Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
Evidence For The 4 Evangelists | Who Wrote the Gospels?
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 02. 2021
- Dr. Brant Pitre draws evidence for the 4 Evangelists from both early Christian and non-Christian writings attesting to the authenticity, authorship, and dating of the Gospels. Topics covered include “Who Wrote the Gospels?”, “Are the Gospels Biographies?”, “When Were the Gospels Written?”, “Did Jesus Claim to Be God?”, and others.
▶ This video is an excerpt from our program, Lectio: The Case for Jesus
watch.formed.o...
00:00
▶ Purchase the book here: catholic.marke....
▶ Check out the Augustine Institute: bit.ly/3i4kXcf
▶ Visit FORMED: The Catholic Faith On Demand formed.org/signup
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
GET ANSWERS ON SOCIAL:
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
🔔 SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE: / augustineinstitute
▶ FACEBOOK: / augustineinst
▶ INSTA: / augustineinst
▶ FORMED FACEBOOK PAGE: / formedcatholic
#BibleStudy #Gospels #BrantPitre
🔔 Subscribe for more about understanding, living, and sharing the Catholic Faith! czcams.com/users/AugustineInstitute
I read The Case for Jesus and was utterly riveted. I felt like I was walking on terra firma at last, having been truly shaken by the biblical scholars of the 20th and 21st centuries
Modernist scholars are the winds of false ideas that buffet the believer. But Our Lord promised His Holy Spirit to guide His Church and preserve her from error. May we always hold on to Jesus, the Truth, present in His Church, and we will not be deceived by these false modern schools of thought. God bless.
I had the privilege of reading Dr. Pitre's book 'The Case for Jesus'. I highly recommend it to Christians who are doubting the credibility of the Gospels.
Came here from Catolic Productions. A non Catholic living in Italy. A believer in Jesus Christ loving Dr Pitres teachings.
You are welcome here brother in Christ. From a recent convert to Catholicism.
This guy knows his stuff , I read his book the case for Jesus 3 times and it brought me closer to what I all ready knew
Keith that is usually just called confirmation bias.
@@ghostriders_1 can you go to hell for that?
@@keithkucera3163 Intellectual hell, yes. Honesty hell? Yes...so many ways to go to hell! A better way is to try very hard to prove that what you believe is wrong before you believe it.
@@ghostriders_1 true enough but I believe cause also cause I have seen these things with my own eyes also
@@keithkucera3163 you have to be prepared to admit that what you have "seen" is nothing more than agency. In evolutionary terms, you are in the jungle you hear a rustle of foliage, you assume it is a tiger, you run. It wasn't a tiger it was the wind. It kept our ancestors safe but we don't need it. Evaluate only actual evidence for everything you believe and not what you think possibly might be evidence. You cannot turn possibly into probably without actual evidence.
Thanks to Augustine Institute, I can finally learn biblical theology in 4K. Hehe.... Nothing's wasted, I'm sure many in future are going to appreciate this....
Thank you for saying you were not born Catholic/Christian. I also was born pagan and shortly after Baptized into the Catholic Faith. I left as a teenager as I had a Jewish friend. The Church called the Jews Christ killers. I could not swallow that!!! I returned to The FAITH around 25yrs ago. I believe Our Blessed MOTHER brought me back to Her SON. LOVE the MOTHER, LOVE THE SON. LOVE THE SON, LOVE the MOTHER. O, MAY THE PRECIOUS BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST COVER US, save us ( a part of that Devotion is on CZcams!!!) 🙏🩸🙏 P S I never heard of the “telephone game”. I did hear that how or why would so many earlier Jewish/Christians give up their lives to yrs and yrs of tortuous deaths, if they did not believe with reason. I am surprised you did not mention the “Q” source… Thank you for your enlightened lecture 🙏
Brant has a way of making information accessible without dumbing it down. Excellent as always.
@@tomato-ir9xs so you didn't watch the historical evidence he presented? your comment is hateful and useless then
Thank you, Dr Pitre, for this invaluable information. We Catholics need to equip ourselves and our children with the Truth in order to be able to refute the theory that says the Gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
Parents must ground their kids in truth before they go off to university, the bastions of skepticism and relativism. So many young Catholics' faith have been destroyed by the godless academe.
Love, Faith, and trust is sky high after watching this…. Thanks Dr. Pitre
Dr Pitre has the charism of strengthening his brothers in the Faith. May God bless him.
Love this! Thank God for this!
Thank God for Brant Pitre. Who would study this hard about something that his professors tried to claim were exaggerated stories?
Such a blessing that this channel just showed up this morning! When the Spirit moves, it is with sublime purpose. I welcome this with an open heart to learn anything and everything about my Faith, I may not actually know more than a ‘hand me down ‘ from my parents and grand parents. So I thank God for this . 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻❤️
This is such a blessing! Thank you!
Your are Awesome Brother 🙏 Love your View the way you break it down getting a clearer understanding 🕊 I will always remain Teachable ! Amen 🙏
Thank you so much for uploading this. Many greetings from a Christian in Sweden. Bless you all
Wow. Thanks be to God for this presentation!
When I was in the seminary, I asked that exact question and was told "Because the Infallible Church says Jesus is the only true God." I was then told anyone who questions his faith shouldn't become a priest. So, it gives me great joy to hear you address that exact question: Why should I believe in Jesus?
Yes, and I think as Pitre says, as secularisation grows with many people having a very tenuous understanding of Christianity, it is simply not satisfactory to just answer such questions with "because the church/bible" says so. The default reaction to that by many would be that they don't care what the church says because they have no personal investment in that. So, you've got to give them something more tangible and well evidenced because that's something nones can get behind. Certainly, I've found Brant Litre's work very insightful and well argued. And his approach works for me because I have a history degree, so his scholarly historicity based argument suits me.
Wow! Thank you so much for this presentation. Very easy to understand. I am glad that I found this channel! Thanks!
Please Pray for the Restoration of Traditional Latin Mass in India. Please pray for the Restoration of Traditional Catholic Faith, Culture and Identity
Very informative. Thank You Dr. pitre
Love Dr. Pitre!
Amazing. Loved the presentation . Thank you Sir Brant Pitre
Amazing. Loved it! Great talk. Looking forward to watch the next part 😍
Looking forward to the next video in this series.
@@beewizerm8 These cost money to make you know. And many parishes across the US have a free subscription to their service
Thank you Dr.Pitre!
The gospels....it wasn't the 'telephone game'! Watch to learn more!
Other scholars: it's a telephone game
Dr. Pitre be like: then I guess I'll call the first guys!
Crowd: 😯
Great lecture.
Very well produced
Very good. Presenter makes very logical arguments.
Fantastic book and presentation.
Production is on POINT!
Thank you
Please put the entire lecture series on the authorship of the Gospels on CZcams.
I second the motion.
I was so wanting to hear the next part of the discussion on this monumental topic by Dr Pitre. Where can we find it please?
Ave Christus Rex
They hired scribes who knew how to write. Scribes were needed by almost everyone. Typists used to be needed as well. Now, we all type ourselves.
Really, how obvious is this?
What is your source for your assertions?
This is so interesting
There is a major difference between the telephone game and the gospel stories. In the game, the story greatly changes whereas the Gospels are consistent - no dramatic change.
You clearly haven't read them.
Mal you live in a hall of mirrors, Matthew copies 95% of Mark, correcting his mistakes, dropping or changing up whatever he likes and inventing a birth narrative that is nowhere attested in the earlier christian tradition, ffs! You need to learn critical thinking skills.
@@ghostriders_1 these Gospels are more consistent than not. And he did not mention the possible source of some called “Q”. We all need to learn Greek and Hebrew and other antique works. Regardless: PRAISE GOD FOR HE IS GOOD….ALL THE TIME!!!🙏❤️🙏
@@patriciagrenier9082 I know they are and that is what you would expect from redactions! Q is not a source but a hypothetical construct of modern academics with no supporting evidence other than conjecture.
@@po18guy where? Ffs!
Thank you 💙🙏🏼✝️
If skeptics apply the same level of criticism to any other historical figure, based on the same judgements they pass on the the ONE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, world history and historical figures, both older and younger to JESUS CHRIST, could not be believed. ♥️🙏✝️👍
Precioso, con mucha profundidad! gracias!
Wow! Incredible standard here, every part of this is brilliant.
I have the classes and really recommend the book.
Brant Pitre should debate bart Ehrman, he stumped him in a Q&A! I’d love to see an hour long discussion, Brant has the facts to pick apart bart’s “theories”
That is comical. Yeah, Brant has facts and Bart only has theories....sure. Whatever makes you feel better.
@@nates9029 It's true though
@@tafazzi-on-discord - No it isn't. Brant doesn't have facts on his side. Only people that already believe think he does.
@@nates9029 That's like saying "the scientific community doesn't have facts on its side, only people already tricked by globe earthers would believe them!" When a truth is so obviously and clearly true and known about, the only people willing to deny it are radicals, you see it here, in the historicity of the Gospels, and you see it in flat earth circles. On actually dubious claims, you expect a more varied spectrum of opinions especially among the experts, like the historicity of Romulus, where the MAJORITY of people who look into the sources professionally concede that either opinion is in some measure valid, whether he existed or he didn't.
I'm not an expert in the field of historical research, so I base my opinion on what the experts claim rather than foolishly try to take head on people smarter, more experienced and more learned than me, I suggest you at least ratify in your mind how you should let the experts influence your opinions.
I'll add that there are varied opinions on some aspects of the Gospels like their dating, I'm ok not claiming any date if the community can only set rather large ranges of composition.
Lastly, one last question: do you think the historical evidence supports the existance and outlies the thoughts of Plato and Aristotle more than that of Jesus? If so, why? Look into it, most standard you'd set in your mind are actually won out by the Gospels rather than by the supposed writings of Plato.
God Bless you, cherish your Faith!
@@tafazzi-on-discord - It isn't remotely like that. It just proves that you don't understand how science works.
So you admit that you are not an expert but rely on what experts actually say but only certain experts?! Dr. Ehrman IS an expert in the field of historical research and the New Testament.
Yes, there are varied opinions on the dating of the Gospels. It depends on what you mean by "rather large ranges of compositions". They can date them within a couple of decades. That is pretty good. Only a few outliers believe they were written earlier. I'm not even sure what the point of brining that up was.
No, I don't think the historical evidence supports the existence and outlies the thoughts of Plato and Aristotle more than that of Jesus and that is a problem for YOU. Shouldn't the evidence that the Son of God actually existed and performed miracles be better supported than any other figure in history PERIOD?!
Dear Dr. Pitre where I can watch the next episode?
Thanks for that. I watched the whole series. I really enjoyed it and took away any lingering doubts I had about the Gospels being folklore or fiction and that they are the best source of reliable history and biography of the period that we have.
Yes, and archeology and science are proving the Old Testament as true story of the Jews, GOD’S Firstborn (still, as GOD doesn’t change). We, JESUS believers, are the Second-born thanks to the “hardness of the Jews”. PRAISE BE GOD’S inscrutable PLAN!!!🙏💕🙏
where is part 2 of this?
Thank you!
Does anybody know if the next episode to this is out?
They were all inspired by the holy spirit! So if they could speak different tongues surely they could write illiterate or not thru the holy spirit!!
Did you just say in Denver?😁 I didn't know that
Take all of these programs of my phone please thank you
WHAT IS SPECIAL ABOUT BEING A HINDU?
By Francois Gautier.
Diversity in Divinity and Unity in Spirituality.
1) Believe in God ! - Aastik - Accepted
2) Don't believe in God ! - You're accepted as Nastik
3) You want to worship idols - please go ahead. You are a murti pujak.
4) You dont want to worship idols - no problem. You can focus on Nirguna Brahman.
5) You want to criticise something in our religion. Come forward. We are logical. Nyaya, Tarka etc. are core Hindu schools.
6) You want to accept beliefs as it is. Most welcome. Please go ahead with it.
7) You want to start your journey by reading Bhagvad Gita - Sure !
8) You want to start your journey by reading Upanishads - Go ahead.
9) You want to start your journey by reading Purana - Be my guest.
10) You just don't like reading Puranas or other books. No problem my dear. Go by Bhakti tradition . ( bhakti- devotion)
11) You don't like idea of Bhakti ! No problem. Do your Karma. Be a karmayogi.
12) You want to enjoy life. Very good. No problem at all. This is Charvaka Philosophy.
13) You want to abstain from all the enjoyment of life & find God - jai ho ! Be a Sadhu, an ascetic !
14) You don't like the concept of God. You believe in Nature only - Welcome. (Trees are our friends and Prakriti or nature is worthy of worship).
15) You believe in one God or Supreme Energy. Superb! Follow Advaita philosophy
16) You want a Guru. Go ahead. Receive gyaan.
17) You don't want a Guru.. Help yourself ! Meditate, Study !
18) You believe in Female energy ! Shakti is worshipped.
19) You believe that every human being is equal. Yeah! You're awesome, come on let's celebrate Hinduism!
"Vasudhaiva kutumbakam" (the world is a family)
20) You don't have time to celebrate the festival.
Don't worry. One more festival is coming! There are multiple festivals every single day of the year.
21) You are a working person. Don't have time for religion. Its okay. You will still be a Hindu.
22) You like to go to temples. Devotion is loved.
23) You don't like to go to temples - no problem. You are still a Hindu!
24) You know that Hinduism ☺ is a way of life, with considerable freedom.
25) You believe that everything has God in it. So you worship your mother, father, guru, tree, River, Prani-matra, Earth, Universe!
26) And If you don't believe that everything has GOD in it - No problems. Respect your viewpoint.
27) "Sarve jana sukhino bhavantu " (May you all live happily)
You represent this! You're free to choose, my dear Hindu!
This is exactly the essence of Hinduism, all inclusive .. That is why it has withstood the test of time inspite of repeated onslaught both from within and outside, and assimilated every good aspects from everything . That is why it is eternal !!!
There is a saying in Rigveda , the first book ever known to mankind which depicts the Hinduism philosophy in a Nutshell -" Ano bhadrah Krathavo Yanthu Vishwathah"- Let the knowledge come to us from every direction "
Where is the part where he talks about Thomas?
Where is the other part?
John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. 🕊
Pray that someday i can share what i learn from this amazing person.... Is there a video where can we get this bible study
I always thought that Bart Ehrman was a charlatan. Now it is confirmed.
Interesting. The Gospels agree sufficiently to show their truth, but differ sufficiently in details to rule out either collusion or copying. John was written a few decades later than the others, by which time Matthew, Mark and Luke [the Synoptic Gospels] were already well known in the Christian communities, which is why , prior to his account of Palm Sunday, he includes little which is also in the Synoptics, except where needed to contextualise or chronologise. For example he does not repeat the words of the Last Supper, but gives extra details, such as the washing of the feet. I fully believe the Four Gospels are both accurate and inspired.
Greetings from GB.
Also what do you think of the idea that Mark's parents were the owners of the Upper Room where the Last Supper was held and where the Apostles waited between the Ascension and Pentecost; and that Mark was the boy who lost his coat in Mk 14:51-52?
Exactly my thoughts as well.
"...to rule out either collusion or copying..."?
I hope you are joking. Are you not aware of the verbatim copying in "Matthew" and "Luke" from "Mark"?
@@nonprogrediestregredi1711 No, I wasnot joking, but I know that there are similarities between the first 3 Gospels [hence 'Synoptic']
@Michael Haywood There are more than "similarities". There is distinct copying; it is not at all "ruled out". "Matthew" copied around 90% of "Mark", while "Luke" copied around 50% of "Mark".
@@nonprogrediestregredi1711 N
Matthew, an eyewitness, an apostle, wrote first. This has always been Church teaching. This could make Mark an abridgement of Matthew, but still sufficiently different for the Church to regard it as inspired in its own right, Mark's Gospel is a perfect summary of the main Christian teachings, For this reason catechumens are encouraged to read it.
Liberal German scholars made up analyses that were self-contradictory: a). The Synoptics copied from each other from a putative Q source, but b). The apparent contradictions between the Synoptics prove that the authors made up historical details.
Which is it, a made up conspiracy story or did each author independently believe the story as he wrote it?
What German scholars stated that what you have described?
@@nonprogrediestregredi1711
Look up “German biblical scholars historical critical method”, articles came up listing them.
In Australia, we use to call the telephone game, " Chinese whispers"
So did we here in England. I haven't played it since I was a child in the 1970s.
Dios permita lo pudieran traducir no solo este video sino también sus libros
Deo volente: Dios quiera. Es frustrante oír estas cosas tan impresionantes y no podérselo compartir a familia y amigos.
Hoy la compartí con amigos usando los closed captions con traducción automática al español. No perfecta pero decente... Tal vez convenga qué lo intenten
So I have a question... if Luke was a companion of Paul, how did he get all of the info to write the gospel if Paul wasn't there? He must have been a disciple of Jesus while he was still alive, no?
in the prologue to his Gospel Luke says that he put together many sources. We also know that he interviewed Mary because in Luke 2:19 he writes that she "pondered these things in her heart", implying she told him about them
@po18guy so you're saying that Paul heard this account from somebody else?
Well, for starters, he copied half of "Mark". Also, there is no good reason to believe that the gospel of "Luke" was authored by a companion of the man referred to as Paul of Tarsus.
@@nonprogrediestregredi1711 and why do you believe that? The only copies of Mark every found were all titled mark. There have been 0 gospels found that haven't been titled by an author.
So the earliest copies of the Gospels we have are not anonymous even the fragments? How exactly does that work? I think the oldest frgment we have of any of the Gospels is of Mark and it is about the size of a credit card and it certainly doesn't have a title. Also, none of the Gospels claim to be written by a particular author. Just read them. There are also events described in each in which even IF Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the original Gospels they weren't witnesses to. They don't give the sources for where they learned about the events that happened before Jesus was born, him as a teenager in the temple or when he was being tempted by Satan. How did they know about what exactly was said during Jesus's trial and what Pilate said to him? We have Gospels that are attributed to Mary and even Judas, does that mean that they actually wrote them? If we have no anonymous copies then why is the majority view that the original Gospels were anonymous and his view the minority view? Bart Ehrman and many other Biblical scholars can read Ancient Greek and many other languages. He has the copes and fragments listed but does he actually show them in his book? I am currently reading a book about Leonardo Da Vinci by Walter Isaacson where when he is talking about a drawing or painting of Leonardo's, he actually SHOWS you the drawing or painting so you can see exactly what he is talking about. This would be helpful when you are talking about things like this and when you hold the minority view on this. I've ordered this book and look forward to reading it but I had a feeling this wouldn't be in there and it appears that it isn't.
Also, most scholars believe there was a source that at least Matthew and Luke used for their Gospels called Q. If that is the case then I really don't see the argument he made where he said if you are going to make up a Gospel, why would you attribute it to Mark or Luke. Well, you can't really attribute it to Peter since the Bible claims that he was "unlettered" or illiterate and it would be strange to see a Greek book written by Peter even if he could write so you are kind of limited in who you can attribute these books to. Also, I thought that the tradition was that Mark the Evangelist was the writer of the book of Mark. He was a companion of Peter but wasn't an apostle so he wouldn't have been an eyewitness to many of these events anyway. Same with Luke. This is the problem when you assume that the books HAVE to be written by certain people and they HAVE to be eyewitness accounts. The books themselves don't claim to be eyewitness accounts. They are written as narrative stories which is why we see events described like the angels telling the women that they will become pregnant with John the Baptist and Jesus and we see the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness which no one else was there to witness. Let me guess, they heard the stories from others...well that doesn't make them eyewitness accounts then does it?! They are at best second hand accounts and that is at best. Oui, I was hoping this would be better than it was. My expectations for the book are greatly decreased as well.
>just read them
did you read them in ancient greek?
@@tafazzi-on-discord - So let me get this straight, your imaginary sky Daddy (supposedly the most powerful being in existence) can only make himself understood by reading his supposed word in the original Ancient Greek? Did you read them in Ancient Greek? How many Christians have read them in the original Ancient Greek? How many Christians have read them in English?! My experience is that not many have. Have you?
@@tafazzi-on-discord - I guess you missed the context when I said "Just read them". I was pointing out how the Gospels don't claim to be written by a particular author. Do you think the translators would have just left that part out of the texts when they were translating them from Ancient Greek which would help their case since they were believers? Are you kidding me? THAT is your response to what I wrote? Okay....
@@nates9029 THEY DO CLAIM TO BE WRITTEN BY THE AUTHORS! it's just not IN the text, it's probably somewhere on the side of the pages they were found in. Yes, translators generally leave out scribbles and notes on the text when translating it.
@@tafazzi-on-discord - No they don't claim to be written by the authors which is the whole point. They are anonymous. So each copy had written on the side of the pages who wrote them?! Are you kidding me?! By the way, we don't have the originals so there is that. You are now just making crap up. You can't be serious with this nonsense.
Thought he was a carpenter hunting men.
Gospel ??.
I recently listened to Dr. Richard Carrier and he is adamant that Jesus did not exist. Is there strong evidence against this position?
Yes. Many evidence that Jesus exists. Christian and non-christian
Yes. Celsus was a 2nd century philosopher and opponent of Christianity. Called it a hoax. But admitted Jesus existed.
So someone that lived and wrote well after Jesus supposedly lived admitted that Jesus existed? How exactly would he know that? It isn't like Jesus was widely known at his time nor even a century later. By the way, he wrote in 248. Jesus supposedly died around 30 or 33 A.D. So he was writing over 200 years after the events he supposedly confirmed took place?! Are you kidding me?!
@@nates9029 yep they are kidding you. Surviving documents proving the existence of Alexander the Great was written more than a century, pushing two centuries after him. Maybe he didnt exist at all, only bedside stories by the Greeks. Who knows. Caesar could be Chinese for all I know.
@@gabrieljosemaria - Well, we have more evidence than just surviving documents that provide evidence that Alexander the Great lived and was a real person. No, Caesar could not have been Chinese and we actually do know that he wasn't Chinese but thanks for trying.
❤❤❤❤❤❤
So if you had to go to grad school to realize they were teaching you incorrectly for at least 4 years and still are teaching young adults wrong. That does explain so much
So this is a vision happening in heaven? Thus, Mary is in already in heaven, if that logic holds good, the dragon (devil) is in heaven too, is that right? Mary having 12 crowns and logical conclusion arrived she is queen? "fiery-red dragon with ten horns and seven heads, each wearing a royal crown. He was wearing seven royal crowns" Rev. 12:3. So can you conclude; devil is either a king or queen? The influence of false teachers in the church (Matt. 24:11; 2 Tim. 4:3). We can’t judge the human heart, but we can recognise apostates by their fruit - that is, their doctrines and lifestyles (Matt. 7:15-20).
James White destroyed Bart Ehrman on the topic who wrote the 4 gospel's!
When? Their only debate was on preservation and corruption, White's whole argument was that we have a lot of copies do the relative rate of corruption is very low, Ehrman shot that down by pointing out the vast majority of copies are very late medieval copies produced by trained copyists and that most textual variants are the result of early copying by complete amateurs.
You need to review your assumptions that any of the Apostles were illiterate. There is evidence in the old Testament that non-Jews expected average Jewish men to be literate. Not learned, but literate.
The Apostle, Peter, was a black Jew.
So, let me get this straight; this man keeps stressing historical evidence, which one should for this historical inquiry, yet fails to even mention the fact that every manuscript is a secondary historical source and fails to even mention the "synoptic problem"? Wow, that is quite telling.
Same principle would of the telephone analogy would apply to todays scholars , I know where youre going with this ha ha ha. Make some money by selling your bs discovery of the telephone story that somehow does not apply from ancient scholars to present day scholars
1. There is no historical evidence for an anonymous collection of Gospel sayings referred to as Q., an abbreviation for Quelle (German for 'source') and therefore this speculative theory should be quelled.
2. From the Catholic News Agency, Vatican City, January 21, 2022: Pope Francis on Friday officially declared St. Irenaeus of Lyon as the 37th Doctor of the Church, with the title “Doctor Unitatis” (“Doctor of Unity”). “May the doctrine of such a great Master encourage more and more the path of all the Lord's disciples towards full communion,” the pope wrote in a decree signed on Jan. 21.
3. From Against Heresies by St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130 - c. 202 AD), Book III, Chapter One, Paragraph One (quoting from carm.org):
"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia."
4. In agreement with/supporting the testimony of recently designated Doctor of Unity of the Church St. Irenaeus of Lyons are, prior to, Bishop Papias of Hieropolis (c. 60 - c. 130 AD), and afterwards 3rd century church historian Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, along with 3rd century theologian Origen: four ancient witnesses to both (A) the historicity of the four Gospels and (B) the chronological ordering of their authorship as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
I've heard the reasonable hypothesis that the Q source was the set of sayings and events important in Jesus' life that all Apostles in Jerusalem agreed were important and that they should share with priority wherever they went preaching. 10 out of 12 apostles could have very well been illiterate, the Q source would therefote have been an oral tradition dating to the AD 30s
@@tafazzi-on-discord There was an apostle who had expertise in collecting taxes and maintaining the records. As an eyewitness, might he have recorded and preserved the oral tradition of Jesus's words for safe-keeping and accuracy?