3 Bad Reasons to Doubt The Traditional Authorship of Matthew's Gospel
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 01. 2021
- #apologetics #gospels #bible
Skeptics like Bart Ehrman say that we don’t know who wrote Matthew’s Gospel. In Bart’s own words, “Whoever wrote Matthew did not call it “The Gospel according to Matthew.” The persons who gave it that title are telling you who, in their opinion, wrote it…”
Now, the early church fathers all agree that Matthew wrote it. And all the ancient manuscripts we have attributed it to Matthew. We’ve looked at this in previous videos. So what are the main reasons Ehrman thinks that someone other than Matthew wrote it?
In this video, I look at three bad reasons why many biblical critics reject the traditional authorship of Matthew and why they fail.
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Blog post: isjesusalive.com/did-matthew-...
Support me monthly on Patreon: / isjesusalive
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/...
I'm glad you're responding to Bart Ehrman with these excellent presented videos and arguments. Bart is an influential voice that is a go-to for many atheists and muslims. Ad-hominem is wrong, but there is nothing wrong to attack arguments and ideas. Good job.
Yep. I actually like Ehrman even if his arguments sometimes make me cringe. He's fun to read.
Glad the video is helpful. If it's good it's grace.
Part 1: czcams.com/video/-52rO-KhblU/video.html
Part 2: czcams.com/video/p9LK44F9agQ/video.html
Why does Mark 2:14 and Matthew 9:9 written verbatim? Why use Mark's words to the letter?
@@TestifyApologetics the fact church fathers agree on something is not important, they used to think matthew was the first gospel, remember?
Note: I don't judge Ehrman's intent! Ehrman actually seems like a good person knowing that he does raise a lot of money for the poor. I'm more about attacking arguments, not people. I'm just pointing out what Augustine had to say about Faustus. In future videos, I'll be looking at the authorship of John's Gospel as well as looking at the claim that Peter is the source for Mark's Gospel.
@@user-hm4zx4tj5s wow. Debonked.
@@user-hm4zx4tj5s at this point you are denying evidence. and clearly have nothing better to do
@@user-hm4zx4tj5s dang, nice rebuttal. I'm in shock.
@@TestifyApologetics
Thanks for the video.
I have a questuon, how did the early church fathers knew that Matthew wrote it. In other words, how can we prove that Matthew wrote it?
Hey, even Judas wanted to give money to the poor...
The 3 dislikes for the video must have been people who just purchased Ehrman's book and found out they cannot get a refund
That's the way i feel about the Bible
Or understand this video didn't have a single substancial, provable claim on the authorship of Matthew. Like his video on John.
@@AnyProofOfTheseClaims I've always wondered why you atheist trolls watch this channel and make a high amount of comments where you troll believers in Christ. I can bet anything that you don't go on Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu channels to do your trolling. I wonder why? Mmmmm maybe cause you know deep down Christianity is true and you don't like it, also you know the other fake religions pose no threat because it's obvious they are man made religions. I guess there's one more religion you don't attack Islam and that's because you're scared and you know you can get away with it when you attack Christianity.
Bart Ehrman: Matthew was probably illiterate.
Bart Ehrman: I’m about to end this man’s whole career..
LOL
Matthew was a tax collector ,a govt official so he could not be literate
@@ptk8451 only the nobles could read and write, so I think probably what would happen is that when Matthew needed a tax receipt, he would just snap his fingers, and a nobleman would come running over to do it for him.
@@MatthewFearnley writing down someone's name and thr date and and how much money you collected from them is different than writing a comprehensive and engaging literary piece full of allusions to the hebrew scriptures, competently enough to convince the Jewish population that Jesus is the true Messiah of Israel
This is like saying someone can do calculus because they know how to add subtract and multiply
Fair points, but it’s still more reasonable than saying someone is innumerate because they know how to add subtract and multiply.
Your name is so appropriate. As I watch I shout at my screen "Testify, brother!"
I mean, even my teacher talks about himself in third person XD
If you read a random paper about a man narrated in third-person, what is the most likely scenario, that the author refers to himself, or to a "third person"? If you chose the latter, then you agree that it was unlikely that the author referred to himself.
Third-person narration makes it more probable that the author is not referring to himself.
Bob Dole constantly referred to himself in the third person, like your teacher. But he was the only presidential candidate in recent memory who had that habit, and it was a factor in his losing the race. Democrats routinely mocked his relatively rare habit.
@@justindavid9979Your argument completely ignores the historical context. What you're saying would make sense today, but at the time it was very common for works of that kind to be in third person. The video you watched also literally gave you two big examples.
Showing up 2 years late to the party to agree wholeheartedly with your assessment. The point you make about Xenophon rings especially true to me,. Having read the Anabasis several times it's safe for me to say that he is one of, if not my favorite historical writer and his points about leadership under duress ring true all these millennia into our time. Amazing work dude! I'm wildly impressed with your work. Thank you!
Great job! Ehrman, honestly, is much better at selling books than he is at making cogent arguments.
And frankly, I REALLY question the idea that only 3% of Palestinian Jews in the First Century could read and write. That sounds like typical modern snobbery regarding the ancient world.
I agree. Those literacy rates have been challenged and he seems to be taking a skeptical view. Ehrman is a smart guy and brings things down to a popular level but I find a lot of his reasoning to be flawed.
@@TestifyApologetics I agree. Ever since he had his own crisis of faith, he is actively looking for reasons to justify his disbelief, even if they are flimsy.
Jews then just like Jews now were expected to be able to recite Scripture. That means 100% could read either Hebrew or Greek.
I mean one there is no evidence Matthew couldn’t read or write literacy while far less common in that time was not unheard of and there are plenty of reasons why a tax collector would want to have those skills making this entire point at best an argument from silence
Secondly there is nothing the would have prevented Matthew from learning to read for the purpose of writing the gospels
Thirdly there is nothing stopping Matthew from writing the gospel with the help of other people
Fourthly if you don’t make atheist presuppositions there is nothing the prevents god from giving Matthew the ability to write for the purposes of writing the gospel
Once again Ehrman just makes things up. I don’t see why so many people use this guy as a go to when he has been shown to do biased and shoddy scholarly work on multiple occasions
Another point. If the Bible was not the Word of God it wouldn't matter who wrote it. Since it is, God chose who to give us His Word through. Why wouldn't he chose from among the 3% literate even if there really were that few?
I believe that Matthew didn’t write the Gospel but it was an honest mistake, that he rather wrote 'Q' source, which is the same as the Aramaic collection of sayings mentioned by Papias, which the Judean author of Matthew used. For me, Matthew's use of Mark is the definitive reason as to why Matthew didn’t write Matthew, Xenophon is a bad comparison because Matthew would have been present at these events, with Peter.
A lot of the Ehrman arguments you mention are pretty poor for the reasons you show, especially the 'Matthew was illiterate argument', if the same argument was being said of John or Peter than it would be at least somewhat acceptable but Matthew was a tax collector, he would have known some Greek. The third person argument is poor as well.
I never heard that there was controversy over who wrote Matthew and John. Just some minor debate over when they were written. I thought it was settled that Mat and John wrote their books
Many skeptical biblical scholars say the gospels are anonymous and definitely not apostolic
Secularists will do anything to try and rationalize their rejection of God as logical
It is. Postmodern scholars just cast doubt because their whole field of scholarship rests upon the supposition that the Scriptures cannot be true.
@@paulblase7147 so you believe “john” wrote the gospel according to John, the 3 epistles, and possibly the revelation according to John? Bart is briefly summarizing points to show that mainstream scholarship has settled this debate. Instead of agreeing with the CZcams video you can easily read scholarship on the subject and see how textural criticism clearly shows the problem with the theological authorships Peter didn’t write 2nd Peter 1000%. There are clearly forgeries in the NT that even Christian’s agree with. So you have to go to real scholarship to argue this otherwise we are just working to our own bias
@@TestifyApologetics and the fact matthew used mark is important because almost the entiriety of mark is in matthew, and matthew also used Q, which means the material Unique to matthew is a minority of the text (as You showed in the graph)
Xenophon's Symposium, which Penguin calls the Banquet, is clearly inspired by Plato's, even though both of them were students of Socrates and, likely, neither was there, since Xenophon would've been about fourteen, and the older, obviously and Plato eleven, yet, to repeat, Xenophon's is inspired by Plato's, yet both must've heard stories about the event itself from Socrates and probably others who were there. But, as well, it's probable that Plato greatly fictionalized the event and Socrates, himself.
I have a few qualms, for I didn't realize this was a thing.
1. What evidence do we have to suggest that only 3 percent of people had reading and/or writing skills? I believe it is this view that we are constantly evolving that suggests that the common man knew absolutely nothing about reading or writing before modern times. In fact, it often is discovered that people were a lot more intelligent than we give them credit for and we see that WE are in fact the ignorant ones. People only had a handful of books and could memorize chapters in an oral culture, where as we can't remember how to get home without a GPS telling us where to go because our knowledge base is spread out over a much wider scope of things. Not to say we are dumber...but I think the idea that THEY were because we know bits of information where they concentrated on knowing LOTS of information on few subjects...is flawed thinking.
2. Even if Matthew could not read and write, why could he not have a scribe to write down what he says? Even Paul did that with some of his letters and he was a scholar. Paul would specify when he was writing with his own hand when he sent letters.
3. To use the fact that Matthew was not present for every event that he recorded is also flawed. Moses wrote the Torah and he was DEAD for some of it. They simply filled in the last chapter when he died. So we don't count the entire Torah because of the last few chapters? I mean...
"If Peter was the 12's leader, then there's nothing implausible about Matthew using [Mark] as a source".
Even for the story of Matthew's own calling to discipleship (which Matthew virtually copies word-for-word from Mark)? Why would Matthew value the memory of someone else about _his own story,_ rather than giving his own account (as you would absolutely expect an eyewitness to do), without even adding any significant details?
Ironically, your example of Xenophon confirms the objection: Xenophon used Hermogenes because he *wasn't there to witness* the trial. However, Matthew *was* there to witness *many* of the things this author got from Mark.
There's also the problem of explaining why Matthew (if he so valued Peter's testimony in Mark over his own) would venture to correct and rewrite Mark point after point. But that would require more unpacking.
"there was this commentor who commented on this video." People can still write in the third person, also it's academic tradition in the west to write their books in... A variation of the 3rd person. Trust me I have a lot of time for ehrman however "X was written 3rd person therefore it couldn't be Y who wrote X about Y" doesn't make sense. Throughout history people wrote in the 3rd person. Greek pottery had the pottery vocalising third person "demetrios made me" on pots, etc.
How do you make this animations?
VideoScribe - www.videoscribe.co/en
There is actually a view among a number of NT scholars, based on early church father accounts, that the very first written gospel was by Matthew in Hebrew, but that it was not as much as a linear narrative as it was a transcription of Jesus' sermons (being a tax collector he probably was the most likely to have the ability to have made at least rudimentary notes.) It may be that this was the "Q" document that many scholars postulate was the first gospel draft.
Mark, who was an assistant to Peter, then wrote the first narrative accounts in Greek based on Peters sermons and first hand accounts.
There is further evidence that Matthew would have been encouraged to translate his version into Greek as the church spread beyond Jerusalem, and that he used Mark's already established narrative as the structural outline, along with input from other surviving disciples at that time.
See the work of Dr Stephen Boyce for more.
Other than the attestation of the early church Fathers, what internal evidence do we have that Luke wrote his Gospel?
Good question. Some have pointed out that we see a lot of references to medical type of details. There's also the dozens of historical details we find in the 'we passages' that indicate that Luke travelled with Paul. I detail those here: isjesusalive.com/84-reasons-why-we-know-luke-was-a-traveling-companion-of-paul/
Also, Luke's prologue makes the case for the originality of the title strong. Scholar Richard Bauckham says "The clearest case for the original title for Luke is because of the dedication of the work to Theophilus, probably a patron. It is inconceivable that a work with a named dedicatee should have been anonymous" (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 301)
@Testify, Thanks very much!
Wait this is soo Good! Are you a graduate student in theology if you don't mind me asking??
No, I did go to a 2-year Bible school but I'm just a guy with an interest. I did have a mentor of sorts (Dr. Tim McGrew of W. Michigan, a philosophy professor) who did help me a lot with finding resources, answering questions, etc.
Anyone can learn if you're willing to read and find the right resources, but I realize I'm an amateur and I have a lot to learn still.
PLEASE, also add the reference for Augustines quote about Matthew's gospel and not using the term I.
@@user-hm4zx4tj5s Ok, so how about you actually address his arguments instead of making ad hominem attacks?
@@user-hm4zx4tj5s the verse you quote is Jesus talking to peter? whats the problem?
Do writers only refer to themselves in the thrid person
Ehrman's position is that since the gospel authors did not explicitly identify themselves within the texts, don't cite their sources and wrote in the third person, it suggests that they were not direct witnesses to the events they describe and not soley on the basis they were written in the 3rd person.
Ehrman said that Matthew may not have been literate due to his presumed lower-class background as a Galilean peasant. Him being a tax collector doesn't necessarily mean he was literate.
Tax collection systems in ancient times were often designed to be straightforward, with standardized tax rates based on factors like income, property value, or agricultural production.
Tax collectors did not necessarily need advanced literacy abilities to carry out their duties effectively. People like Matthew were often drawn from the lower classes, including peasants, and may not have had extensive education. Literacy rates were generally limited in ancient societies, with education primarily available to the elite or privileged classes, while Matthew was a lower-class Galilean peasant.
And it's not only that Matthew is annonymus, but all 4 cannonical gospels are. The only gospel that claims autorship is the non-canonical gospel of thomas, but him being the author is rejected by the academia.
Again, there's no evidence to prove that they were anonymous. In fact, Every single available manuscript we have links to the 4 gospels. People like Bart Ehmar want to discredit it because of the "wide variety," when in fact, there isn't a wide variety. The variety is in terms of whether it says "according to," or "the gospel according to." There's no basis of evidence for these claims that it was floating around without an author. Plus, all of the early churches had an incredibly hard time communicating since it was in the 1st century, so if it really was just floating around with no name, there'd be a variety of names for the gospels, and yet there aren't. This is backed even more by the fact that they didn't write their names on the codexs they wrote. They labeled them with something else so that when they were preserved, they knew who wrote them. So the lie that there was never an author and they just tacked the name on centuries later is easily refutable.
@@gthompsonbjj That cannot be proven because we don't have a single manuscript outside of Egypt before the 4th century CE. And we also don't have a single manuscript before 185 CE to prove that the names were assigned before. The Church fathers overall were not reliable. If you're gonna take their word for every claim they made, you might as well do the same with the Muslim tradition and affirm that the Quran was dictated by Allah from angel Gabriel to Muhammad.
@@Contagious93812I mean the church plays a big role in Christianity with Peter being the first pope, Islam is easily debunked but that’s a different debate.
Great video!
Personally I enjoy Ehrman's books & Tabor's books. 😁
The early church fathers from what I understand all agreed that matthew, was written first in hebrew than translated into greek.
You're videos are great
Can you give Sources of Xenophon using Hermogenes please? God bless
And guess which gospel mentions the names of types of currency the most?
2:01, 2:15, 2:27
3:25, 3:37, 4:01
4:16
I don't think writing must have been so difficult. Didn't zecheriah write johns name on a clay tablet?
Harold Riley has written a very good book explaining that Mark used Matthew and Luke.
There are many theories to solve the synoptic problem. I like Carsten Peter Thiede's idea that the gospel writers all knew each other (obviously because the gospels can't have been written in "thin air" or anonymous like some scholars think) and basically "compared notes" at some point during the process.
Obviously Matthew was literate. He had to be for his job. Here’s some evidence Matthew’s gospel was written by himself as a tax collector.
We see in 22:19 that with respect to the Pharisees’ conflict with Jesus over paying tribute money or taxes to Caesar, the Gospel of Matthew alone not only uses the word δηνάριον (dēnarion) but also the more precise Greek term νόμισμα (state coin). In contrast, the other synoptic Gospels (Mark 12:15, Luke 20:24) only use δηνάριον (dēnarion) concerning this episode not showing the same concern for the precise financial term that Matthew does. This lends more evidence towards the position that we are dealing with Matthew the tax collector who was familiar with and concerned about accuracy regarding financial terminology.
Also, it is the Gospel of Matthew alone which mentions Jesus telling Peter to “give no offense to them [tax collectors]” and to pay temple tax in Capernaum when asked to (17:24-27). This is something that a tax collector such as Matthew would feel compelled to admit into his Gospel. Matthew would certainly not be indifferent towards this included episode since it concerned tax collectors, tax collecting, and the Christian position on not paying taxes being an offense.
God bless you Testify. ❤️
Except that Ceasar did write in first person, just not always. He was mainly talking about the accomplishments of the army. It's called spreading the glory. So that argument doesn't work at all. Same for Xenophon, he wasn't actually there at the trial...
Back to that introductory class on textual criticism you go. You need to give probably authorship with evidence, not explain away criticism for something that hasn't been established in the first place to begin with.
Every single available manuscript we have links to the 4 gospels. People like Bart Ehmar want to discredit it because of the "wide variety," when in fact, there isn't a wide variety. The variety is in terms of whether it says "according to," or "the gospel according to." There's no basis of evidence for these claims that it was floating around without an author. Plus, all of the early churches had an incredibly hard time communicating since it was in the 1st century, so if it really was just floating around with no name, there'd be a variety of names for the gospels, and yet there aren't. This is backed even more by the fact that they didn't write their names on the codexs they wrote. They labeled them with something else so that when they were preserved, they knew who wrote them. So the lie that there was never an author and they just tacked the name on centuries later is easily refutable.
Matthew was a tax collector. An incredibly intelligent and literate person. Easily capable of writing in the third person. Because of his profession, he needed to be able to keep records, tax collectors at the time were very capable people when it came to record keeping.
He was a lower-class Galilean peasant, so most likely he was illiterate. Tax collectors in ancient societies like Matthew were often drawn from the lower classes, including peasants, and may not have had extensive education. Literacy rates were generally limited in ancient societies, with education primarily available to the elite or privileged classes.
@@Contagious93812 What a load of rubbish
@@Steve_P_B
Tax collection systems in ancient times were often designed to be straightforward, with standardized tax rates based on factors like income, property value, or agricultural production.
Tax collectors did not necessarily need advanced literacy abilities to carry out their duties effectively. Him being a tax collector doesn't necessarily mean he was literate. And even if he were literate, he would have only had to possess basic literacy skills to effectively perform his duties, whereas the gospels were written by highly educated Greek-speaking Christians.
He wasn't an administrator, he worked in a booth. Like a toll booth operator.
There are 4 Evangelists. Matthew & John, were of the 12. Mark was a follower & disciple of Peter. Luke accompanied Paul. Matthew wrote the Gospel in the Hebrew language for the Jews who believed, 8 years after Christ’s Ascension. Mark wrote his Gospel 10 years after the Ascension, instructed by Peter. Luke wrote his Gospel 15 years after the Ascension. John wrote his Gospel 32 years after the Ascension.
- Theophylact; archbishop of Okhrid, Bulgaria
(born between 1050 & 1055, died in 1107)
But many popular modern Bible scholars deny this traditional testimony. With no evidence, & prompted by their unbelief; they claim that:
1> Matthew's Gospel wasn't written by him;
2> it was written after the destruction of the Temple in A.D.70, which it prophesied (Since these modern Bible "scholars" are secretly atheists, they refuse to believe in fulfilled prophecy.);
3> it was written after Mark's Gospel; &
4> the Gospels aren't placed in the NT according to the chronological order in which they were written (even though the Church has always testified that they are).
Popular modern Bible "scholars", who are promoted & referenced by the media, are not real scholars because they deny the witness of antiquity that has been handed down to us over the centuries & throughout the generations by word of mouth & occasional written testimonies to that tradition.
They are skeptics & scoffers that accept nothing as true unless it is proven "scientifically".
Protestants, liberals, atheists, & agnostics agree in denying & opposing the validity, veracity, & value of tradition. So they make up a big market for skeptics & scoffers to promote & profit from doubt & disbelief.
I am a protestant theologian and I fully agree with those traditions. And there are many scholars who do. So the first part of your statement is definitely correct about trusting the tradition. The general assumption about scholars of either denomination (when I studied I had catholic, protestant and orthodox professors) are not correct. Some still hold up the truth.
Traditional authorship is true, we should support it.
I doubt his real name is "Bart Ehrman". What mother would give her child that name.
I now baptise baby Bartholomew😂😆
As Catholic I know the importance of church history. Without church history, writings of church fathers, beliefs held by 1st Christians, doctrines to establish true faith, you will not be able to defend your faith and scripture.
💖🙏💖🙏💖
Great outlay Erik. Most splendid brother!
It baffles me that a professionally trained New Testament like Ehrman could make arguments this bad. These are the sort of objections I would expect to hear from the skeptics of Reddit.
You don’t think a tax collector could read and write? Seriously?
The title of the video is appropriately named. There’s a difference between an argument that is merely fallacious and an argument that is just downright bad. The former, while wrong, makes you go “I can at least see why you’d think that.” But the latter is the kind that makes you raise one eyebrow and go “bruh”.
I've read most of Bart Ehrman's books. Faith or no faith he lets the evidence speak the truth for itself.
The fact that others wrote in the third person is not evidence that the author of Matthew wrote in the third person.
The fact that the vast majority of citizens were illiterate is not evidence that Matthew was an exception.
The fact that the author of Matthew copied Mark is not evidence that Matthew wrote Matthew.
So even if you dismiss everything that Bart has to say about the authorship of Matthew, this video presents zero evidence that Matthew wrote Matthew.
Look at this channel’s other video on the matter then where it uses external evidence.
@@Liam-ei8fk What "external evidence"?
There is no external writings where the author of Matthew identifies themselves. In fact there isn't even any internal evidence. The fact that your god didn't inspire Matthew to proclaim the good news in the first person is evidence that Matthew isn't the author.
Evidence of people arguing that Matthew was the author is not evidence that he was the author. It is only evidence that some people believed that he was the author.
The is no evidence that Matthew wrote Matthew, fact, deal with it or become an atheist.
These criticisms, that we dont know who wrote matthew seem like a connected string of arguements from ignorance. So because we don't have a first century copy of matthew which is labeled matthew it must be somebody else. Even though we have P104 which is dated to the second century, was found in egypt, and includes the title, matthew.
Ehrman, Corrected.
I Don't think Ehrman can say this is conclusive proof that Matthew didn't write the gospel but he presents 3 issues that support his view that we don't truly know for certain that he did. Writing in the 3rd person does not automatically grant that Matthew did not write it. Nor does it prove that he did simply because some other people wrote in the 3rd person! Taking the most simplistic view, a 3rd person narrative would at least sway most people in the direction of a 3rd party author, not Matthew. Whilst his education may have indeed allowed him to write simple receipts or basic text, are we confident in saying he was educated to a sufficient standard to write an entire narrative account in fluent Greek? Based on the average man of his position at that time It's more likely that he could not. The copying of marks gospel would make sense if he only copied portions relevant to the times when he was not there, but isn't the vast majority of it copied from Mark and the Q source? Not saying Ehrman is right, but this is hardly 3 strikes against him.
Excellent points. However, Ehrman never claims that any single argument shows "conclusive proof". He does make the scholarly claim that "there is nothing to suggest that Matthew the tax-collector was an urban elite who was highly educated" (so as to write the highly literate gospel). In this he is absolutely correct. He concludes that Matthew is unlikely to have written this Gospel, which seems logical.
1. I don’t think the apostle Matthew wrote the version of Matthew we have today.
2. I don’t see why a tax collector from Galilee wouldn’t know common Greek; it was the lingua franca of the region.
3. I personally don’t buy arguments based on the existence of Q; Mark Goodacre has demonstrated reasonably well that Luke borrowed from Matthew, and thus Q is unnecessary.
@@justindavid9979I mean, even if he himself didn't write it, he could have easily hired a scribe. This was extremely common at the time.
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John....If the Church leaders in the first century believed this, how can we know better 2000 years later. Mark was without doubt writing down what Peter said, that is completely clear. Matthew wrote his gospel to the Hebrews specifically. He was an "Accountant", who obviously put great effort and emphasis into showing how and why Jesus fulfilled the Prophecies of the Old Testament. As an accountant, obviously he could read and write in Hebrew (from the religious schools they all attended), Greek, because he lived in a Greek world, and Latin, because they had conquered the Greek Empire and many transaction required Latin text. I find it very amusing that people like Bart Ehrman always assume people of 2000 years ago were dumb, illiterate morons. That thought, not only makes them feel superior, it also makes their argument must less robust. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. What was good for the church leaders in the 1st century is good for me. Also it is clear that Matthew and Mark were written before the destruction of Jerusalem, not after. They were writing what they believed would happen, not what had happened.
With all these strike outs Bart must have a horrible hitting percentage
Also, the Gospel of Matthew is not the best from the artistic perspective, if we compare his Gospel to the Gospel of Luke, however the rhetorics are consise and akin to those of the Old Testament. Such writing would fit well a tax collector.
Mark was just the scribe. Peter told the story. Not hard to see that although Mark wrote it Peter dictated what to write.
Did MOST authors refer to themselves in the third person, like you seem to suggest, or is the opposite true? If that number is less than half, that stat argues two points:
1. It is more probable that Matthew did not write this Gospel, from this point of view.
2. You are deliberately misleading us with your "strike" against Ehrman.
Ehrman NEVER said that the 3-person narration "proves" it wasn't Matthew. He uses the word "probable", a concept you don't seem to acknowledge in this video.
It was very common, yes. :)
Testify brother!
WHOEVER WROTE IT MATTHEW WAS THERE WITH JESUS = ESPECIALLY CHOSEN BY JESUS 🤷♂️🤷♂️NOT YOU 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
Just watched a Muslim "scholar" use the third person argument. Clueless. No huge debate back in the day.
Oh? Which one?
@@TestifyApologetics : Shabir Ally
@@gerryquinn5578 Why is it more likely that Matthew wrote the Gospel as a narrator writing in 3rd person, as opposed to the default assumption anyone would make when reading a 3rd person narration; that it was not Matthew who wrote it, but someone else?
@@nanashi7779 : It was not uncommon in biblical times and Greco-Roman times for historical works to be technically anonymous or to be narrated in the third person. Some of the well known Roman histories are technically anonymous but everyone knows who wrote them. Likewise, in some of his Histories, Jewish historian Josephus writes about himself in the 3rd person. We should not judge a work by 21st century conventions.
@@gerryquinn5578 "Not uncommon" is not the same thing as '3rd person perspective should be taken to be 1st person in actuality by default' as you are suggesting. You have provided comparatively meagre examples "SOME of Josephus' Histories", this is totally insufficient in proving that in the ancient world if someone wrote in 3rd person this should by default be taken to assume they are actually 1st person witnesses to what's happening. Until you can prove that, this defence doesn't even come anywhere close to being justified
Your defense of the Matthew being the actual author of the first gospel is ignorant at best.
You claim that _all_ the "Church Fathers" claimed Matthew as the author of the first gospel, _but this is manifestly incorrect._
The extremely prolific Christian writer and apologist *Justin Martyr* never claimed that Matthew wrote the first gospel. In fact, Justin never identified any one specific person as a gospel author, rather he referred to them as collection: _The memoirs of the Apostles._
Justin died circa 165 CE, so up until that point we still have exactly zero claims from anyone about the actual identities of the gospel authors.
In fact, the claim that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the gospels was circa 180 CE by Bishop Irenaeus. So about 150 years had elapsed since the death of Jesus before anyone at all attributed specific names to the gospel authors.
There is no good reason to believe that Bishop Irenaeus actually knew who the real authors were, especially since his predecessor, Justin Martyr, did not ever make that claim, and _always_ referred to the gospels as _The memoirs of the Apostles._
Also, we have no documents at all in recorded history where a person identifying themselves as Matthew the Disciple of Jesus, let alone a gospel. This is unlike authors like Julius Caesar, who definitely wrote in his own name and in first-person, as well as in the third-person.
Your response lacks charity. "Manifestly incorrect" and "ignorant at best." You must be fun at parties.
I never said *all* the church fathers diretly name Matthew but that those who do name him all unanimously named him Matthew, including Papias, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, the Muratorian Canon, etc.
I am saying that his authorship isn't in dispute by the church fathers, like we see with say the Epistle to the Hebrews. That's what a real anonymous work looks like. Matthew's Gospel is quoted by Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, the Didache and Justin Martyr. Justin had a student named Tatian who wrote The Diatesseron, which literally means through 4. It's a harmony of the Gospels and it quotes Matthew. What "four" would he be referring to? Think about it.
As I said earlier, Papias speaks of a Hebrew copy of Matthew's Gospel. That's probably in 125. This could be a sayings Gospel similar to Q that contained the teachings found in Matthew that the Didache refers to as The Gospel of our Lord. Also, I gave the example of Xenophon who speak in illeism. Also, notice that every single Gospel that refers to itself as "so-and-so Jesus' disciple" (Thomas, Peter, Judas, etc) is a total fraud.
If you want a deeper look at the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew, go to my interview with Dr. Stephen Boyce: czcams.com/video/vAOmnuSQnmQ/video.html
It's always a good idea to see what other videos one has on a topic before drawing conclusions.
@@TestifyApologetics - and _your_ response lacks _honesty._
Your literal words in this video:
0:11
"Now the early Church Fathers all agree that Matthew wrote it".
So now you are exposed as a bare-faced liar, as proven by your own words in your own video, because you did _not_ say in the video "... those [Church Fathers] who do name him all unanimously named him Matthew...", which is quite a different claim.
What is worst about you blatant lie, is _no_ early church father prior to Bishop Irenaeus claimed that Matthew wrote the first gospel.
As I already told you, Justin Martyr never used any author's names when quoting the gospels, which he did very often, He always referred to the gospels as "the memoirs of the Apostles".
And as far as Papias is concerned, virtually nothing from his works is extant, and any claims that he supported Matthew as the author of the first gospel rest on a sentence where Papias claims that a person called Mathias wrote a _Hebrew_ list of Oracles (or Sayings) by Jesus. That's _not_ a reference to the first gospel, which is a _Greek_ narrative that starts with the narration of the conception of Jesus in Mary by Yahweh, and the arrival of Magi bringing gold and other gifts for Jesus. The first gospel is _not_ a list of oracles by Jesus in the Hebrew language, unless you are so desperate that you wish to embarrass yourself further with yet more dishonesty.
Your claim: That "Papias speaks of a Hebrew copy of Matthew's Gospel" is not supported by the extant historical evidence. At best you are ignorant of the source material.
So, like I said, your starting point for the gospel authors is circa 180 CE with Bishop Irenaeus, about 150 years after the death of Jesus. _but you have no actual Church Father support earlier than that time._ That makes a liar out of you for your claim in your video that: "Now the early Church Fathers all agree that Matthew wrote it", especially since the earlier Justin Martyr is a Church Father and he does _not_ agree that Matthew wrote it.
It's always a good idea to read what the actual _sources_ say on a topic before drawing conclusions.
Oh - and you do need to at least correct your words in this video.
Erase 0:11
"Now the early Church Fathers all agree that Matthew wrote it"
and replace it with:
"... those [Church Fathers] who do name him all unanimously named him Matthew..."
Which is a bit more honest.
Bart, why are you persecuting Jesus. It's hard to kick against the goad.
The arguments in favor of Mark was the first Gospel and Mathew and Luke are anonimous editions of Mark, are so strong, you must to check it out by yourself. Please make a video debunking all that real evidence if you can. If the churchs fathers had another version. That could be evidence they were simply christians without special knowlogement trying to use their authority to misguide people.
Well...I can tell that you are getting a lot of your stuff from Lydia McGrew's beliefs about this matter, but I won't say why.
A first concern would be: what exact upper-hand do you suppose you are gaining in an apologetics debate with a skeptic by proving apostle Matthew authored the gospel now bearing his name? The skeptic would simply point out that we can agree that Matthew wrote for 1st century people. When you come along and suggest Matthew's audience included people of the 21st century, that is YOUR claim, for which YOU have the sole burden, and yet a snowball would have a better chance of surviving in hell than you would have a chance of proving the gospel of Matthew was intended for anybody living after the second century. Matthew's intended audience is nothing but a blur after we grant a plausible hypothesis that he intended to address 1st century Jews. When we ignore Matthew today, it's about as unreasonable as ignoring Ovid.
A second concern would be that Matthew's authorship justifies skepticism toward Jesus' resurrection. If Acts 1:3 is true, the risen Christ stuck around educating the 11 disciples about "things pertaining to the kingdom of God" for 40 days, which means a period of at least several days even if not exactly 40. Problem: All of the risen Christ's teachings about kingdom of God stuff, as conveyed by Matthew, can be spoken in less than 20 seconds. We are reasonable to assume that if Matthew really had first-hand experience of this risen Christ teaching on such matters for many days as Acts 1:3 requires, Matthew's post-resurrection interest in the pre-crucifixion Christ's teachings would virtually mandate he express even MORE interest in the POST-crucifixion Christ's teachings. And Mathew loved "kingdom of God" themes, the same theme Acts 1:3 says constituted most of the risen Christ's teaching over a period of many days. So skeptics can be reasonable to say the reason Matthew's author doesn't say as much as we reasonably expect him to, is because it is not an eyewitness who authored that gospel, but only somebody who was limited to the gist of what Matthew experienced,
or, we are reasonable to assume Acts 1:3 is reflecting literary embellishment of the resurrection narrative taking place after Matthew wrote.
You can trifle that Matthew chose the literary device of compression. What you won't do is demonstrate that thesis to have have so much probability that our resurrection skepticism becomes unreasonable.
A third concern would be: Does the existence of a gospel entitled "Matthew" obligate an unbeliever to grant a presumption of Matthian authorship and not withdraw the benefit of the doubt unless he can refute Matthian authorship? If so, where are you getting that obligation from? Is it a principle most historians agree with? Did you hear about the principle in Court cases and decide it would be nifty to anachronistically apply modern legal rules to ancient religious texts? Did some apologist put out a book that says we have an obligation to believe everything we read until we can prove it false?
A fourth concern would be: how do you justify moving so quickly from "narrators often use the third-person to describe their first-hand knowledge" over to "therefore Matthew must have done the same thing"? Isn't that as fallacious as moving immediately from "Americans love mom, baseball and apple pie" over to "if Johnny is an American, then he surely loves his mom"? Do you have criteria for the conditions under which a first century author would likely choose to write about his personal first-hand experiences in the third-person? Or do you merely argue that because the third-person literary device is possible, it is therefore automatically probable?
A fifth concern would be: Exactly how unreasonable is the unbeliever who says we normally expect a person, when conveying to others experiences they personally participated in, to relate such details in the first-person singular? Isn't it true that despite the availability of the third-person as a literary device, most first-century authors who wrote of matters they had personally experienced, do indeed write in the first person?
Finally, you try to justify eyewitness Matthew using non-eyewitness Mark as a gospel text source by saying Mark's source was Peter, thus Matthew is actually borrowing text from Peter, and nothing is strange about an apostle depending on another apostle's testimony. The problem here is that Eusebius provides contradictory information the Petrine influence on Mark. At one point Eusebius says Peter approved of Mark's gospel. In another place Eusebius says Peter neither condemned nor endorsed it. But even forgetting that, the fact is, if three people saw a traffic accident take place with their vision being respectively and equally reliable as much as you think Matthew's vision was when he "saw" the risen Christ, that circumstance doesn't normally create the effect of one eyewitness borrowing substantial amounts of text from the other eyewitness's written account. So it doesn't matter that Matthew could plausibly borrow text from apostle Peter: Matthew created a gospel that is 90% Markan text, i.e., "Matthew's" version of the gospel is 90% Peter's version of the gospel. That extreme amount of borrowing goes far beyond the moderate amount of borrowing we could plausibly allow between eyewitness accounts. You are correct, Matthew didn't need to invent the wheel, because 90% of the wheel he gave us wasn't his own contribution in the first place...and likely because he wasn't an eyewitness to very much of what he wrote...including the resurrection event.
Ehrman embarrasses me all the time
😂 True. He sheds a bad light on all of us theologians.
Please provide ONE non-fundamental scholar who believes a Galilean tax-collector is likely to have written the highly literate Greek gospel.
Ehrman, who specializes in that place and period of history, comments that a Galilean tax-collector might have had some rudimentary skills in letters, yet illiterate in actual reading and composition. You counter with the fact that you are baffled by this and then make the argument that the disciples would have picked Matthew to take notes because the others were fishermen. Hardly a serious critique of a scholarly claim.
One thing, saying that we can’t use Christian scholars is unfair and is not the point. Their beliefs don’t matter, the evidence matters (that was what lead them to becoming Christians). You might say that Christian scholars are biased, but so are atheist/agnostic scholars in that case.
@@Nameless-pt6oj @J C There is good evidence to believe that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans. It is written with the vocabulary, writing style and deep Pauline doctrine of 6 other epistles attributed to him. As a highly educated person in Judaism and in Greek letters, it is entirely probable that he could compose the contents of Romans. Because evidence and reason point to Paul, atheists, agnostic and liberal Christians have no problem unanimously concluding that Paul almost certainly wrote Romans.
A certain group of scholars who declare they are going to believe what they came in believing (that the Bible is perfect and all authors attributed to the writings are who the titles say they are), disqualify themselves as anything other than biased. This bias shows most clearly when no scholar in the world considers any of their arguments on the Matthean authorship as having any decent evidence behind it (unlike the example I used for Romans).
We depend on unbiased experts for clarity on subjects outside our area of specialization. Regarding a certain brand of scholars who will only make the conclusions they committed to before they began university, when their brains were not quite fully developed, we should understand why no non-fundamental scholar agrees with their conclusion.
@@justindavid9979 You’d agree someone wrote the gospel “According to Matthew,” correct? I assume you’d also agree that the author was Jewish? I’m not sure why a Galilean tax collector is such a terrible candidate.
@@chasevergari3669 It's not written nor did the author express any intent that it was to be taken as an eye-witness account... by a tax-collecting disciple who was eating, walking, sleeping, and ministering with Christ during His ministry years. Yet here we are being told by every preacher I've ever heard that it's the Sermon on the Mount according to Matthew 1000% for sure and here are 1000 apologists who each give 1000 reasons why. It's cultism. They never preach, "It MAY have been," like intelligent, accurate speakers talking to us like as though we were more than sheep.
liar, please
"Reinvent the wheel" lol, he was a tax collector, you think he trusted his "eloquent writing"?
We basically have much of mathew's hebrew gospel... he still based it on mark's.
I love when CZcams creators talk about how ignorant one of the top Biblical scholars in the world today are just wrong. I believe Mike Licona disagrees with you on at least some of what you say here. I'll tune in when you get Bart on your channel to explain to him everything he's wrong about... Or even Licona...
Ok don't trust me listen to someone with a doctorate and has studied these things in depth here, Captain Credential Shamer.
czcams.com/video/vAOmnuSQnmQ/video.html
Ehrman isn't "one of the top Bible scholars in the world". The world isn't the USA, even if some Americans seem to think that. Ehrman is utterly unknown outside the US and the CZcams atheist bubble.
I studied theology in Bamberg, Germany, under Professor Bedford-Strohm who later became bishop of Bavaria. The name Ehrman was never ever mentioned. The reason is probably that all his arguments are taken from German theologians. So here in Germany we read the originals and not the rehashed version.
Your rebuttals are pathetic
There was no such thing as Palestinian Jews, Jesus Christ...