Who Wrote the Gospels?

Are the Gospels anonymous? Many scholars say the titles were only added long after they were written, but what does the evidence say?
Don't forget to help us create more videos! We need your support:
/ inspiringphilosophy
/ @inspiringphilosophy
inspiringphilo...

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Don’t forget to watch part 1: kzbin.info/www/bejne/iYasXmqaqtd0Z8ksi=Fmerc2L_D_VB_qsc

[@americaone749]

Hey IP, look into the safety of those earbuds, because RF waves so close to your brain is not optimal, I would not trust manufacturers saying "our products are safe", given the long history of their lies, if you've been feeling a little scatter brain lately, I'd wouldn't put the earbuds passed that. Remember their lies on the safety of lead, asbestos, DDT, tobacco, C19 vx. 🙏God bless you and your family.

[@JonSylar]

There's more manuscript support for the new testament than any other piece of ancient literature.

[@ETBrothers]

Thanks, will go to part one now :)

[@DanielFernandez-jv7jx]

Thank you for this brilliant summary. You are generously doing this research so we don't have to, and handing us all the facts we need to face the doubters and malicious debunkers!

[@windblownleaf6450]

The word 'malicious' is really key here. The standards the gospels are being held to is absurd, given the same intensity isn't applied to other sources. The time of their writing comes to mind as an example. Plenty of historical figures are only documented in sources a hundred years or more after the fact, yet people are perfectly happy to accept these. Yet, the gospels emerging 40-60 years afterward is somehow an issue.

[@alexandermcmiller6175]

Another great entry from IP. I knew Matthew being falsely labeled made no sense due to his place in Jewish society, but I had not thought about why Mark and Luke made no sense until now. As for John, it definitely makes sense that he is the author of only because it took 1900 years for a debate to even arise

[@lubrew5862]

That makes no sense and doesn’t follow. The authorship of the gospels didn’t take 1900 years to be debated. It was debated less than a hundred years after they were written when the names where attributed to them. We know that the people who attributed the names to them didn’t actually know who wrote them and we know why they decided to give them those names. None of this is a mystery like it is presented in the video. Heck the video gives other examples of writings from around the same time that did not have the authors name in them internally. But this video completely skips over how we knew who wrote those. My guess is it was skipped over because if it was explained then people wouldn’t give much credence to the argument the video is presenting. In other words they purposely left it out the information to deceive people.

[@alexandermcmiller6175]

@@lubrew5862you should be debating Michael on this, not me, I am going off what he said

[@alexamg9491]

​@@lubrew5862It is my understanding that within the Church itself in the early 2nd century it is not their authorship which was debatted but their reliability to the Oral tradition already circulating, from Papias we know it was already being known for example that Mark was attributed to Mark, and that Mathew composed a "logia" in Aramaic which was either the Gospel or the source behind it. To me this is a proof that a hundred year later ( which is by the way really misleading but move on) the authorship was not the problem but their reliability as per the tradition, From what is known Papias investigated not the authorship but the authority of the Gospel which to me shows that the he wanted to know if the author was reliable. And it seems that he concluded they are after investigation and affirmation from "John the elder ". This is to me enough to conclude the author were known from the moment they circulated to the point where some who received them question who was that "Mark" anyway or Why should i listen to a "Mathew" instead of what the Apostle taught directly.

[@ToelJhute]

@@lubrew5862 literally you're whole argument is false. The only mention of an authorship other than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, is an example from the 3rd to 4th Century Gnostic who attributed Cerinthus, the heretic, to making the gospel of John. This is simply false information since all the evidence prior to that attestation attributes John as the author

[@thadofalltrades]

​@@lubrew5862I call BS on that. Based on what sources do we know why the Gospels were attributed the way they were?

[@KushDaddy333]

My absolute favorite part of any IP video is when Michael says "However"! Then what follows is a reaffirmation of Faith. At least for me it is. Thank you Mr. Jones! May Jesus Christ see your fine works and bless you for it! ✝️

[@drakoyaboi3344]

I actually started using however a lot more in debates because of IP 🤣

[@SquizzMe]

This is brilliant showcase of why the 'anonymous gospels' argument is so farfetched.

[@Michael-bk5nz]

People like Bart Ehrman who advocate it seem completely oblivious about why it is a stupid idea. I think the reason they believe it is that they have a conscious or unconscious assumption that “Christians are gullible morons who blindly believe whatever they are told” Sure they never put it that way, but how else would just believe a random document you accidentally stumbled upon that describes this Jesus guy dying and coming back to life despite having absolutely no idea who wrote it or why. If anything, “ gullible moron” might be too polite a term to describe such people

[@michaelkelleypoetry]

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did write the 4 Gospels, but it's also true that they wrote the anonymously. They didn't put their names on them. In the 2nd and 3rd centuries, "gospels" started cropping up specifically attributed to a writer (like Thomas, Judas, et. al.) in order to give it a credibility that it did not have. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were known to be written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; they already had that credibility, and didn't need the names attached in the text.

[@darkwolf7740]

​@@michaelkelleypoetryI would argue that it was probably due to modesty on their part. To the authors, who wrote them wasn't important. It was the message that they were telling people about that was important.

[@colinsmith1288]

I agree with your opinion. I always felt the gospel writers loved christ so much they omitted their names.

[@Michael-bk5nz]

@@michaelkelleypoetry Yes, by that definition, 99.999999% of all books are anonymous as there are very few books where the author names himself in the text. The anonymous gospel theory really holds that people read, distributed, believed and suffered painful, agonizing deaths, for the gospel despite having absolutely no clue who wrote them, and put that way, it should be obvious that the theory is false

[@el_killorcure]

Great point about Caesar not naming himself as author and even refering to himself in the third person in his Commmentaries, yet nobody seriously denies his authorship...

[@johnmichaelson9173]

That's one of the weakest parts of the argument. I burst out laughing when he made that ridiculous statement about Caesar, smh.

[@el_killorcure]

@@johnmichaelson9173 And I can't take seriously your post which is evidence and counterpoint free...

[@G_Singh222]

@@johnmichaelson9173how is it weak ?

[@johnmichaelson9173]

@@G_Singh222 You're online do your own research?

[@johnmichaelson9173]

@@el_killorcure Bothered, you're a total dick.😁

[@raphaelfeneje486]

IP is a gem!! Love this. God bless your family and Ministry ❤️🙏✝️

[@folkebitar3258]

Hello! This video is exactly what i have been needing, thank you and God bless

[@natebozeman4510]

Excellent work, IP. I knew a couple of these considerations already, but you definitely added to my apologetic knowledge on this topic with this video.

[@sandmaneyes]

Yeah videos are not the best to be referenced.

[@colinsmith1288]

Ip continues to honour Jesus so wonderfully may God inspire him to fight for the christian faith in trying times.

[@reachforthestars7040]

You probably weren’t trying to be rude, but please capitalize Jesus’s name, and God. You can also capitalize every time you use He or Him when talking about Jesus. Thank you

[@colinsmith1288]

@@reachforthestars7040 My bad!

[@reachforthestars7040]

@@colinsmith1288 oh no it’s okay. Just wanted to let you know

[@colinsmith1288]

@@reachforthestars7040 All is good.Honouring our heavenly father properly shows respectful standards.

[@austinapologetics2023]

I've always found the timing of the skeptics argument kind of convenient. From the second century onward we know 100% that the gospels had titles. We also have zero attestation that they ever didn't have the titles or had different names attached. Yet for the one century where we don't have anything it is assumed without evidence that they were anonymous. We have no evidence of this and we do have 19 centuries of the contrary yet for the one century with a question mark it is simply assumed that these documents couldn't have had names attached.

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

They are still formally anonymous. Someone could write a manuscript, you saw them write it in front of you, yet it could be formally anonymous. The identity of the Gospels and their authors is known historically

[@Crosshair84]

@@TheThreatenedSwan I wonder if anyone will ever claim that we have no idea who wrote the Gettysburg Address? :P

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

@@Crosshair84 Well it's not a published work, but it is a historical fact Lincoln said it. It's also an extra-Biblical historical fact of who wrote the Gospels even if the authors are never identified within. This is still a problem for people that hold to sola scriptura. Some atheist authors conflate the text being anonymous with being unable to identify who wrote them even through natural reason probabilistically.

[@sjappiyah4071]

@@TheThreatenedSwanThat’s not a problem for those who hold to “sola Scriptura” . Sola Scriptura only suggest that only scripture is completely infallible. . That DOES NOT mean that one can’t look at historical evidence and come to a rational conclusion that it’s accurate….

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

@@sjappiyah4071 The point is people are trying to avoid a circular criteria by saying it must have been written by an apostle or apostolic man, but then they have to appeal to extra-Biblical information for the Gospels plus we have no idea who wrote Hebrews

[@aSUGAaddiction]

I've been a supported of "why do you believe?" not just believing. Your content has been a great source of historical and logical arguments for the authenticity of Christianity and the Bible.

[@albertofranca41]

@@theguyver4934 stop lying

[@aSUGAaddiction]

@theguyver4934 these are all common arguments Muslims use to discredit Christianity. There is more than enough evidence proving that the Quran isn't the same as it was when your prophet wrote it. I am a Christian. I stand for and by the God of the Bible, ans Jesus is His Son.

[@Toronado2]

​ @aSUGAaddiction And as a Muslim I take exception to your comment and felt the need to correct you. But let me say that Christians discredit their own Bible without ANY help from the Muslims. This video is a testimony of that in itself. If you stand for what the Bible says, then explain why Jesus LIED to the Young man next to him on the cross?

[@Toronado2]

​ @aSUGAaddiction Jesus says to the young man on the cross next to Him; TODAY you will be with me in Paradise"! Now you and I both know THAT was a LIE!

[@matthewstokes1608]

@@Toronado2this is because you are using such a small mind to think you’ve found inconsistency … but you haven’t. The moment Christ’s heart stopped beating He was in Paradise - and He received His new convert with the Father precisely as promised to the man… The second day He (so many believe) went down into the underworld - and quite possibly saved people cast down there whose hearts He could reach. The Third Day His Spirit was rejoined with His “dead” flesh and He Resurrected his body into a beautifully transfigured new version of it - passing through the burial shroud in an instant “impossibly” - and He left NOTHING remaining for any man to find, but a ghostly imprint upon the material of the cloth. EVERYTHING in the Holy Bible is accurate, for the simple reason that God came down to walk among us - to enter into “His-story” and the realm of Time and Matter - to endure enormous suffering as a legacy of His adoration of His Creation - the love of Man - and by way of dividing us up into those who will follow Him (the Chosen flock) and those who will not.

[@thegodofalldragons]

Yet another instance where an argument against the Bible relies on criticism a real historian would never apply to an ancient work. Also relies on the assumption ancient people were stupid and gullible, unlike us enlightened modern folk.

[@BulletRain100]

​@@tomasrocha6139 You need to be consistent. You are right that there were disputes on some of the Epistles because we have records of Church Fathers giving different opinions on the authorship. It should be also be telling these same Church Fathers all agree on the authorship of the Gospels. We also have their writings denouncing the Apocrypha Gospels on grounds of their late and fraudulent construction. The authorship of the Gospels were not a problem until modern scholars made them a problem purely on conjecture.

[@OnuigboChimaobi]

Actually ancient people are wiser than people of nowadays

@@BulletRain100 nope. the "authorship of the gospels" was not even attributed until the late second century. Before that, none of the early christian writers referred to the gospel authors by name even when quoting from them. The only exception is papias who referred to DIFFERENT attributions that we have now and is considered an unreliable source both now and historically.

[@kletterfreak814]

@scambammer1 Did you even watch the video?!

@@kletterfreak814 Why would I watch the video? IP isn't a scholar. He doesn't know jack. He is just an apologist.

[@KlickSipYT]

I’ve been searching information on this topic for the past month, and you’ve brought the arguments all together for me so succinctly! Thank you!

[@FollowersofTheShepherd]

That point on Theophilus(6:48) was so mind-blowing. I never would have thought of something like that. Great video!

[@sjappiyah4071]

Same ! It’s so obvious yet I never put 2 & 2 together

[@Electricalpenguin]

I find it to be kind of a strange point. If we assume there was in fact a specific individual named Theophilus who received the first copy of the Gospel of Luke from the author then yes, it follows that that person likely knew who the author was. But how do we know that Theophilus is the source of the attribution of the work to Luke? We know nothing about Theophilus other than his name and the fact that the author addresses him as "most excellent". It's also possible that Theophilus (meaning "friend of God") was not actually a specific individual, and the text was intended for anyone fitting that description.

[@DarrenGedye]

​@Electricalpenguin but the attribution in Acts strongly suggests that the author knew that Theophilus was familiar with his earlier work. That is harder to explain if Theophilus was a generic. Also most names back then meant something, and a lot of names today have meanings even though we don't pay much attention to them.

[@diogeneslamp8004]

@@DarrenGedye Why would that be definitive? Works in a series, particularly works that purport to be historical, will typically assume the listener’s or reader’s familiarity with prior texts in the series. One has to make a much stronger case that “Theophilus” isn’t simply “Dear Reader.”

[@fluffysheap]

It's unfortunate that Theophilus means "friend of God" and was also a reasonably common name. It's probably impossible to determine for sure whether this was a specific person or just a compliment to the reader. I think Theophilus was probably not a real person. The reason is that if Theophilus was a specific individual, he would have had to be a wealthy patron. The cost of producing Luke + Acts would likely be equivalent to about two million dollars in today's money. Someone capable and willing to commissioning this work should have been important enough to warrant a mention by some church father somewhere. This is essentially an argument from silence, so it's not definitive proof, but I think it tips the scales. But I do agree that if Theophilus was real, that is strong evidence that Luke was actually the author of Luke.

[@jacobe2995]

what kills me is if I write a letter the only thing that proves it's from me is on the envelope so why would anyone assume that there has to be some official seal on the letter itself back in their time? it was common practice then and it is so now.

[@richardokeefe7410]

If I write a letter, it has my signature at the end. And the *letters* in the NT do have the authors' names. Even today, if you pick up a paperback detective story, the author's name isn't in the *text*. It's on the cover and in the front matter, but you don't find it in chapter 1.

[@jacobe2995]

@richardokeefe7410 many of the letters do say who they are from just not signed at the end and if I'm real with ya the last time I sent a letter I did not sign it at the end because it was not necessary.

[@Rocky-ur9mn]

IP's videos should be shown in all Christian classes

[@CEDtalks85]

I agree. This dude is brilliant!I don't agree with everything he says, but man! He's astute!

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

Yeah much better than the typical fundamentalist 20 year old outdated material that’s still being shown.

[@TheMessageOfTheCross]

Great video IP. Very informative and helpful, eloquently presented.♥️✝️💯

[@edwardman1742]

I’ve been waiting for a clear-cut video on this. It will be such a big help when trying to explain to others. God Bless you!

[@michaeljefferies2444]

When I was an undergrad theology student, I would be told this stuff, and figured there were great scholarly reasons for this, even though they were never given. Now that I’m older I’ve learned that most of them are really just wildly speculative and ignore all external evidence.

[@rohan5076]

ignore what external evidence? the authorship of Gospels?

[@michaeljefferies2444]

Yeah, I was told that we have no reason to believe the traditional authorship of the gospels, and that these were names added later. But what they meant was there was no internal evidence. Nothing saying I, Matthew, the Apostle of Jesus Christ and eyewitness to the events described herein, write this Gospel. They ignore the external evidence, like the early and unanimous identification of the traditional authors with each gospel. Plus, the fact that we never have a manuscript of an orthodox gospel with a different name attributed to it, etc. Like we have a manuscript of John from ~125 AD that attributes the gospel to John. Given that most scholars believe the gospel was written approximately AD 90, that means about 30 years later people attributed the gospel to John. That’s pretty good evidence for authorship. The best we can say is that from an early date, people unanimously agreed on who the author of each gospel was.

[@johnmulvey7890]

There is no evidence for the attribution of these names but masses against them.

[@michaeljefferies2444]

@@johnmulvey7890 What are the masses of evidence against them? In my reply above i gave relatively strong external evidence for the traditional attribution of these names. Interested in your arguments against that evidence as well.

[@christophertaylor9100]

Usually they appeal to consensus, as if having lots of people say something without authoritative reason or justification somehow makes it true.

[@richardpetervonrahden6393]

Thank you so much for your comprehensive review, which shows that critical arguments based solely on internal anonymity require more special pleading than required by acceptance of the traditional authorship.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Glad it was helpful!

[@Doubtyadoubts]

Thanks!

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Thank you for the donation

[@notazazel]

Incredible work. Thank you so much.

[@CaptainCrunchOwns]

This information is invaluable. Your channel is a tremendous blessing. Thanks, as always, for your diligent scholarship.

[@5BBassist4Christ]

Eric Manning over at Testify often points out that Matthew has more references (and accurate calculations) of money than any of the other Gospels, which would make sense if it was written by a tax-collector. I have noticed that there are points (specifically the Resurrection narrative) where John's Gospel will brush over details John wasn't present for (Jesus' appearance to the women) before flushing out details he is present for (Peter and John going to see the empty tomb). So even internally there are some compelling reasons to connect the traditional authors. If later Church Fathers came up with these authors out of nowhere, they got really lucky or were really thinking brilliantly outside the box in a way that might seem unlikely for them to do.

[@amirsmith9269]

thanks for the plug for more good content like this!

[@lifestylemedicinals8692]

Good points. It also makes no sense to attribute names to people who weren't necessarily renown or that would give the manuscripts more weight and credibility. The fact that they're attributed to normal people that nobody ever heard of makes it feel more compelling to me 🧐

[@therion5458]

"Matthew" also has 3 times more "copy and pasted" scriptures from the "Old testament" compared to the other gospels. Matthew also copied most of his content from Mark. A real eye witness of Jesus would be a source, not a copier. Matthew's gospel seems to be little more than an altered version of Mark with interpolations added to fit the author's agenda. Justin Martyr, who was the first person to make detailed references to the content of the gospels, never once mentioned the supposed authors, Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. Paul didn't even seem to be aware of the most of the content in the gospels. It's not exactly "brilliant" to simply put together specific scriptures which would be fitting for a supposed "tax collector author." It would be at least a little more impressive if they edited out the blatant religious contradictions in Matthew (and other gospels) where Jesus said things like, "you can't serve both God and money." Where as in Judaism (Deuteronomy 28) those who serve "the Lord" are blessed with wealth.

[@ikengaspirit3063]

@@therion5458 Matthew didn't just copy Mark but yeah, Mark was sort of it's skeleton but using other sources to embellish ur own biography doesn't mean anything. Ancient Authors did it, Soljonisken(spelling that wrong) did it in the Gulag Archepelago. And you know, it is hard to trust ur characterization of Justin Martyr when you give no examples and in the next paragraph when you give an example for something, it is a none contradictory "contradiction". You know having alot of money and worshipping money aren't the same thing right? Or do you need a series of basic Sunday school lessons to understand that?.

[@therion5458]

@@ikengaspirit3063 The Gulag Archipelago by Solzhenitsyn is almost a 700 page book. Solzhenitsyn didn't need to copy someone else in order to be reminded of what happened to himself. He gave credit to other sources when he used them in his book. Matthew's gospel does no such thing. The gospel of Matthew is a short book who's author needed to copy 90% of Mark for it's content. It is simply a fact that Justin Martyr never mentioned the gospel authors. What do you not understand about that? Jesus said it is practically "impossible" for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus was also a homeless man. As opposed to the patriarchs of Judaism who were very rich. Being rich and serving God are compatible in Judaism. The teachings of Jesus concerning worldly riches are the complete opposite.

[@zombiekrauss]

I recommend creating a blog and uploading all the information you present in your videos. In this way we will have the information available in writing to be able to use it in research, debates, talks or talks on social networks or in person, to have sources or for academic work. Of course, always giving you your respective credits.

[@thomasecker9405]

The dude already has a blog. ^-^

[@abyssimus]

Also, he cites academic sources which are better to cite than any summary of them. One big problem in society is that we want soundbites from echo chambers more than scholarly works. Most of IP's shorts are him criticizing said soundbites.

[@austinapologetics2023]

Get ready for a Paulogia video

[@danielesorbello619]

haha

[@DeAngeloJohnson-ee9bt]

​@@danielesorbello619ORTHODOX TRINITY

[@hjosephgilley]

And it’s a good thing he did. Gives an honest rebuttal so critical thinkers can make an unbiased decision kzbin.info/www/bejne/eqaQhpanarald8Usi=rv0vtKrCxnXT8Uxk

[@MichaelGreen0910]

I see you are updating your arguments for the new testament. Nice video, Keep it up Michael!

[@alistairdarby]

So glad you covered this topic. I recently read Brant Peters “the case for Jesus” which went into detail about the authors. Think you did a great job of covering the same stuff

[@NotaPersin6504]

I've heard of that book, but I think his last name is spelled Pietre

[@alistairdarby]

@@NotaPersin6504 yes! That’s the one.

Thanks a lot for all your work, may God bless you! Would be nice in the future if you can do something about old testament and pslms propechys about Jesus or if those are only cherrypicking. Thanks and take care

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Thank you, I appreciate the support. I’ll look into that topic

[@ericgatera7149]

Thanks Jones. This is a beautiful addition to what I had read in Dr. Brant Pitre's book. Thanks again for the great work.

[@macwade2755]

Great video InspiringPhilosophy! God bless you!

[@dalkeiththomas9352]

This was excellently done IP

[@nagysamuel2575]

Spectacular work May god bless your service

[@thadofalltrades]

The point about the discussion of the authorship of Hebrews vs the complete agreement on the gospels is really good. I'd love to hear how critics deal with that.

[@geochonker9052]

They don't. They just ignore everything in the video and say the exact things IP debunked 😂

[@fredsalfa]

Thank you for that. Outstandingly concise and overwhelming evidence showing the Gospels were not anonymous.

[@collegepennsylvania837]

“The gospel is that I am so sinful that Jesus had to die for me, yet so loved and valued that Jesus was glad to die for me. This leads to deep humility and deep confidence at the same time. I can’t feel superior to anyone, and yet I have nothing to prove to anyone.” - Tim Keller

[@randywise5241]

I got hit with this argument yesterday. Thanks, your work is very helpful. God Bless.

[@brad4013]

Brilliantly researched and referenced. When we know that the titles are correct we here confidence of the historical accuracy of the content.

[@MrMortal_Ra]

The four gospels are anonymous.

[@joe5959]

​@@MrMortal_RaAre you a parrot?

[@anne.ominous]

Love your work IP. God has blessed you with a sharp and studious mind.

[@alithea9510]

You should have mentioned the use of first-person pronouns in the Book of Acts.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

I plan on saving that for another video when we get to the reliability of acts

[@ionictheist349]

@@PureCurebyFaith as always ask for their sources first.

[@OneOuttaOne]

@@PureCurebyFaith The first response I would give is asking "What evidence is there?" There are a lot of claims floating around with no real evidence. You can automatically point them to the Dead Sea Scrolls and how accurately it was handed down for a minimum of 2000 years. We have the same reliability with the New Testament.

[@phoenixtoash2396]

Council of nicea! That is your source

[@thadofalltrades]

​@@phoenixtoash2396the council of Nicea didn't set the Canon or attribute the gospels

[@uthyrgreywick5702]

Excellent discussion on the attribution of the four gospels to the four traditional authors and how their authorship was maintained from first publication until present.

[@warriorsontheway121]

Terrific video. Professor David Alan Black's work Why Four Gospels does an excellent job defending traditional authorship and sequence.

[@Anna-mc3ll]

Thank you for pointing out these key aspects concerning the authorship of the Gospels! This video is really interesting and insightful! Many thanks!

[@michaelkelleypoetry]

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did write the 4 Gospels, but it's also true that they wrote the anonymously. They didn't put their names on them. In the 2nd and 3rd centuries, "gospels" started cropping up specifically attributed to a writer (like Thomas, Judas, et. al.) in order to give it a credibility that it did not have. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were known to be written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; they already had that credibility, and didn't need the names attached in the text.

[@Crosshair84]

Mark and Luke didn't have "credibility". Mark was Peter's interpreter and Luke followed Paul. It was the credibility of Peter and Paul that people took the writings of Mark and Luke seriously. Ironically, having Mark and Luke be attached to the two Gospels is evidence against them being fabrications. As you mention, the later fabrications ALWAYS attach themselves to one of the apostles. Because a later forger in the 2nd century wouldn't know details like, "Who is a close and credible follower of Thomas".

[@michaelkelleypoetry]

@@Crosshair84 Yes, they did. Part of the early church's criteria for canonicity was for a book to either be written by an apostle or an associate of an apostle. I suggest you watch the short lecture by Daniel Wallace at Biola University, "Did the Ancient Church Muzzle the Canon?". The fact that Luke was associated with Paul and Mark with Peter gave their gospels credibility. Also, the forger of the Gospel of Thomas put Thomas name on it because Thomas was an Apostle. They were trying to give it a credibility it didn't inherently have.

[@jdotoz]

We can't know exactly what means of identifying themselves they used, but they must have been identified somehow - and quite early as well, for there to be consensus so early on all four.

[@Crosshair84]

@@michaelkelleypoetry We're agreeing with each other, but using slightly different terminology. Mark's credibility comes from Peter and Luke's credibility comes from Paul. Absent their association with them, they don't have any credibility.

[@andreigroza5095]

​@@Crosshair84if i m wrong correct me, i saw in galatians that Paul met Peter and stayed at his home 15 days...in that time we can conclude Peter told the detailed gospel to Paul,and Paul inspired Luke's gospel..so bot Luke and Mark can possibly have something from Peter' sayings. I m not well educated on scripture..its just my oppinion..if i m wrong please correct me👍

[@Expeditehistory]

Great points here! I like how you ended by asking for counter-points to explain the anonymous author theory.

[@davidstrelec2000]

Out of 100 Roman biographies 98 of them the authors are mentioned in the third person and first person self reference is lacking.

[@Crosshair84]

Well said. The standards of the 1st century are not the same as the standards of today.

[@Greyz174]

which 100 biographies are you referring to?

[@samueljennings4809]

@Greyz I don’t know all of them, but I do know that Plutarch left most of his 60-ish writing as anonymous without mentioning his authorship, yet his authorship was uncontested because his recipients knew who wrote them.

[@Greyz174]

@@samueljennings4809 plutarch has a bunch of falsely attributed writings too

[@mister4631]

Damn IP this is great

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Thank you

[@mister4631]

You welcome

[@eclipsesonic]

Excellent video. Very interesting and informative.

[@DaChristianYute]

Good work as always

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

Thanks Irenaeus

[@AquinasBased]

THEY ATE FISH@@theguyver4934

[@jacobpottage6938]

@@theguyver4934 Whilst I am not sure about Hell, vegetarian, what about the Passover Lamb, would you please cite your sources so that I can investigate.

[@morin7487]

Saint

[@colinsmith1288]

We must remember what John wrote.John 7.18.'" The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory, but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood" So the omission of the writers names by the writers themselves was to not seek personal glory and allow the evidence to be those who would identify them as the original writers. They sought on only to honour Christs name not their own.

[@MajorTomFisher]

If you were gonna toss some random names on there, why not use more popular Biblical characters like Peter or Andrew? I think Jairus from Capernaum gets more lines in the gospels than Matthew does, you could probably claim he wrote one of the gospels if you were really just picking names out of a hat.

[@Rocky-ur9mn]

Also if they were just giving random names as authors why didn't the early church give a name for the book of Hebrews

[@darkwolf7740]

If I was gonna pick 4 names to attribute the Gospels to, then I would go with Peter, Mary Magdalene, Paul, and John.

[@m_d1905]

​@@Rocky-ur9mn Hebrews is an epistle and named for who the letter was written too. Like Galatians was written to the church at Galicia.

[@Crosshair84]

Poor Philip gets hardly mentioned at all.

[@macroeconomia1987]

I would add that even if they are "anonymous " we can still show that the authors where well informed, .....we know this most (if not all) the verifiable historical facts mentioned in the gospels are true ..... so if the authors where well informed they are reliable regardless if we know their names or not.

[@burnerfromthebloc]

Awesome work.

[@jamiehudson3661]

When Michael says, "However..." Get ready for a mic drop.

[@followerofyeshua9210]

I have been waiting for this! Lets Gooo!! To Glory of our Lord Jesus Christ!

[@DeadmanMikey]

Here's the big enchilada people. Every bit of best evidence we have points to the fact that the Gospels were written by the men they are named after. I mean John identifies himself as the beloved disciple. There's no reason to lie about mark writing a gospel. if you were gonna lie you would say a disciple wrote it for validity purposes. People need to stop going into this debate having already made up their mind that these men didn't write the Gospels. Hardly anyone disputes that Homer wrote the Odyssey and that was passed down by spoken word for years before it was ever even written down. People dispute the Gospels because of the stakes at hand. If they are wrong it literally means their whole outlook on life is wrong. Look at it historically before any emotions come into play. Same thing goes for Christians.

[@MessianicJewJitsu]

Commenting to help. Great work, Michael

[@David-lb3tp]

Uhhh if they were anonymous, how come on the top of the page in my Bible has the author? Too ez man.

[@dodleymortune4312]

They were not, And it's because they were not that everyone said they came from the same people, until new atheists in modern and post modern era had an agenda to unreasonably question everything linked with Christiannity.

[@thegodofalldragons]

Checkmate, atheists.

[@ashixxk7614]

@@dodleymortune4312 Look at the guy’s comment again, he’s being sarcastic

[@dodleymortune4312]

@@ashixxk7614 I know, that's why I answerd.... He competely misreprented what the argument of the video was and I answerd him back by actually giving the right argument.

[@sweetxjc]

😂😂

[@macwade2755]

Great video InspiringPhilosophy!

[@inukithesavage828]

Really great stuff

[@samuelmithran5586]

​​@@theguyver4934No ..sorry Jesus And his followers were not vegetarians and were Not ebionites. .. Jesus's disciples the early christians were Nazarenes who were Jewish christians who believed in the deity of Jesus and the father as God and the son as the redeemer from sin of which the doctrine of the trinity is based on . so you are wrong...... And early christians who were Jewish fully believed that Jesus was divine and was theologically in line with modern Christianity. Ebionites are not the direct followers of Jesus and there is no historical evidence that Jesus's direct followers were ebionites ... Muhammad and Allah Are false. Jesus is lord.

[@zacshifler]

Why do the gospels get treated with more criticism than other mundane historical records? Really? You cant come up with any reasons?

[@Panwere36]

Sorry, but the "anonymous" argument is another that falls apart through proper scholarship.

[@andrewtsai777]

So most scholars on the New Testament don't do proper scholarship, but IP does?

[@Panwere36]

@@andrewtsai777, actually many people call themselves "New Testament scholars", but clearly have agendas. The vast majority agree more with IP, but people like Bart Ehrman get all the attention because he renounced his faith and became an atheist. "New Atheism" is the Media's favorite bunch.. but even those like Ehrman take time to utterly destroy the worst of "academics and scholars": adherent to Christ Myth Theory. Ehrman himself pretty much has little time to push the "anonymous argument" as he spends much of his time debunking (actually DESTROYING) CMT easier than it is to wipe after using the bathroom.

[@johnmulvey7890]

Yes IP is an example of starting from definite conclusion and hunting round for possible reasons to support it. This is not true scholarship.

[@Panwere36]

@@andrewtsai777, there is no "proper scholarship" among most of those "scholars". Bart Erhman alone is a study in duplicity: he relishes claiming Jesus was never the Messiah/Son of God/God in Human form.. but he also takes equal delight in destroying "Christ Myth Theory" scholars as well. The simple reality is that the staunchest and most knowledgeable Apologists for the Bible and its historical authenticity started out, like Cliffe did, as atheists seeking to "destroy Christianity"

[@Panwere36]

@@johnmulvey7890 , no. In reality, Cliffe, like many of the staunchest Apologists, was an atheist seeking to destroy Christianity by debunking the Bible. In order to do that, you actually have had to ready it, study it, compare to genuinely unbiased historical record, analyze how reliable it is from hand written manuscript to handwritten manuscript, etc. Most "academics" try to avoid that when discussing Christianity, because the weight of evidence (not the least of which is that the Bible is THE ONLY HISTORICALLY RELEVANT hand-written document (it was for centuries) where there are as many copies in multiple languages spread over the entire area that made up the Roman Empire and reasonably beyond its borders into other parts of Europe, Africa, and Asia) were ALL 26,000 of them (there is absolutely NO OTHER with that number even in the author's native language(s)... in fact. there are not any others that are even in the 1,000 range. Most are single digit numbers in originals, a few more are in double digits, and even fewer still are in the low 100 or slightly above.) have little more than punctuation discrepancies! All offense intended.. you have no idea what "true scholarship" is.

[@ameen9957]

IP always with quality crystal clear contents ❤

[@reverendgordontubbs]

One could argue that Matthew and Mark in particular could not have written their gospels because they did not know how to write, and thus they relied on a transcriptionist to write their gospels for them. It could also be argued that a scribe took it upon themselves to put the teachings of Matthew or Mark into writing on their own accord, and in turn attributed their writing to Matthew or Mark. These are the BEST arguments against traditional attribution, but even they fall short of discrediting Matthew or Mark entirely, because either way you slice it, Matthew and Mark are still integral in the compositional process. The "anonymous authorship" position is only raised as part of an ensemble of other half-baked positions that seek to avoid the uncomfortable conclusions one would be logically led to given the authenticity, veracity, and historicity of the New Testament.

[@brandonp2530]

Excellent video IP

[@SlaveofGod]

Do you plan on addressing the disputed Pauline epistles in a future video?

[@JMRICK_CN95]

Im a catholic, Im personally agnostic on the authorship of the Gospels and other NT books like half of the Pauline letters. In our church, we dont have any dogmatic statements to affirm which human authors wrote which books, our dogmatic stance is The Holy Spirit was the main author, and also the inspiration of whoever the human writers were. None of our councils affirm the human writers, only the canon. N.T Wright even admits we dont know who authored the gospels but that the gospels are reliable historical testimonies of someone living in 30AD. I hope fellow Catholic viewers see this and not be disheartened by the unknown human writers. 🙏🏽🙏🏽

[@nickbrasing8786]

And I think this should be the position of every Christian frankly. To dogmatically cling to authorship only leads to numerous very good and scholarly challenges. Which is why videos like IP did here are necessary. With God as the author through whatever human he chose to write shouldn't matter one iota.

[@lucienlagarde8093]

Well this was What the early church was using

[@gamerjj777]

9:33 John the elder was apostle himself as told by Ireneaus.

[@gamerjj777]

AH 5:33:4 4. And these things are borne witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book; for there were five books compiled (συντεταγμένα) by him

[@DH-rs6cq]

Great work yet again

[@taylorsharp4109]

The unanimous attestation claim is false. Marcion 140AD "attributes no author to the gospel, that is, his own gospel (Luke)" - Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.2.3 And some thought Cerinthus authored the gospel of John.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

I know of no early sources that claim Cerinthus authored John. Also, my point was unanimous attestation among church fathers, as I said in the video, “when we study early church sources we can see there is unanimous agreement among a multitude of witnesses.” As for Marcion, we do have his writings so that is not a fact. If we are going on what Tertullian said, then it was recognized as a mutilated copy of Luke. So it would make more sense to note that Marcion removed the title in his corruption of it. But again, we don’t know what Marcion had to say, and there is no evidence he attributed it to a different author.

[@taylorsharp4109]

@@InspiringPhilosophy It was the Roman presbyter Gaius who attributed the Gospel of John and Revelation to Cerinthus who was a gnostic. See Epiphanius, Panarion 51.3.1-2. So aside from Marcion, it's "unanimous" but only after 180 AD (except for Gaius). After Irenaeus is when we see the works quoted alongside explicit authorial attribution. Still a significant time gap there. Papias never quotes from the documents he assigned to a "Mark" and "Matthew." There is no evidence Marcion's text had the name "Luke" attached to it. In fact, the evidence says otherwise as Tertullian was writing after Irenaeus who was the first we have on record to mention Luke's name as the author.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Yeah, but Epiphanius is 4th century. He is not counted as an easy source in my survey. If that was the case, I might as well include St. Augustine’s opponent Faustus. Also, again, we don’t have Marcion’s writings. Tertullian also doesn’t say he claimed a different author for Luke after his mutilation. Also we don’t know if it could still be considered Luke’s gospel, given it was changed and corrupted.

[@taylorsharp4109]

​@@InspiringPhilosophy​ Gaius lived near the beginning of the third century so roughly contemporary with some of the other church fathers you cite. We do not know if the text Marcion mutilated had the name "Luke" attached to it or not. Assigning no author to the gospel would seem to count in favor of anonymity. Every church father up until Irenaeus, when they quote or allude to the gospels, do so without explicitly naming the authors. This attestation is more expected under the hypothesis that the gospels were originally anonymous than it is that the names were known from the beginning.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

I don’t see Gaius mentioned in Panarion 51:3. I can only find a fragment of Gaius where he attributes Revelation to Cerinthus, but not John. www.newadvent.org/fathers/0510.htm Again, this is very speculative, since we don’t know what Marcion had or said about it. If we are going on what Tertullian said, he didn’t have a copy of Luke but something that was mutilated from the text of Luke. Tertullian even implies Marcion had something else entirely, not a copy of Luke’s gospel, because he calls it Marcion’s gospel. As for church fathers prior to Irenaeus, that is an argument from silence. Plus, Justin Martyr doesn’t imply the gospels were anonymous as I discussed in the video.

[@J3susIsL0rd]

Many people are scared of the unforgivable sin, u should make a complete video about it, many will approciate.

[@josephvlogsdon]

I always thought it was classist to make the argument that the disciples couldn’t read or write because they came from poor or illiterate backgrounds. Generalizations about certain classes of people doesn’t give anyone the right to make judgments or assumptions about specific individuals. That kind of reasoning is behind why some people think Shakespeare didn’t write his plays. Besides, even if they couldn’t read or write, many ancient writers had scribes.

[@abyssimus]

I can't remember where off the top of my head, but I recall that one of Paul's letters references someone writing the letter on his behalf (that is, a scribe). People forget that Scribes were basically ancient webdesigners and that (with the writing technology at the time) calligraphy was really the only way to write legibly. Print ten pages of text (double spaced, 12 pt, A4/Letter), and use a calligraphy pen with any historical style(s) you're comfortable with to hand copy that text single space onto A5/Stationary, and imagine that each letter costs five cents and each paper costs ten dollars. It's not just "good handwriting," it's hard work. Paul probably could have scrawled words on paper (just as we can save Word files as HTML) but anything done by his physical hand have only been notes for what he would later dictate to a scribe.

[@Crosshair84]

It's also ignorant of the cultural context. At that time, pretty much everyone used scribes. If you are rapidly gaining new converts who are eager to spread the message, funds to hire scribes to work with the disciples could have easily been raised. Some of the new converts would have been scribes, who could donate some of their time. It also ignores that the disciples could have learned to read and write later in life. Learning to read and write later in life isn't easy, but hardly impossible.

[@richardokeefe7410]

ut Oddly enough I just suggested to my daughter that it was much easier for a first century native speaker of Aramaic to learn to write Aramaic than for us to learn to write English. English pronunciation changed a lot, while the spelling (except American speling) stayed put, and that's actually a good thing, because people who can't understand each other's spoken English can usually understand written English. But 1st century Aramaic writers had a system to work with that was pretty phonetic. There's also an ambiguity in "write". Even people like Paul who *could* write often didn't. Instead they dictated. Come to think of it, my Dad had a Dictaphone. Very literate man, but a lot of what he "wrote" he actually spoke. One time he dictated a lecture on the law of contracts, and I typed it up on a computer (a Sun 3/50) as he spoke. Did he "write" that lecture? Every thought and every word was his. But his fingers weren't involved at all. So yes, "many ancient 'writers' had scribes". To be perfectly honest, the somewhat clumsy Greek of Mark strongly suggests that Mark *did* originate all the text himself rather than letting a secretary polish it for him.

[@fluffysheap]

​@@abyssimusGalatians and 2 Thessalonians both mention it, but in both cases Paul says he doesn't use any scribe. Neither is quite strong enough to prove that Paul *never* used a scribe : in Galatians he only says that he's not using one right then, and it's not certain that he actually wrote 2 Thessalonians.

[@matthewgabbard6415]

I think a good hint is that people who were really supposed to be present for the events depicted or get them first hand would not leave out miracles or other major events. The Gospels were stand alone works, not meant to be chapters in a larger book.

[@johnmarkharris]

Hey, I know the answer to this one: Matthew Mark Luke and John

[@ebenshibu24]

Great work buddy!

[@StandFast777]

Hey IP! Paulogia recently published a video refuting the traditional Gospel authorship. It would be cool if you could do a response video to that if you have time. Anyways, lord bless.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

You’ll enjoy this: kzbin.info06CrQuS-isE?si=Ov8R5gg_z0aKFOFZ

[@Monkofmagnesia]

Ignatius of Antioch, aka Ignatius Theophorus, was a disciple of John the Apostle and had handwritten copy of John's Gospel and this is how we know John wrote John.

[@RatRaceTheory]

Any evidence of this?

[@johnmulvey7890]

This is pure church tradition, and there is no independent to support this claim.

[@theoutspokenhumanist]

"Many scholars have been pushing back." I don't think so. 1, Honest scholars work with facts, not beliefs. The fact is that the earliest manuscripts we have found are not named. It is possible that other copies were named but we do not have such evidence and so cannot simply make that assumption. We can only go on what we know, not what we want to be true. 2. If the gospels were written by apostles and thus were eyewitnesses to the events they describe, why do none of them say so? Could there be a more persuasive argument than a gospel which says, "I saw Jesus perform this miracle"? Or "Mary came straight to me and told me of the empty tomb"? 3. If they were eyewitness statements why are they so radically different and contradictory in some areas (far more than just a different physical perspective)? We should also consider that many events are covered in the four narratives which no-one could have witnessed and others where no one person could have been present at all times. So, even if the gospels were written by apostles, it does not make them any more reliable.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

False. No mss are not labeled with the names appended to them. As for claimed disparities, none is important or even a real disparity. The events that you claim were not witnessed by the apostles were likely told to the apostles by Jesus himself. The events sound like first person accounts. Luke is the only third person account, he said so.

[@theoutspokenhumanist]

@@sliglusamelius8578 I urge you to do some checking for yourself and you will find that our earliest manuscripts of the gospels are not named. There are various theories about why but this is a simple truth, not disputed by any religious authorities or genuine scholars. There are many disparities, between gospels and between the gospels and Acts, some significant, some not. E.g. How the field of blood was named. Did Judas buy the field with his blood money (Acts) or did he return the money and the priests bought the field (Matthew). It cannot have been both. E.g. Who carried the cross? 3 sources say Jesus but Mark, the earliest gospel, tells of Simon of Cyrene. E.g. When did Jesus die? 3 sources say the day after Passover but John says the day before Passover. E.g. When did the crucifixion take place? Mark says the 3rd hour (9am) but John has him still before Pilate at the 6th hour (noon). I could list many more but I think the point is made. You say the events that could not have been witnessed were told by Jesus but that is merely your own invention and wishful thinking. My question stands, if the gospel authors were his disciples and if they witnessed events or were told of some by Jesus himself, why are these things not mentioned? The omission is strange if the idea was to give testimony to be believed. Can there be a more persuasive testimony than , I saw it myself and Jesus told me the rest? Also, we are only debating 2 of the gospels, Luke was, supposedly, Paul's companion and as John was written around 90-100CE, the author can only have been a child during Jesus' ministry, at least 60 years prior. As for Matthew, he writes of earthquakes and zombies that even the other gospels don't mention, let alone other sources, so his account must be doubted. The gospels sound like first person accounts because they were meant to. It does not mean they truly are. Many works of fiction today are written in the first person. I understand that you are a Christian and this is important to you but facts are important to me. I'm not saying Jesus didn't exist, I'm not even saying he was not the messiah (although I do not believe so), I am merely saying there are uncomfortable facts about the bible that must be honestly admitted, even if you choose to think them insignificant. What good is a faith which is based on untruths and a denial of easily checkable facts? If Christianity is true, it is true despite these issues. If it is not, surely it is better to know the facts than believe lies? Are you a Christian who values truth or a Christian who denies truth? I don't care either way but it is something to be considered.

[@theoutspokenhumanist]

@@sliglusamelius8578 You are free to invent stories of Jesus telling the authors what happened but the only information we have are the texts themselves. Why don't they tell us something so convincing? They sound like first person accounts because they were deliberately written that way, it does not make them true. Many works of fiction today are written in the first person. As for disparities, I can name so many and will be pleased to debate you on any of them if you wish. For now, I will offer an example. How did the field of blood get its name. Did Judas buy it and fall and burst open (Acts), or did he give the money back and the priests bought it (Matthew)? It cannot have been both. You are free to consider this unimportant but you cannot pretend it does not exist.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

@@theoutspokenhumanist I did not invent any stories. The texts are very coherent given the events that are claimed. The lives of the apostles and disciples attest to their sincerity. Nobody falls and "bursts open" lol, Luke was a physician, dead bodies and decaying bodies were quite well-known to all people in those days (see Lazarus story in the tomb). The explanation is that Judas hanged himself, his decaying and putrefying body would have gas-creating bacteria rotting his flesh, he fell from tree he was hanging from and his body burst open. The headlong word in Hebrew means prone position. Good grief, we have NT stories of miracles and resurrections of the dead, and you're hung up on a second hand account (luke was doing history as he stated) about how a body decayed and a field was bought? If that's your criteria, you sure are a tough critic. Certainly the authors would know to get a story straight for the contemporaries who lived not long after, why would they make up a name for a field out of whole cloth? Who are you to come along 2000 years later and pretend that you know better than the people who told the story and lived at that time? Are they just very bad storytellers and bad fantasizers??

[@theoutspokenhumanist]

@@sliglusamelius8578 You invented the supposed explanation that Jesus told the authors of the gospels things about his life they couldn't have known. The gospels themselves say nothing of this, therefore, you invented the idea as an answer to my observation. I hope you understand the difference between a coherent story and the truth. J.K. Rowling wrote a number of Harry Potter books that were coherent all the way through but they weren't true. You seem to have totally missed my point regarding the field of blood. I don't care how Judas died, whether one of the two biblical accounts is true or your personal elaboration. The point was that either Judas bought the field or the priests did. It is not a major issue but I used it an an easy illustration to show that you were wrong when you stated there were no discrepancies. You cannot make that assertion and then modify it when one is clearly pointed out. If you don't like that one, how about who carried the cross, Jesus alone or Simon of Cyrene? Or when was Jesus crucified, the ninth hour (9am) or later, because he was still before Pilate at the sixth hour (noon)? Or perhaps what day was it, the day before Passover or the day after? You can invent all sorts of explanations to these issues and you might even be right, we simply cannot know for certain. But it is dishonest to assert there are no discrepancies. Again, I have plenty more if you want to discuss them. "Are they just very bad storytellers and bad fantasizers? Maybe. Or maybe they were true believers in Jesus who never met him and who accepted the tales of other people as truth. The point of all this is simply that we cannot know for certain who wrote the gospels or whether any of the stories found in them are true. I know you believe in them and you could be right, but there is a vast difference between saying "I believe" or "I am convinced" and saying "I know."

[@zacharyo.484]

I thought that this was a great video but I was wondering if something could be cleared up. One of the points of the video was that those keeping libraries of Christian texts in the Early Church would generally only accept writing if they knew who had written them, which is why it is logical to believe that the Gospels had known authors. However, it's also noted that the Book of Hebrews is a genuinely anonymous writing. How do you amend that Early Church Fathers would only usually accept writing if they had known authors and the fact that Hebrews was accepted without one?

[@johnbeeler6366]

The logic of this video has more holes than fishnet stockings. Numerous unfounded assumptions.

[@geochonker9052]

Example?

[@RatRaceTheory]

@@geochonker9052”it has to be reliable because they took it” with no actual evidence it’s authentically attributed to historical disciples

[@mandogrogurescuedogs]

Thank you for making this video.

[@RobSed55]

Excellent.

[@RobSed55]

​@@theguyver4934You say, >Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that Jesus and his apostles were vegatarians _you speak non sense. then you add even more non sense and contradict the point you are trying to make by saying >historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity _The historical evidence, in the real world, that is, the stage of history, does not originate in a cave. It goes back to the line of "promise." The events of historical Christianity did not happen in a cave. Neither does the reality of the Children of promise, the children of Israel. But as it is written, "such as I have, I give thee." Your best regards are taken in the spirit they are given. You speak according to what you have to give, "for out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks" -Jesus of Nazareth.

[@Submit2Christ]

love your content man

[@Zatoichi82]

*The Documentary Hypothesis "reasoning": the Thora was written by JEPD, because everybody knows that if you use the word Jahweh, you're a Jahwist and if you use the word Elohim, you're an Elohist. We all know that, right? *The Gospels were written anonymously "reasoning": because everybody knows they were first written anonymously and in the second century they attributed the names to give them credibility. Even if we don't have the originals to compare them whith. We all know that, right? This reasoning is even worse than the Documentary Hypothesis. Good job, IP.

[@williamkennedy2474]

If we can accept Aristotelian authorship, then accepting Gospel authorship is the most common sense thing. Two-thirds of Aristotle's work has been lost and the only anthology of his works are a collection of lecture notes. Why we are only in possession of lecture notes is in itself a mystery and a source for speculation, but even his surviving works weren't always cared for well (Neleus of Scepsis' treatment and neglect of Aristotle's works stands in stark contrast to the diligence of religious scribes) and Andronicus of Rhodes even actively edited and modified Aristotle's works to make it different from the Aristotelian works that were used by the Peripatetic school of thought. The scholarly consensus is that Andronicus of Rhodes "edited" the works, not "distorted" them, which they ironically accuse early Christians of doing with the Gospel. These scholars would also ironically like to claim that Paul is the founder of Christianity, but will not say that Andronicus of Rhodes is the "founder" of Aristotelianism.

[@Uhdksurvhunter]

Paulogia made a response that made a lot of sense. I advice checking it out.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

No, Kamil did, and response coming soon. It was riddled with problems. All that time for not much substance.

[@TheDragon-v7d]

@@InspiringPhilosophy Why are you running from Parker and Danny? You don’t agree with classical logic????

[@Microtransagolor]

@@InspiringPhilosophy YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[@r.a.panimefan2109]

​@InspiringPhilosophy Something has concerned me. That there are sites that list contradictions. Literal from as early as genisis. Like the bible actual saying one thing then another. Could u do a vid on things like that. Sites also tend to pull history. Like apparently acts gets historical info wrong. I'm not historically inclined enouph to deal with that. Most crap these sites say are of course silly ignoring perlicution allocation. Or ignoring things in poetry. And taking hyper wooden literal readings. Others pull science and math onSolomons.. huge bath bowl being like a hair off of pie. Which is dumb. God had it written build bowl. They built huge bowl. Who cares if it's exactly pie. But what about internal contradiction And external contradiction with historically data What do we do with that

[@ProfessorElectronic]

Hi, for point 3, please explain what is the practical need for the gospel to be identify?

[@kurtgundy]

No informed person has any reason to argue for anonymous authorship. They're hyper-skeptical, unreasonable and arbitrarily believe whatever they want. Hello Mr Ehrman?!

[@kurtgundy]

@@Theo_Skeptomai Talk is cheap Theo. Go through the video and refute it point by point.

[@MrMortal_Ra]

The gospels are by definition anonymous and do not have any identification of their author, It’s only in the 2nd century to mid-2nd century that authorship and titles started getting attached to them. Papias is an absolute joke for an early church father.

[@kurtgundy]

@@MrMortal_Ra The gospel had superscripts attached to them. When you receive a letter in the mail with the sender's name on the envelope, do you doubt it was from the sender if the content of the letter is anonymous?

[@MrMortal_Ra]

@@kurtgundy “The gospels had superscript’s attached to them” and your primary source for this is?

[@kurtgundy]

@@MrMortal_Ra Church history.

[@thebelmont1995]

We now have evidence that the gospels were not written by their names. And now with scholars like Bart Erhman showing more evidence as time progresses.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

Nice claim, now show your proof lol. This entire video disclaims your statement. Did you watch it?

[@thebelmont1995]

@@sliglusamelius8578 This entire video does not disclaim my statement. The majority of scholars agree that the gospels were not written by their original names. This is well known. If you want evidence just look it up.

[@עמיחיאלימלך-כ8ל]

80% of Marcus is quoted in Matthew, word for word, I have never heard of 2 biographies that are put together by 2 different people, that 80% of what the first wrote, appears in exactly the same words in the book of the second author.

[@עמיחיאלימלך-כ8ל]

Another thing, what is the probability that John, who is supposed to be the disciple of Jesus, did not write his gospel in the first person, or at least part of it?

[@jdotoz]

​@@עמיחיאלימלך-כ8לSome - apparently including Benedict XVI - have suggested that John the Presbyter is a good candidate for John.

[@EcclesiastesLiker-py5ts]

Very interesting, thank you, especially that no other authorship is suggested at the time.

[@franklinb81]

Great points starting 8:00 about no claims to the contrary in the Early Church

[@Crosshair84]

Exactly. Some of the first people who read Mark would have been people who heard Peter speak firsthand. Had Mark gotten something seriously wrong, people would have brought it up. If the wrong passages weren't fixed, you would have seen fragmentation and feuding in the early church over "wrong" passages. People would have made versions of Mark that "corrected" his errors and those versions would have spread alongside the "original". Yet we don't see this. Everyone read Mark and went, "Yup, that's what Peter said. Lets make more copies of this."

[@David-j8v5p]

The Book of Jubilees mentions the name, ("Cainan,") written on in it which means that either the Book of Jubilees was written on first or the Septugint was written on before it

[@Myrdden71]

Assuming Bart E. knows all of this, if he is such an expert, then is he purposely being deceptive? Or is it just confirmation bias? Or something else?

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

The gospels ARE anonymous.

[@Myrdden71]

@@StudentDad-mc3pu Doesn't mean we can't figure out who wrote them. Just like with a student's paper with no name on it. There are ways to tell. Especially if, like Luke, you wrote two famous works.

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

@@Myrdden71 We know the author of Luke and Acts is the same person (apart, maybe, from the last few chapters of Acts) - but there is no evidence that it was anyone called Luke.

[@Myrdden71]

@@StudentDad-mc3pu Why do so many who despire God conflate 'evidence' with 'proof'? Is it mere ignorance, or outright dishonesty? Who knows. 'Proof' we do not have. But then we have no 'proof' of any ancient writer's true identity. Even if they signed their name, who's to say someone else didn't sign it centuries later to add it? That has happened. But no one really doubts that Virgil wrote The Aeneid. Or that Ovid wrote Metamorphoses. But no one really hates those, so why question them, right? Now, if 'evidence' is really the measure, we have evidence. Evidence may be good, bad, accurate, inaccurate, strong, weak, etc. Every church father who wrote about the gospel called Luke said that he wrote it. Many of those knew the apostles personally. Irenaeus, Ignatius, Clement, and Tertullian all affirmed Luke's authorship of the gospel that bears his name today. That IS evidence, though not proof. Let's try to be accurate.

[@mwauraerick]

The argument on "anonymous authors" didn't exist at the time when the gospels were written. Christians of that time didn't have a problem with their authorship, and they didn't have alternative names attached to the gospels. It simply remained to be Matthew, Mark, Luke and John

[@KaushikAdhikari]

Now make a video about: who wrote 1 John, 2 John, 3 John and Revelation? We need it

[@catfinity8799]

I think it was John.

[@KaushikAdhikari]

@catfinity8799 I also believe so! But some sources say that 3 different Johns wrote the Gospel of John, the letters of John and Revelation! Saw a video that said, "early church fathers thought, Revelation was indeed written by the disciple John"

[@catfinity8799]

@@KaushikAdhikari I have never heard that. When I read them, I think that they sound like they're from the same person.

[@KaushikAdhikari]

@catfinity8799 the original texts use very different writing styles (as per the claim... I can't read Greek)

[@bassmanjr100]

I could be wrong, but I think 2 John is obviously John the apostle. He was told to care for Mary, the mother of Jesus, and it appears to me this letter is written to her from John.

[@billyziggler1862]

10:15 love how when trying to prove the names were not added in the 2nd century you use the nag hammadi library (written in the 2nd century) as proof the gospels were named. Umm yeah, that’s what we all agree on. They were named by this period. 😂

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

Name a single piece of positive evidence for "the gospels were anonymous" hypothesis

[@ramadadiver8112]

That's not late by historical standards

[@billyziggler1862]

@@ramadadiver8112 What does this have to do with anything? Did I say late? Did anyone? Nope. The youtuber is using texts written in the 2nd Century to prove that their were authors prior to the 2nd Century, which is obviously nonsense.

[@ramadadiver8112]

@@billyziggler1862 It demonstrates that the names were already on the gospels at that time and was commonly accepted amongst Christians . This means it's easy to infer the names were on the gospels earlier than the second century especially because it takes time for something to be commonly accepted

[@billyziggler1862]

@@ramadadiver8112 “easy to infer” is not a method of science. If the earliest record of them having authors is the 2nd century then that is the earliest “proof.” You can make wild claims until you are blue in the face but this in no way “proves” they were named before this. Not at all.

[@Augustus_McCrae]

Some other great citations for further research; The Didache (AD 95) is most likely the earliest extra-biblical manuscript. In 8.2, the Didache quotes from Matthew’s version of the Lord’s Prayer (Mt. 6:5, 9-13). Clement of Rome (AD 95) dates very early as well, because he mentions the Temple still standing (ch.41). And Clement cites Matthew (1 Clement 13.2) and the other Synoptic Gospels (1 Clement 24.5; 46.8). The Epistle of Barnabas (AD 100) cites Matthew 22:14 (4.14). Indeed the language is “nearly identical Greek.” Ignatius (AD 100) cites the gospel of Matthew several times in his letters (Ephesians, 14.2; Smyrnaeans 6.1; Polycarp 2.2), as well as John 3:8 (Philadelphia 7:1). Polycarp (~AD 120-135) cites Matthew (2.3; 7.2; 12.3), Mark (5.2), and Luke (2.3). Tatian (Assyria, AD 173) created his Diatessaron that harmonized the four gospels (dia means “through” and tessaron means “four”). Again, this shows that the Gospels were known and in use to the point that Syriac Christians were writing harmonies of them. Great work, Mike @InspiringPhilosophy

[@ultramarinechaplain88]

*luke sends anonymous gospel to theopilus* Theopilus : who the frick sent this and what for?? Critics logic