more advertisement.

[@darshanpatel.1782]

Indeed, one of the bests out there in my opinion

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

He’s a pretty new channel he’s only been around for about two years.

[@InHocSignoVinces40]

@@TestifyApologetics This video is over a year old now and I cannot find a better argument to shut down the "Anonymous Gospels" claim. Just used part of it to shut a claim down by a skeptic on 'Cross Examined' by posting [Contra Faustum 17.4] for starters. Terrific sources and quotes for a follow up, thank you, Erik, I very much appreciate your work and passion.

[@CPATuttle]

I never understood why these “scholars” ignore all the early Christian writings that unanimously tells us who wrote the Gospels. How’s that not substantial evidence?

[@Contagious93812]

Because Irenaeus wrote about it around 185-190 and the gospels were written in 70-110. the gospels were written by highly educated greek-speaking christians. that can be seen based on an analysis of the writing styles, vocabulary, and literary techniques used in the Gospels. the gospel authors demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of the classical literature and the greek language indicating a level of education that would have been uncommon among the lower classes in ancient Judea.

[@CPATuttle]

​@@Contagious93812 1) So Ireneaus writings start earlier 175-185 is a more accurate range 2) The date of Ireneaus is not most important, it's that he wrote that he received his knowledge from Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John. 3) The Gospels were written 55-65 AD. These "scholars" try giving later dates until you actually look at the evidence yourself they are much earlier 4) Jesus and all the apostles spoke Greek from average to very good. Protestants don't realize they destroy Christianity when they say Jesus and the aposltes didn't know Greek, in effort to deny this to back up their scripture. Matthew and Luke were well educated and wrote their gospels. Matthew worked as tax collector for the Roman Empire, he can write Greek. John had someone that could. It's not that unbelievable to find someone that can write Greek for them. 5) Justin Martyr and Papias of Heiropolis wrote before Ireneaus on the authors of the Gospels early 2nd century. The Apostle John lived to the second century. All consistent with authorship and copies. And Hegessipius early 2nd century wrote Simeon who is Jesus's cousin lived to the 2nd century, another Jesus eye witness. There was plenty to attest to the gospels written by actual eye witnesses.

[@dionsanchez2775]

Because they assume bias. But everyone is bias.

[@Contagious93812]

@@dionsanchez2775 Nope. Early Christian writers don't mention the names. The only people from whom we got the names are Iraneaus (185, almost a hundred years after the gospels were written) and probably Papias (Papias said Matthew was in Hebrew or Aramaic). Actually it wasn't really Papias but Eusebius quoting Papias. So Papias was also an unreliable source who told tall tales about Judas literally exploding and was described by Eusebius as a man who "seems to have been of very limited understanding." Scholars (majority are Christian) don't accept the Gospel autorship because the early Church fathers don't mention the names.

[@CPATuttle]

Have you ever read Saint Jerome’s De Viris Illustribus, which is 135 biographies of the first Christian figures, not all are Christian but important witnesses, starting with the apostles. It’s short. But he writes the years of existence, the gospels, etc. There’s a bunch of early Christians he writes that knew the apostles, and ones that know the witnesses to the apostles

[@ChangeWP]

The Anonymous Gospels "Myth" must be confronted everytime it comes up.

[@Random-ut7jw]

Not true. Authors were anonymous. Many contradictions between gospels.

[@reaganlecroy7773]

@@Random-ut7jw Not true. Authors were not anonymous. Not many contradictions between gospels. See how I did that? No evidence backing up your claim, no response to the video above. You'll convince everyone like this.

[@raenirebenitez7335]

@@Random-ut7jw have you read the gospels for yourself?

[@georgetodd5795]

Because the authors of these gospels did not self-identify their names, their books are technically anonymous, regardless of whether or not Matthew, Mark, Luke and John actually wrote them.

[@MarlonMcdonald-cx9bx]

​@@Random-ut7jw that's how haters act.. say ANYTHING; especially outrageous things, yet never bring evidence to back any of them up 😔 (Muslim handbook)

[@loganpeterjones]

Hey I’m curious what mic you use. The quality sounds very good

[@TestifyApologetics]

I use a Blue Snowball with a stand and mic pop filter. It's a very affordable set-up. I use Audacity to do a lot of editing and effects. I'd still like it to sound better, but glad to know it sounds right you! I'll take that is a sign I'm on the right track.

[@cadenhastings9729]

This video is so rich… I’ve listened to it three times and I love it, thank you so much for this!

[@alexanderjelloian9986]

Fantastic video! Keep up the great work! So helpful

[@markstein2845]

Skepcitsts says: « we don’t know » because there is no such thing as a source saying « it wasn’t who the church says it was » it there was just record of at least a single person saying this, skepcists would assume he’s right. They just want to disagree.

[@BKNeifert]

Yeah, but Papais knew John the Presbyter who is the Apostle John--if you read the fragment closely--who knew Mark and Matthew. So, it's literally from someone who knew these writers. You can't get any more authoritative than that.

[@StallionFernando]

Short, informative and clear information. +1 sub

[@hudsonbartley2493]

Great apologetics. Short, sharp, and clear. Amen and Amen.

[@kentelardo7572]

Great work. Thank you

[@powerfulaura5166]

Showed my dad this & he was pretty impressed & convinced by it, great work!

[@dwiii1635]

Must be easily convinced then, lol.

[@sasa_sasa_sasa230]

Truly exelant video! So much very useful information that put the dagger in the hart of Bible sceptic.

[@godsgospelgirl]

Thank you for this concise video. Hopefully many people will see this and grow in their confidence in the gospels!

[@indianasmith8152]

Another solid presentation, as usual!

[@worldhistory5663]

What program do you use for the animations and presentation?

[@TestifyApologetics]

VideoScribe. Relatively easy and affordable.

[@worldhistory5663]

@@TestifyApologetics Thanks! You have an amazing channel. I appreciate your ministry!

[@shmoo6973]

Love this channel

[@CatchCraftInc]

Awesome video!

[@clouds-rb9xt]

Hey quick question, didn't you make a video about the byzantine text being superior? I can't seem to find it

[@skillfulswordsman9035]

Wooow. My mind is blown

[@Sameh-Samir-Isk]

why the gospels were wrote in professional greek when the original language of the people who wrote them is aramic and hebrew

[@shininglamb]

Because Old testament books were converted into Greek language by the Jews, which is known as Septuagint. So most Jews had access to Greek Old testament books than Hebrew.

[@ptk8451]

Also greek wS thelingua franca ofthe world then

[@majesticrainmaker1460]

Greek was the common language at that time.

[@jimtom7313]

They were meant to be widespread and even in Palestine, many people could speak Greek. If you went anywhere in the known world in the 1st or 2nd century you could reliably find someone fluent in Koine Greek. So the gospels were written in greek because it was the common tongue of the time.

[@fluffysheap]

The same reason educated people today usually write in English, even if their native language isn't English. Or wrote in French, in the 18th century. Or wrote in Latin, in the Middle Ages.

[@mickqQ]

I’m less interested in who write them, and more interested in why should we believe them. Even if you know for certain who wrote them, that does not mean what they wrote was true. And The gospels were written anonymously. There is nowhere in any gospel does the author identifiy themselves. If there is I’d like someone to point it out

[@dionsanchez2775]

Aristotle said the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the author.

[@mickqQ]

@@dionsanchez2775 Yeah… I don’t know about that Do you apply that to the Quran

[@JordanBrown-km5kf]

The same standard can be applied to the quran. It is a collection of writtings by various people that recite the life and teaching of Mohammed. But, how many collections were made? Going back to the originals made. There was a diffrent number of surahs, order of surahs, and the wording of the verses. I remember vaugly ather scolar who collected the various versions, and there is around 30 diffeent qurans in use today. The same cannot be said of the bible.

[@downenout8705]

​@@JordanBrown-km5kf You are right, the Bible has close to one hundred versions.

[@derrickbonsell]

Well that's the struggle with apologetics. All the skeptic needs to do is disprove the veracity of scripture. The apologist must not only affirm that scripture was written by men who had reason to know but also that the claims were true.

[@LukeMedcalf]

If the gospels were truly anonymous, then why did the early church (and even the dissidents in general) have no problem agreeing on the authorship of the gospels?

[@buddhikaw]

Because ascribing those authors add weight to the veracity of what's written in the gospels and therefore makes Christianity more believable. Surely you understand that this also takes weight away from their claims because they have so much to gain by lying.

[@cowboywayne35]

I hope this is sarcasm 😅

[@LeoAnimations_TMNT]

If that were the case, why wouldn't they have just changed the names to people closer to Jesus like Peter? Mary? In fact, they threw out those documents as fakes. So, the truth is it's extremely unlikely that they just forged some names. And no, they had no reason to lie, either. They were all being persecuted and killed, so whether they had names on documents or not wouldn't have mattered. They gained nothing.

[@dwiii1635]

@@LeoAnimations_TMNT They all were not being persecuted and killed. That's a massive exaggeration.

[@j.victor]

Can you make a video responding Paulogia's theory about the resurrection?

[@TestifyApologetics]

Which one are you referring to? I will eventually work my way to the resurrection but I think if we can establish that the gospels are reliable and based on eyewitness testimony, Paul's criticisms of the minimal facts go out the window. I'm wanting to build a more cumulative case and contest some of the assumptions that modern scholars make rather than take the popular minimal facts approach.

[@j.victor]

@@TestifyApologetics I think that the best naturalistic explanation is offered by him... The fact that the only eywitness claiming to see the Risen-Jesus is a strong case against the resurrection...

[@lileveyc]

@@j.victorcheck this response by Braxton Hunter kzbin.info/www/bejne/gZmpqpuGnN1mi80

[@TestifyApologetics]

Only one you mean?

[@j.victor]

@@TestifyApologetics Yes. But not exactly one, but 2.

[@chasep5539]

Brilliant

[@ultraironmaiden123]

This was very good. Gob bless you for the work you are doing, my friend.

[@DaddyBooneDon]

Thanks for the video. You would think that Erhman would have done the same research before writing his erroneous book. Confirmation bias...?

[@ToxicallyMasculinelol]

I think this idea comes in large part from Old Testament scholarship. The documentary hypothesis is built on the idea of post-Exilic redactors, anonymously splicing together sources and presumably fudging the transitions and details. For a century this concerted, unilateral effort to undermine the credibility of the Old Testament proceeded, unabated, without much opposition in academia. Just a giant chasm forming between the Church and the academy, never the twain shall meet. So by the late 20th century, for you to get any attention as a biblical scholar, the only big sensational claims left to make were about the credibility of the New Testament. Since most biblical scholars already accepted the anonymous authorship of most of the OT, it seemed like a safe (yet still spicy) bet that the New Testament was anonymous too. Given all the anti-Catholic bias in academia it seemed equally safe to disregard the uninterrupted chain of testimony of the fathers. It's part of a general attitude of assuming the worst. It infects us at every turn. They did the same thing regarding camels in the Pentateuch. The Pentateuch never mentions anyone domesticating camels in Israel, only patriarchs of the Israelites using camels in one way or another. But it does say that the pharaoh of Egypt gave Joseph camels. 150 years ago, we didn't have much evidence for camel domestication in Egypt. So, skeptical scholars, being as arrogant as they are, started claiming that the lack of evidence for camels in Egypt in the time of Joseph proves that the Pentateuch was written or significantly edited much later. And the claim quickly ballooned from there, everyone jumping on the bandwagon. Pretty soon, every mention of camels in the OT was dissected with a fine-toothed comb. Even lied about. There are still skeptical critics misleadingly implying that the Bible says camels were domesticated in Israel in the 2nd millennium BC. It definitely doesn't, but the claim gets repeated anyway. That way they get to point to a dozen articles proving that strawman wrong, while ignoring the fact that the Bible only says the camels came from Egypt and Arabia. Keep in mind it was all built on the claim that there were no camels in Egypt in the 2nd millennium BC. And in the last 100 years, numerous examples of many different media have proven that Egyptians had domesticated camels perhaps as early as the 3rd millennium BC. They most likely traded for the one-humped dromedary with Arabians, and then bred their own from Arabian stock. Exactly as you would expect for one of the greatest empires in human history, like two weeks' journey on foot from Arabian camel traders. But that still hasn't stopped atheist polemicists from repeating this claim. It's like a syndrome, like the opposite of religious credulity. Instead of a willingness to uncritically accept anything, it's a predisposition to assume that everything you read in the Bible must be wrong. I had this syndrome pretty bad before my conversion, a tendency to interpret anything Christian as uncharitably as humanly possible, and to pounce on any lack of corroborating evidence as evidence of falsehood. After all, even if the Bible _did_ claim that camels were domesticated in Israel in the time of Abraham (which it doesn't, because Abraham was from Mesopotamia), the lack of evidence for camel domestication in Israel in the 2nd millennium BC can only ever prove that we haven't found any evidence. Sometimes, things happen and don't leave a sign that survives for 4000 years in the desert. And sometimes, archaeologists just aren't looking in the right places. Double standards are a big component of it. You can't take any Christian at their word. If a church father says something about the authorship of the gospels, well, they're just repeating some fake tradition. After all, we know from "scholarship" that the OT authors also wrote books falsely claiming to have been authored by patriarchs. We can safely assume that everything thought to be written by someone important was actually written by some maniacally cackling conspirator in the 4th century, hoping to repress society and stop women from having abortions. But what happens when you apply that rule to literally any other ancient source? Why do we think the works of _any_ ancient author were written by that author? While some people might realize that this double standard shows that they're wrong to treat the Bible with such prejudice, there are some examples of historians and textual critics who are seriously doubling down on it. Unwilling to open their mind to Christianity, to admit that maybe they were a bit overzealous with respect to biblical conspiracy theories, they literally have applied that rule of aggressive skepticism to non-Christian sources. Today you can find many serious scholars challenging the existence of Homer. Why? Because they challenged the existence of Jesus and the Apostles on even shakier grounds than the ones on which they challenge the existence of Homer. From their point of view, if they can't see Jesus and touch his gaping wounds themselves, then he's just a myth. So, some ancient documents attest to some ancient people who attested to his existence. So what? If anything, that just proves that ancient polemicists existed, willing to make up stories to make some kind of point. They hate modern Christians for everything they stand for, so why should ancient Christians be any different? But there isn't any better reason to believe Homer existed. A smaller number of manuscripts, and they're much, much later. We have lots of ancient sources that seem to assume the reality of an author called Homer, but they could just be repeating some tradition that assumed Homer's existence. The further down the rabbit hole you go with this hermeneutic of suspicion, the more likely you are to come to the conclusion that "Homeridae" is just the name of some kind of poetry guild, meaning "sons of hostages." That's literally what Homer skeptics claim. That ancient, roving songwriters just wandered around Greece, concocting wild confabulations to entertain the masses. The trade, and the vague templates for the stories, were passed from father to son, and only much later were some of them ever written down, after having been developed by perhaps a dozen or more generations of Homeric bards. Somehow these bizarre theories, claiming really elaborate things about the development of Homer, things that would require a massive guild to exist all over Greece, without ever being mentioned by a _single_ ancient source, seems more plausible to historical critics than the story believed by the ancient people closest to the events. It's just a fundamental worldview difference. For me, I have zero chance of knowing anything about Homer. I'm simply not in a position to know about Homer, since he lived thousands of years ago. I can use my imagination to envision what _might_ have been true about Homer, but I should take my ideas with a gigantic grain of salt. If I want to really know anything about Homer, I can examine the testimony of those people who lived closest to him. There may not be any testimony close enough that I'd put much stock in it. But at the very least I'm gonna put more stock in it than in my own rambling visions. I might not stake my life on the ancient Romans having had the right idea about who Homer was. But I'd be better off operating under that assumption, than operating under the assumption that some story I completely invented in my own mind, that contradicts all the ancient sources and is supported by no direct testimony, is correct. Obviously the same is all true about any biblical subject. Before I was open to Christianity, I just sort of smugly accepted the "scholarly consensus" as if it was some kind of magic oracle. But scholars consent to a completely fantastical story about the Bible, a story that isn't attested to by _any_ historical sources, that nobody even thought of, let alone believed, until the 19th century at the very earliest. The story keeps getting more fantastical every year. It has spiralled into utter chaos, with more theories about the "historical Jesus" than there are Jesus scholars. There are so-called academics claiming Jesus was a feminist revolutionary. It's totally out of control because these people think they have license to basically write historical fiction about Jesus (and the biblical topics more generally) and lather it in a thin veneer of scholarship and call it history. They go into historical sources and, instead of accepting the testimony of the ancient person (who's in a far better position to know the truth than them) with a grain of salt, they cherry-pick tiny details and call them subtext, or call them cultural context, and extrapolate from there to yield a wild fantasy that sounds plausible but has literally zero attestation. I could make up a story about Julius Caesar having a secret gay relationship with one of his slave boys. It sounds... plausible, I guess? The Greeks and Romans were notorious pederasts, after all. But 1) no contemporary source tells us this, 2) no secondary source within 2000 years of Caesar's life tells us this, and 3) you can easily identify an underhanded sociopolitical motive in my "theory." It sounds exactly like the kind of theory a 21st-century textual critic (viz. an LGBT "woke" activist with tenure) would come up with. Just like the theories of Jesus as some kind of Marxist zealot, or as a New Age spiritist opposed to organized religion and imperialism.

[@ToxicallyMasculinelol]

Also note that the Homeric skepticism requires you to believe that people in Classical Greece were so stupid, so incompetent, so illiterate, that for hundreds of years, they failed to remember, notice, and write down that a guild called the Homeridae, with hundreds of members, even existed (let alone that they were the source of the Iliad and the Odyssey, and that these stories were passed down by oral tradition and came in hundreds of versions). It strains credulity, it's anachronistic, and it's frankly _insulting_ to the memory of the ancients. If the Homeridae existed and were responsible for such monumental works of literature, I think someone would have thought to record that fact, especially considering we're talking about the very same culture that was so committed to literature and posterity that it recorded the Iliad and the Odyssey themselves. Why would they record the stories yet fail to record any true information about their authors? It's just absurd. But this is the kind of thing that the humanities breed in a modern, consumerized academic system. The spirit of academia is so competitive, it's bound to result in spectacular displays of oneupmanship like this. Unlike the natural sciences, where we can set up elaborate experimental apparatuses to test hypotheses, the humanities often spiral out into aggressively insane conjecture, as opposed to the academic mythology we often hear about "gradually honing in on the truth through iteration." That legend is true of science at its best, but certainly not of historical criticism at its worst. If that's the identifying mark of scholarship, then historical criticism is simply not scholarship. And why would it be? Just look at related disciplines like critical theory, gender studies, even political science. Its most significant contribution to humanity in the last generation has been an avalanche of manure of unprecedented scale and impact. Someone like Bart Ehrman, whose life is devoted to his scholarship rather than God, has completely failed at life if he isn't noticed by the public, by his peers, by institutions that could fund his research, etc. But how can one scholar get noticed? All the reasonable claims about the texts he studies have already been made. All that's left is to make some really wild claims, so scandalous they'll appeal to atheists and conspiracy theorists alike, and so counterintuitive that they just might be true. The craziest thing is that, as insane as it is, Homeric skepticism is vastly more reasonable than skepticism of New Testament authorship, early dating, sincerity, etc. Our earliest manuscripts are vastly closer for the NT than for Homer. Our earliest independent attestation is way earlier and more numerous for the NT than for Homer. We have a trans-mediterranean Church being formed on the basis of the NT in the mid first century AD, within a couple decades of the crucifixion. There's no evidence of Homer's impact for hundreds of years, and none of its impact really relies on Homer being a single person rather than a guild of people. And yet it's still absurd to believe that Homer did not exist, despite many ancient manuscripts that say he did, and instead believe that a guild of people, never mentioned in any manuscript, was responsible for Homer's works, that have never been attributed to said guild. Like, as poor as the historical corroboration for Homer's existence is, it's vastly more plausible than this Homeridae claim, which is simply not attested. We have to believe that everyone who wrote about Homer was lying or mistaken AND believe that nobody ever bothered to mention the real Homeridae. It's exactly the same situation with the New Testament, except that on top of the extremely low prior probability of all the ancient sources being wrong, we have a huge abundance of documentary evidence within the first generation and exponentially growing thereafter. We have a Church forming rapidly within the first generation, a Church that would have no reason for existing if skeptical theories of the New Testament are true. So if we reject the sensational claims about Homer being some kind of symbol or stand-in for a guild, we should find it even harder to believe sensational conspiracy theories about the New Testament. But there are many, many more skeptics of the NT than skeptics of Homer. Obviously, this is because accepting traditions about Homer wouldn't require that you accept the divinity of Christ, the deposit of faith, the authority of the Church, the sinfulness of many contemporary indulgences and political ideologies, the judgment of your soul, the possibility of eternal suffering, etc. We can afford to be reasonable when it comes to Homer. But with the New Testament, we need to use _motivated reasoning_ to evade responsibility. That's what the documents are all about. They're a call to take charge of your life, to wrestle with your salvation, to subject your will to principles rather than forming your principles based on the will of the world. Whereas, for modern people, Homer is just a collection of fun stories. It's... the Marvel Cinematic Universe of the 1st millennium BC. So, there is simply no reason to doubt the ancient traditions surrounding it, _except_ to stay consistent. The only reason to cast doubt on it is if people have pointed out to you the double standard of suspicion you apply to the Bible and nothing else. This has really blown up in the case of Homer, as some of the most notable ancient sources aside from the Bible. But really, it should be applied to every ancient document, and it still isn't. All of history begins to unravel when we apply the rule consistently. It's pointless to even list examples, literally every ancient historian should have "Pseudo-" prefixed to their name. So far they're only doing it to Homer, so the double standard has just been expanded a bit. Expanding it further is unsustainable, because it threatens to undermine everything we think we know about the ancient world.

[@thecircumcisedheartofricha7344]

TL; DR

[@purposedrivennihilist7983]

Hey this video was great, but John claims to be a disciple of Jesus who’s writing this down at the end of the book. Isn’t that an indication John wrote his Gospel?

[@TestifyApologetics]

Yes that's internal evidence but John isn't explicitly named as the author within the gospel named after him. To find that out simply internally we need to do some detective work. I'll do a whole video on internal evidence in John in this series.

[@purposedrivennihilist7983]

@Testify, Do you have anything on Matthew?

[@TestifyApologetics]

@@purposedrivennihilist7983 That is coming too. Or you can read my blog here if you don't want to wait: isjesusalive.com/did-matthew-write-the-gospel-of-matthew/

[@purposedrivennihilist7983]

@Testify, Thanks very much! I apologize for the late response.

[@joehinojosa24]

You Inspire Inspiring Philosophy

[@TestifyApologetics]

IDK about that I'd say it's probably more the other way around.

[@joehinojosa24]

@@TestifyApologetics" Testify" from lexical MARTUREO, present active indicative OMEGA conjugation, 1st person singular YOURE INSPIRING ME SIR TESTIFY!

[@austinlincoln3414]

NON SCIO

[@joehinojosa24]

@@austinlincoln3414 Yeah. Look up regular verb lesson in Ray Summers Essentials of NT Greek. Good place to start.

[@FollowersofTheShepherd]

@@austinlincoln3414 you mean Nescio?

[@rehwellacosta9099]

Where does Clement address that matthews gospel was written in Hebrew ?

[@McbrideStudios]

I would encourage everyone to examin the case for anonymous authorship. Afterall the idea is neither original too nor belived only by secular scholars.

[@daddada2984]

To God be the glory

[@redmattuk]

Hey thanks for doing this video. Question: aren't these church fathers pretty late? Is there anything from the first century testifying the authors?

[@TheDarkChemicalBond]

No, there isn't, and that's the problem. By the time the church fathers were writing the accounts were already being heavily modified. The ending of Mark is just one example, but the gospel of John is really the smoking gun. I'm not sure how anyone can read that and not see that it's clearly a matured theology. Some of John's arguments seem to be a direct response to "heresies" that didn't crop up until the mid to late 2nd century at the earliest. To me, John is the biggest problem to deal with in regards to gospel authorship.

[@magicker8052]

lol YES.. but he is not going to tell you about that as it will ruin his BS narrative. Keep looking you are on the right lines.

[@InitialPC]

the writings are from the 2nd century not the church fathers themselves, just like the gospels the original would have been written way earlier but either hasnt been found yet or hasnt survived at all, succeeded by copies to preserve the content of the text

[@InitialPC]

@@magicker8052 so you mean to tell me that there is a secret trove of 1st century writings that debunk the christian narrative? please enlighten us

[@magicker8052]

@@InitialPC nothing secret about them at all.. the main stream scholarly consensus have been discussing them for hundreds of years.

[@protochris]

Scholarship debate over the gospels authorship is largely based upon the scholars political affiliation instead of academic proficency.

[@oscarjosefsson9300]

Yeah, it have always felt weird to me that the further you go back in time there was less and less confusion about who the authors were. And now it seems like you can be a "scholar" and just question everything based on almost nothing. Basically they seem to pretend to have more knowledge while they most likely have less knowledge than the scholars of yore.

[@medicalmisinformation]

ANNO DOMINI (AD) comes before the number. Thanks for your good work!

[@viktorlampinen1785]

Thank you!

[@clouds-rb9xt]

Matthew written in Hebrew??

[@Alexleight]

Love the thumbnail

[@PhilipHood-du1wk]

Bart Ehrman is by far the most qualified expert on this topic. Bart Ehrman.

[@Markus_Abrach]

I believe that John finished the new testament like Esra finished the old testament

[@bryanhall2860]

So what is the earliest document we have that refers to the gospels as Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John? I think its around 180 CE

[@benabaxter]

The argument of this video demolishes evangelical Protestantism and any others who abandon study of the Church Fathers. There are some extremely early attestations about Christian practice which almost no Protestants acknowledge, admit, or even admire. I'm thinking especially of both relics and martyrs.

[@TheBanjoShowOfficial]

Occam’s razor would suggest, and given the context of the time period we’re discussing here, that the simplest answer would be they were who they said they were, and everyone agreed because it was simply true that they were the ones who wrote it. Why convolute names as if though this matters more than the substance of the content itself? Even from the ancients’ point of view, they likely regarded the writings as more important than getting the exact name of authorship correct, but because they knew who it could be attributed to, there was no guessing game that had to be played to guess who wrote them. If the name is on the document, the name is on the document.

[@dondindac]

So I don't know if you understand what occam's razor means by your comment. Typically it refers to constructing an argument with the smallest possible set of elements or assumptions. The fact that the Synoptic gospels and John do not tell us who wrote them (They are anonymous with no Author indicated in the text) then by definition adding any authorship would be literally adding an additional element. You could literally accept them as true with reliability in the information contained and adding a author to the works would be a violation of Occam's razor.

[@TheBanjoShowOfficial]

@@dondindac what the hell are you talking about that their authorship isn’t in the texts? Yes it is, it’s literally right there have you ever opened a Bible?

[@dondindac]

@@TheBanjoShowOfficial Yes, I have. I have also read the introduction to the gospels and read the writings of historians and textual critics. Are you simply unaware that the headers "The gospel according to..." were not on the original manuscripts? And that the names we have today were added hundreds of years after the texts were first written by early church fathers who didn't have any special first hand knowledge of authorship?

[@DUDEBroHey]

​@@dondindacdid anyone ever know who wrote the gospels or do you think someone found them on the side of the road, picked them up and thought they were fascinating stories?

[@dondindac]

@@DUDEBroHey The short version is that we don't know who wrote the gospels. Most Biblical Historians and Textual Critics believe they were oral traditions present in the early christian population that were written down sometime between 70-120 CE. Of course that would be the original versions of the gospels which we don't have and the actual manuscripts we can study are copies of copies of translations of copies. So literally the people who wrote them (i.e. pen to paper) were unknown scribes and early church leaders who likely were reading and copying ancient texts (now lost) and adding stories they thought should be included.

[@anthonyh4125]

I promise you, if you just left, one breath between your sentences your videos would be so much easier to understand. Your content is excellent ; The video is excellent ; It is just very distracting, trying to understand what you were saying because you are talking way too fast . My apologies for being rude . I’m just trying to understand the video without having to rewind it many many times . I wish you all the best

[@tommywarren4633]

The apostle Paul wrote the Christian gospel, Paul said it was his gospel, and preach no other gospel but his, he said he got all of his information directly from Christ through the abundance of Revelations 2nd Corinthians 12.7, Paul wrote 20 years after the crucifixion of Christ that's 30 years before the four gospels were ever thought of, Paul got his gospel directly from the horse's mouth so to speak, Paul the author of Christianity.

[@jamesbarringer2737]

We don’t know who wrote the Harry Potter novels. We know Lemony Snicket wrote “A Series of Unfortunate Events,” clearly, because Lemony Snicket made it so clear. If JK Rowling wrote the Harry Potter novels, if she actually did write them (which she didn’t) why would she have not announced herself clearly in the text of the Harry Potter books? But she didn’t. Clearly it is a near-certainty the JK Rowling is not the actual author of the Harry Potter series.

[@bikesrcool_1958]

I get the idea u were portraying but comparing fiction to four historical manuscripts might get the skeptics some false idea

[@gerryquinn5578]

Yet, despite the testimony of early Church Fathers, modern scholars dismiss this tradition. They argue that it does not fit with modern 'scientific' analysis of the gospels. 'Mathew's gospel is written in Greek and not Hebrew/Aramaic as tradition tells us. Furthermore, it seems to be based on Mark. Why would an Apostle have to base his work on the testimony of a non -eye witness ? etc. We cannot simply ignore the claims of modern scholars and dismiss them all as atheists or 'higher critics'. Many conservative scholars agree with many of their claims .

[@JP-rf8rr]

I'm actually gonna reference a point with testify, because Mathew wasn't there for the entirety of Jesus' ministry. The fact he wasn't present for the beginning would explain why he would refer to mark on chapters 1-8 and he also wasn't present for its end explaining the coping of the passion narrative.

[@gerryquinn5578]

@@JP-rf8rr : Don't you think he could have found out? Don't you think if he witnessed the resurrection and ascenion he could have learned the facts. Was he not 'inspired' by holy spirit? So many questions.

[@JP-rf8rr]

@@gerryquinn5578 Seeing the ascension doesn't equal being given a lecture about all the information relating to Jesus' early ministry. Being inspired doesn't mean giving a download of information. If Mark accurately records Peter's witness of the early church then why not include it?

[@gerryquinn5578]

@@JP-rf8rr : I have no objection to it being included. I only point out that early tradition has been pretty much dismissed.

[@JP-rf8rr]

@@gerryquinn5578 So what? Unless there is valid reason to throw away all historical testimony a couple generations after the apostles then I don't care. We allow them in nearly all other historical inquiries, why not this one?

[@LukeMedcalf]

also, how did the church fathers know that matthew originally wrote the gospel in hebrew?

[@user-nz8xr3wq9p]

Tradition.

[@philippaul2270]

rhymining pairs in hebrew as memory devices, use of kingdom of heaven instead of kingdom of God due to hebrew sensitivities, early hebrew language transcripts, known extrant late 2nd century.

[@universalflamethrower6342]

I think the claim that the Gospels were not written by their names sakes is an extra ordinary claim

[@keneutervalve9459]

I tend to believe mark was first. I've heard solid arguments.

[@v1e1r1g1e1]

Yeah. Okay. You got me. It was me and Morty who wrote the Gospels. We got drunk and wanted to pull off a bit of a scam. Turned out to be bigger than we thought. You know... time machines and all that. Anyway. Thought I'd clear that up.

[@PhilipHood-du1wk]

Bart Ehrman is the premier expert to explain who wrote the New testament.

[@TestifyApologetics]

Lol

[@tomveres5043]

Interesting video. Where I get hazy is that you're quoting well-known early church fathers attesting to Mark writing the recollections of Peter, while Matthew writing his own account (as an eyewitness), and the church fathers seemed to be in agreement on this. We know that the gospel of Matthew can be more accurately described as a copy of Mark (in about 80%) - or vice versa, depending on who copied whom - , sometimes we have almost the same identical phrases. My question is, if what the church fathers say is true, why did Matthew as an eyewitness had to rely so heavily on the account of a non-eyewitness? Although I must say that from my understanding as a fraud analyst who regularly compares data, since Mark contains the least amount of unique material not found in Matthew and Luke (about 3%), "Mark" must have copied the contents from these 2 almost as a summary/amalgam of the 2 already existing accounts. It really is the most logical assumption one can come to. So that would date Mark as the 3rd in chronological order. However the problem with this is that Luke mentions in his gospel that there were others (notice the plural) who already wrote an account of the life of Jesus, and if one of those wasn't Mark, who else wrote besides Matthew? It's impossible to know, but there's definitely something in the Q source hypothesis, perhaps a sayings gospel that was lost. Matthew's gospel was also considered by some early church fathers to be the first. Papias was surely wrong about either Matthew or Mark, because you can't have 2 so similar accounts coming from 2 different sources (Matthew as an eyewitness vs. Mark as a non-eyewitness, but relying on Peter's tellings). But there's another issue with what Papias claims. If we regard John to be the most authentic of the gospels as it claims to have been written by an eyewitness and mentions Peter being present at the grave, how come Mark has no account of the resurrection as we know the earliest manuscripts of Mark do not contain 16:9-17 and they were added later in the 4th century by contemporary church fathers. How could Peter not mention such a CRUCIAL detail to Mark??? It's entirely unlikely. You're correct on the dating of the gospels being very biased (explained in your other video), because this is almost exclusively based on Jesus predicting the destruction of the temple - those who completely reject the idea that Jesus could have predicted such a thing will of course start dating the gospels after the destruction of the temple. I acknowledge you did have a valid point there. The authorship of Luke was first mentioned by Irenaeus in 180 AD which is a long shot and based on oral tradition only, but I think he might be right about it. We know that the gospel was written by the perspective of a gentile, and there's also a consensus among scholars that Luke-Acts was written by the same author and most likely a companion of Paul. That still wouldn't prove Luke in itself, but there's only 3 gentiles mentioned by Paul in his letters: Epaphras, Demas and Luke. The first 2 can be ruled out on literary grounds, leaving only Luke as the possible author. Also he was educated and a Greek native (which is undisputedly a very important factor), fits the profile more than Mark or Matthew for their own. We're dealing with probabilities here, but there's absolutely some merit in considering him to be the author of both the gospel and Acts. The authorship of the last gospel is hugely problematic and perhaps generates the most debates, mainly due to the John 1, 2 and 3. Textual analysts have concluded that their authors are not the same (despite 1 John claiming to be an eyewitness, just like the author of the gospel) which lead most scholars to believe that they were written by a group of followers of John, known as the Johannine community. But this raises more questions rather than gives any answers as there's hardly any mention of the gospel, or quotations from it until the 3rd century, although there were several early followers of John who actually wrote letters and other texts. So how come such an important gospel which is the most unique and contains perhaps the most important revelations could have been so neglected? I really can't explain this. Also there's the issue of late add-ons to the gospel, perhaps the most important being John 3:16 which is the only verse in the Bible explicitly explaining the Trinity, which cannot be found in earlier manuscripts. So I'm really confused about this one. My take on this is that based on probabilities Matthew and Luke were very likely written by their purported authors, although Matthew certainly via proxy, i.e. interpreters (as attested by Papias, and common sense - Matthew probably didn't speak any Greek at all), with John Mark almost certainly not writing the gospel, nor would his be the first to have been written. I'm really uncertain about John. I'm curious on what your thoughts might be.

[@eunicechannel837]

Tom, the original authors of the gospels are John the Baptist and the three brothers James, Peter and John. Their writings have been tainted and hijacked by their enemies to fit their own agenda.

[@TheDarkChemicalBond]

@@eunicechannel837 What are you basing this statement on?

[@eunicechannel837]

@@TheDarkChemicalBond , the disciples were scribes. Peter, John and James being the closest disciples to Jesus naturally got a lot to write of his teachings. Remember the two of them were JTB's former disciples. Isn't it unusual that they just leave JTB and follow Jesus? No, They have JTB's approval and instructions, to witness and write Jesus Ministry and he was the editor in chief. Remember the prophet Jeremiah? Does he have a scribe? Of course he has. Prophets has scribe(s) to help them. Now, where is the book of one of the important prophets in history?

[@eunicechannel837]

Remember John at the crucifixion, what was he doing there when everyone of the team has run away out of fear of the roman boy scouts? Because at least one has to witness ( not rumors) that event and to record it accurately and by doing the will of God, he was gifted to live a long life in island arrest.

[@TheDarkChemicalBond]

@@eunicechannel837 Please don't take this negatively, as I certainly don't mean it that way, but can you clarify that statement a bit? Where are you getting the idea from that Peter was a scribe? Or am I misinterpreting your position? My understanding of the current scholarship is that we're not even close to knowing who wrote the gospels. Paul seems pretty rock solid, as there's enough intertextual and historic proof to say that he did exist and probably traveled where he said he did. However, authorship for the gospels themselves seem murky, at best. I really hope that we find another treasure trove of period writings before I die. There's a lot of non-canonical writings that tease at a vein of early Christianity that we're currently missing. "The Secret Sayings of Jesus," to me, is an incredibly important collection. I want to believe that we will find more writings that shed light on the early dissemination of Christian ideas and thought.

[@Tanengtiong]

Born again Christians know

[@wahlao81]

Humility is not considered a good virtue by some Bible scholars. They somehow think they know more than the Church fathers even though they are separated from the actual events by almost 2000 years

[@andrewthomas4636]

👍

[@greatndit]

i don't understand your video

[@knightd00b]

Agreement from biased sources does not equate to proof. There is also the fact Matthew, Luke and John built on Mark.

[@JP-rf8rr]

John not much at all, Mathew on parts he wasn't present for like the beginning of Jesus' ministry and other points. And Luke because he openly says he is building off of eye witness testimony in the beginning of his gospel.

[@LeoAnimations_TMNT]

What proof are you looking for exactly lol? Who else would've known the authorship of the gospels other than the ones who got them in the first place?

[@knightd00b]

@G_Loves_Jesus Who would that be? There is no record. There is no definitive authorship. There are no signed originals. There are no eye-witness testimonies with their signed declarations. It's all he said she said etc.

[@LeoAnimations_TMNT]

@@knightd00b again, they weren't just floating around with no name attached to them. Every single manuscript we've found all have the same 4 gospels connected. No more, no less. If it truly did come with no name, there would 100% be variation. The only argument that people like Bart Ehrman have is that there's "wide variety" in the documents. This, however, is a lie. These varieties consists of things like "The gospel according to," or "according to," not the names within them. All the names are the same within them. And btw, they wrote on codex's, hence why they didn't have a signature or anything on the document. They labeled their names with something else and preserved it so they knew who it was from. It's well known all the early church fathers agreed on the authors since they had relations with them. They were still alive when these came about.

[@nupatriarch1681]

@@knightd00b Why are you being so obtuse, here? You certainly don’t believe they all “just kept the con going”? I thoroughly understand the importance of chain of custody, but from the sources that we have (patristics and this video), the authors of the Gospels are the Men whose names are the titles. I know you don’t like us(Christians), but we kept our records together. Barring any kind of catastrophe(fires, war, natural disasters), our records are still intact. If not the men whose names are the titles are the authors, then who? Are you “ghostwriter” trolling??

[@qb101]

It's nearly cartoonish how Ehrman continues to spout unending conjecture and just outright fabrication of "evidence" that is regularly, roundly, and easily refuted under even the most basic interrogation. Yet, he still has rabid acolytes and book deals making him quite financially comfortable.

[@magicker8052]

Have you actually bothered to explore WHY they think the gospels were originally anonymous?

[@LeoAnimations_TMNT]

Yeah, easily. Because the manuscripts they found come with no name. In their time period, they didn't put their names because they labeled their works off the codex they wrote with, hence why the early church fathers put it in the book. They had the originals labeled with the authors, and they put the names of those authors as the writers of the books. It really is that simple.

[@christopherjohnson7195]

Jesus early followers would have spoken Aramaic and would probably not been able to write. The gospels were written in Greek. Due to passages where they match nearly word for word, it's pretty certain that the writers of Luke and Matthew had Mark as a source, except they did change the words in places.

[@magicker8052]

THIS ^^ why on earth would Matthew (a supposed eye witness) cut and paste from the non-eyewitnesses? The idea that these are “independent accounts” becomes absurd when we see editorial injections “ (let the reader understand) “ !! I mean seriously. You expect us to believe that an independent “eyewitnesses” (in the case of Matthew) used the exact same (GREEK) interjection!!! (Mt 24:15/Mt 13:14) Similarly: Mt 9:6/Mk 2:10/Lk 5:24; or how about Mt 27:18/Mk 15:10. Independent? Eyewitnesses!!

[@lyongreene8241]

Matthew came first. If you read Mark critically, and without any prior assumptions, it reads exactly like an abridged summary of Matthew. I challenge you to do this

[@FinalFantasy8911debater]

@@lyongreene8241 That's a lie. For one, mark leaves out the birth narrative, and originally ends with an empty tomb and women running in fear and saying nothing to anyone. It doesn't make sense and doesn't seem reasonably plausible that a believer in jesus would have matthew and make mark from it. mark has a lesser version of jesus in it than in matthew. mark sees jesus as a messiah and a son of god, but leaves out a divine birth narrative, theological teachings, and a completed resurrection where jesus meets the apostles. So no, mark didn't have matthew when he wrote it. If mark wanted to write a shorter version of matthew, he would have kept in matthew's fundamental principles of jesus. Stop being a suck up to a false religion. Grow up.

[@lyongreene8241]

@@FinalFantasy8911debater Just because Mark leaves out the virgin birth doesn't prove anything. Marcopolo never mentioned the great wall of china when he was there, Ulysess S Grant never mentioned the Emancipation proclamation. This is an argument from silence, so it doesn't work. Mark had his reasons for leaving out the virgin birth since his focus was the ministry of Jesus. He kept the highlights but left out some details because that's what a summary is. It's not a verbatim copy of the original text but a short concise highlight of the major points. Mark has a high view of Jesus: Mark 12:35-44 "35 While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, “Why do the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David? 36 David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: “‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.”’ 37 David himself calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?” The large crowd listened to him with delight." Here are some other verses: Mark 1:1-3 Mark 2:6-7 ("Why does he talk like that? ... who can forgive sins except for God alone?") Mark 2:19 Mark 2:27 (Jesus identifies himself as Lord of the sabbath) And that's just in the first couple chapters. How can you read all that and conclude that Jesus isn't God? Then there is the transfiguration (Mark 9). The last time we see Moses and Elijah on a mountain is in the Old Testament where God tells them to look away while his presence passes by them lest they see his face and die. Well in this scene they see the face of God. Now all this doesn't prove that Jesus is God but that you're a bad textual critic if you don't see Mark's true intention here which is to equate Jesus with God. That's just understanding the author's purpose which is something they should have taught you to do in school. On the resurrection in Mark's ending: Jesus foreshadows his ressurection in Mark 14:27-28 27 “You will all fall away,” Jesus told them, “for it is written: “‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.’ 28 But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee.” So the original manuscript ending might have just been lost or Mark intentionally left it out as a stylistic choice in order to leave the story on a cliff hanger.

[@FinalFantasy8911debater]

​@@lyongreene8241 You are an absurd CLOWN. mark leaves out MORE THAN the virgin birth, he leaves out many other fantastical claims of the other gospels. How do you know that mark INTENTIONALLY left out the virgin birth, instead of it not even being invented yet? All the gospels include things like jesus's baptism, jesus's ministry, and him getting crucified. There's no good reason for them all to lack things like a birth story narrative, IF it actually happened. That's a reasonable fact. NO, mark didn't leave out a birth story because he wanted to focus on the ministry. mark WAS INTERESTED on jesus' nature AND ministry. NONE of those verses teach that jesus is god, you clown. YOU are the bad text critic and NO I shouldn't have been taught your BS. mark's first verse TELLS you what he thinks jesus is: the SON of god, not god as in yahweh. Simple as that. mark also teaches that jesus is the messiah too, through peter's claim that he is. The old testament teaches that a son of god is a righteous human being. mark idolizes jesus as that, plus adds that jesus has a holy spirit, which jesus uses to do miracles (as mark teaches, so without the holy spirit, jesus would have no divine powers). mark teaches that jesus, being a man, was chosen by god to be able to have power similar to yahweh. THAT is what mark teaches. The only reason you silly christians like to think jesus is god is because john teaches that, and you want to pretend john has the same christology that mark does. Its pathetic. NO, there's no good reason to think mark's ending was lost or that he did that on purpose. The oldest manuscripts of mark have women fleeing in fear and saying nothing. How would you know some original manuscript got lost or that mark left out important facts on purpose?

[@00Recoil]

Thug life Augustine is brilliant.

[@dondindac]

I am uncertain why you would say "the early church fathers were unambiguous and united about who wrote the gospels". That is an odd thing to lie about as no early church father quoted in structured form (like John 3:16 indicating a Canon like manuscript) nor extensively described anything identifying about what they called these gospels. It was not until the late 2nd century that Irenaeus actually specified identifiable writings as the gospels and asserted their authorship. While many church fathers would quote sayings of the apostles or cite versus found in the later attributed texts they never gave specific identity to a manuscript until 2nd/3rd century. I wouldn't say that is all the early church fathers in that time frame...

[@georgelutz1089]

Because ancient dogmatism is not any more valid than modern dogmatism

[@Fkk580]

I love how bart is open to debate anyone he says just reach out and people answering him in their videos instead of confronting him 😂

[@mrbaeman39lolman60]

Because not everyone can debate him at any time? Maybe it's not necessary?

[@josephbartsch5525]

So the only sources we have talking about authorship is 150 years after the books came out?

[@dionsanchez2775]

That is enough. Especially when we have manuscripts too.

[@josephbartsch5525]

@@dionsanchez2775 where is the cut off line of where it’s not enough?

[@protector9513]

That's actually better than any other ancient writing

[@posthawk1393]

Actually earlier than 150, and they crop up all over the world and have uniformity in their views. Also, the lack of any competing claims of authorship, as well as any idea who would’ve written them if not the supposed authors, is good evidence that the Gospels authors actually wrote them.

[@josephbartsch5525]

@@posthawk1393 so like, when was the first time an author was mentioned.

[@sird2333]

The apostles.

[@ivarhakuse8572]

Why should Pagan critics be described as ‘Rabid’? That charge could also easily be laid onto not only on Christian preachers, iconoclasts and inquisitors, but also on top of the heads of Biblical prophets and most importantly their violent narcissistic character called god!

[@jesusirizarryrodriguez835]

Bot

[@psandbergnz]

The early Church fathers did NOT say who wrote any of the Gospels, and it is interesting that the video speaker does not QUOTE the early Chruch fathers, but only attempts to paraphrase them, and in so doing he distorts what they wrote.

[@TestifyApologetics]

The quotes are in the accompanying blog post linked in the description. I'm not distorting anything.

[@lunarmodule6419]

And I guess the Pauline letters came after the gospels?

[@dionsanchez2775]

Nope. Thess and Cor were EARLIER!

[@dux657]

All you have is a tradition that started 100 years after the writings of the gospels against what gospels themselves tell us.

[@JP-rf8rr]

That's actually how we find the authors of most ancient writings. Plus the fact there is no anonymous gospel ever found, the gospels under a different name found. And uniform testimony across the medetarian world in a disconnected church along with testimony from pre nicean enemies who would be happy to claim the gospels weren't written by any apostles never making such claim.

[@ptk8451]

Iant it the same for peoe like HipposrTes ThT is whT Augustone says

[@knightd00b]

That's kind of a circle jerk argument. You need actual contemporaneous evidence, not claims. And that simply isn't there, because it's not in any of the texts. It's literally the same argument the early church used.

[@david52875]

Why don't you apply that same logic to every ancient document? Did you even watch the video?

[@knightd00b]

@david52875 Exactly - there are some good pieces of evidence for certain facts, like there is a Plate with David's name on it, written in Canaanite, suggesting he lived, but everything about his history, is debatable.

[@1968Mcneil]

Checking by yourself you would find out that Mathew and Luke are editions of Mark. that is a Fact, Mark agreed with Paul and not with peter.That show us how misused their autority position the church's fathers trying to misguide us!

[@ptk8451]

Theyhad nothing to gainAll this was pre Constantine

[@John-fk2ky]

The level of historical ignorance that you’re showing here is embarrassing. Please stay away from the conspiracy sites.

[@nickbrasing8786]

You lost me when you said Matthew was written first, and some of the Gospels were originally written in Hebrew. This is so outside what we know today I don't know who actually believes that. Neither is really true. Certainly not that some were written originally in Hebrew. The Gospels were written in Koine Greek. I don't know of any Biblical scholars that believe that they were written in Hebrew. And Mark is widely accepted as the first Gospel written, not Matthew. This is just not consistent with what we know today on the history and transmission of the New Testament. And technically the four Gospels are written anonymously. The authors don't tell us who they are. Not until Irenaeus in the late second century do we have them referred to by the names we know them by now. Possibly by Papius earlier, but his writings are lost so we don't really know. I look forward to your upcoming videos though. A really interesting subject!

[@TestifyApologetics]

I'm reporting what the early traditions are, and we should take them seriously and not indulge in chronological snobbery. It is entirely possible there was a Matthew that was translated soon after it was written, and there are more modern scholars who hold to Mathean priority like Griesbach or Farmer.

[@nickbrasing8786]

@@TestifyApologetics Exactly! It's tradition that ascribes the authorship, not evidence. If you had evidence you wouldn't be relying on tradition. You know, traditional snobbery. And sure, Matthew could have been translated soon after it was written. It could have been written in Spanish, German, Arabic, Aramaic or any other language. But all the oldest manuscripts and manuscript fragments we have are in Greek. There's just no evidence that it was written in any other language, but there is evidence that it wasn't. As you probably well know, there are passages that make no sense in anything but Koine Greek if you translate them. And there are many good reasons for Markan priority, and no good argument for Mathean priority that is convincing to the majority of people that spend their lives studying this. Doesn't make then right, sure, but it just means that for people who devote their lives to studying this, the arguments are not convincing. And I'm sorry but Griesbach is not a modern scholar. He was writing in the 1700's and early 1800's, and Farmer in the 1960's. Not exactly modern....

[@TestifyApologetics]

This doesn't do away with Augustine's complaint against double standards and if Papias and Irenaeus were in a good position to know, then the burden of proof would be on the critics to show they are wrong. Especially since the early traditon is closer to the apostles. People can look at internal evidence and that is fine, I'm not saying I'm married to Matthean priority. I think there are plenty of good internal clues that Matthew and John wrote the gospels named after them. Go to my blog and you can see what I have to say about it, or within a few weeks I'll be doing videos looking at that internal evidence as well as critical complaints against traditional authorship. And 1960s isn't that old, sonny boy. Haha. A lot of Ehrman and others arguments are warmed over German criticism from the 1800s.

[@gerila1285]

@@nickbrasing8786 There is a really interesting book called The Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus, there are chapters on semantics, word order and phrase construction after alleged translation of Matthew and you will se why they think it was probably written in Hebrew because it fits great in Hebrew sentence construction. I am not saying it's true but it is an interesting read nevertheless

[@shredz4000]

@@TestifyApologetics Youre a weird person for calling them "sonny boy". Really makes you and your fellow Christians look good 👍

[@Thatguy-sm8cw]

The earliest extant source you mentioned for Gospel authorship is from the late 2nd Century. The earliest referenced source - Papias - of whom we have no surviving direct works, from around the mid 2nd Century (and who Eusebius did not believe to be credible). That’s about a whole CENTURY of zero authorship evidence from when the gospels were written. That is not an “unbroken chain.” Not to mention we have earlier Patristic writings - the letters of Ignatius and Clement, the Didache - which give no authorship to the gospels. Mighty suspicious, no?

[@keneutervalve9459]

I find that Bart dude to be insufferably arrogant, at least hitchins was interesting, and witty.

[@Bugsy0333]

None of them, the Gospel is written many years after crucifixion of Jesus, its writers are anonymous, only named as Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, non of them ever met Jesus, and none of them is written the Gospel.

[@TestifyApologetics]

To contradict someone isn't the same thing as making a rebuttal. It is just a "nuh uh".

[@SunShine-oe4rt]

@@TestifyApologetics lol perfect reply

[@JP-rf8rr]

What gospel manuscript is anonymous?

[@Bugsy0333]

@@JP-rf8rr It is true, we do not have early gospel manuscripts without attribution to Matthew, Mark, Luke or John respectively, but we can still be sure the autographs were written anonymously. Even today, the only attributions on the four New Testament gospels are in the form that no author would have written, so even today they are effectively anonymous. In the case of what is now known as Mark’s Gospel, this attribution conflicts with what was probably the original title of the gospel. As we see in the KJV, it was originally called The Gospel of Jesus Christ: and much later it became referred to as The Gospel According to St. Mark: “The Gospel According to St. Mark” “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ” Furthermore, the author had no reason to say anything like “According to [St.] Mark” because that implies that the gospel was one of a number, when it was actually the only narrative gospel. It was fully anonymous.

[@JP-rf8rr]

@@Bugsy0333 Really think about the "evidence" you've supplied. The only evidence that the gospels were anonymous is the claim that authors wouldn't have titled the gospel "according to" and an old KJV title... REALLY think about that... At best it shows that the title is unique, not anonymous. Second, why Mark? Why not one of the twelve, or paul, or a figure actually mentioned in the gospel? If it truly was anonymous it makes no sense to choose a literal no name person. Third, even if the very first copy didn't have "according to" why coulding it have been added as soon as Matthew's gospel came out to differentiate it? You might be able to say that it was "technically anonymous" but not anymore than the republic was "technically anonymous" before his name was added on the title. And it would mean that the other gospels were never even "technically anonymous." Honestly, this is making a mountain out of a mole hill. And it doesn't really hold up to all the external evidence, and that the text of these gospels were never even once attributed to any other author. I mean if there was even a halfway believable rumor that the gospels were written by someone else, Celsus would have jumped on it, he did so with many other rumors he couldn't have known to be true. The external evidence for the gospel authorship of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John is gonna demand more than a weird title as counter evidence.

[@thecloudtherapist]

This is not just double-standards - these are the outright lies that Bart Ehrman likes to put out randomly, with no new evidence or support, whatsoever.

[@TestifyApologetics]

The Gospels clearly are meant to be read as history, and the early recipients received them as history. See comments from Julius Africanus, Papias, Justin Martyr, etc. There's an unbroken chain of claims that they weren't seen as being written in some kind of fictional, legendary genre.

[@dondindac]

@@TestifyApologetics You say that there is an "unbroken chain of claims" that they were not intended to be "fictional, legendary genre" but isn't the question not what the writers intended but if they were actually writing history? As in if anonymous authors wrote down legends in a different language than the people in the stories likely spoke then how could that not be "fictional, legendary genre"? Add to that decades of oral tradition and whether or not the authors wanted to write a legendary account how could it not be? Even if it contained large sections of accurate historical fact mixed in with the (forgive me) game of telephone?

[@LeoAnimations_TMNT]

Because that would have been impossible to create a myth of that size in such a little amount of time, especially when everyone would've been alive to refute them. The fact that Luke names many specific people and eyewitnesses that could have been refuted proves that he was providing as much evidence as possibe.

[@Iamjamessmith1]

The double standard is the New Testament gospels claim to be the "word of God" and those others, Plato and others, claim to be what they are, the words of men.

[@andrewcohen786]

What Gospel was Jesus preaching Mark 1:14? Seems lost. Muslims believe he was given the Injeel and seem right.

[@anarchorepublican5954]

...nope..."Repent for the Kingdom of God is at Hand !"

[@torreyintahoe]

Bart Ehrman is correct. The gospels are anonymous. They weren't even given names until 185 AD.

[@TestifyApologetics]

I guess that settles it.

[@torreyintahoe]

@@TestifyApologetics I'm aware of several prominent New Testament historians who agree that they're anonymous. They definitely weren't written by any of the disciples as they were written many years later and in High Greek.

[@TestifyApologetics]

John's Gospel was not written in high Greek. I really don't care what your prominent historians say when their reasoning is poor. You're mostly making an argument from proxy and just kind of pounding the table.

[@torreyintahoe]

@@TestifyApologetics Yes it was. Sorry if the objective facts don't support your fairy tale.

[@dondindac]

@@TestifyApologetics I don't know the term "high Greek" but I am aware of the historical term that biblical textual critics use called Koine Greek. And it is true that the Gospel of John (or the beloved disciple) was written and originally composed in Koine Greek. After all, the story of Nicodemus and Jesus referencing being born again (John 3:4) shows that the greek term used included a double meaning that caused confusion to the pharisee. That confusion could not have been in Aramaic as no such double meaning is apparent in that language for those words. So it is a story composed in narrative Koine Greek as opposed to being later translated into that language...

[@ziyaadi]

So no originals and unknown authors, what else is new?

[@TestifyApologetics]

It's ok to admit you didn't watch the video.

[@ziyaadi]

@@TestifyApologetics you have a long way to go. Even if you determine the authors: you still have to prove the truth of their claims

[@TestifyApologetics]

@@ziyaadi of course

[@boopbeepbop154]

@@ziyaadi that's not what he was doing in this video. He was simply telling you who wrote the gospels. The point of this video was not to prove that Jesus was or wasn't resurrected, I think he covers that in other videos.

[@david52875]

Show me the original copy of Plato's Republic

[@karenwickhorst8226]

Hearsay is not evidence.

[@christiancristof491]

But "hearsay" is literally all we have for ancient texts lmao

[@karenwickhorst8226]

@@christiancristof491 That’s s true.

[@JuanManuel-ep8do]

Basically he just confirmed the gospels were written anonymously. The earliest documents were from the second centurry. But even if they were written days after Jesus's death you have to prove jesus was magical being.

[@chotxs]

Double standard??? Those other books and it's authorships are literature, it's not being presented as perfect word of God.

[@david52875]

...the question isn't whether they're true it's who wrote them. You are very st. Upid.

[@mehmetsimsek4794]

This is funny! Basically, king of double standarts complaining about double standart. More than half of theistic arguments and "evidence" include double standart (aka special pleading). Few example of them. -I had a vision of Jesus/He had a vision of Prophet Muhammed. I literally saw Jesus/He must have been hallucinating -After I gave myself to Jesus my life got better. After I gave myself to Vishnu my life got better. Jesus literally helped me/ That must be psychological. - This oil cured me/This water cured me. Miracle/Placebo. - Jesus resurrected himself. There were 500 witnesses/Muhammed split the moon arab merchants saw it. Both have witnesses, both is written. Resurrection is true, moon split is wrong. -Disciples went to their death, they wouldn't go their death for a lie./Companions went to their death but they died for a lie. - God kills people, he has mysterious ways/Allah kills people, he is evil or doesn't exist. -Jesus sends natural disasters to good christians/he is testing us. God sends natural disasters to bad christians(Or non-christians)/he is punishing them. You see I can give maybe dozens of example. But you are the one complaining about DOUBLE STANDART

[@Andres.Duran.J]

One is more reliable than the other one

[@DUDEBroHey]

This is all correct. I'm glad you're getting it. Now you shouldn't have any hesitation converting to Christianity

[@SirKnight1096]

Bart Ehrman has always had limited intellect.

[@johnnastrom9400]

He is considered one of the world's best Biblical scholars.

[@david52875]

@@johnnastrom9400 >considered Lol

[@danlopez.3592]

Gospel of Thomas? There are many gospels that aren’t actually written by that person. This is nonsense.

[@buddhikaw]

Oh wow, so the church fathers are putting forward the authors they want to ascribe to the gospels so it fits their narrative? Colour me shocked! Very weak argument.

[@LeoAnimations_TMNT]

I think you forget that their "narrative" gained nothing. They were all persecuted and over 5 million of them were killed. Why on God's green earth would they just "make some stuff up to fit their narrative?" Your argument is very circular.

[@christiancristof491]

How is this fitting the narrative? If they wanted to fit narrative why not attribute the gospels all to disciples of Jesus? Why not attribute all of them? Why were some parts considered anonymous?

[@randyreneau2086]

Christianity is a con,

[@andriesgrabowsky2717]

This guy talks so fast it is impossible to follow.

[@fluffysheap]

Then slow down the video in the settings