Are the Gospels Really Anonymous?
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 01. 2020
- Skeptics like Bart Ehrman say that the Gospels were anonymously written and the traditional authors like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were names added long after the disciples were dead. But is this theory right? Here I defend the traditional authorship of the gospels and answer some of Bart's objections.
Brant Pitre's Case for Jesus: amzn.to/2u0mGsB
See also: B. F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (Free!) books.google.com/books?id=E7I...
Other source: Tim McGrew • Who Wrote the Gospels?...
my website: isjesusalive.com
/ isjesusalive
/ isjesusalive
Please consider supporting me on Patreon. It helps me get much-needed equipment and research materials to improve video quality and content.
/ isjesusalive
RF Chapter info: / rfcedarrapids
Its always interesting to see that people will often have a higher bar for evidence only when its about Christianity and the Bible. The same standards and skepticism aren't always applied to secular writings. There's so much evidence for the reliability of scripture that its astounding.
I just watched all of your videos in a short amount of time, I was having doubt but your videos strengthened my faith, thank you. I also can’t believe you’re 40+, I’m 16 and you don’t sound any older than 20
Thank God! My voice doesn't quite match my grey hair.
@@TestifyApologetics I was thinking about how your videos would thrive on Christian/Apologetic TikTok but the longest video you can upload on there is 1 minute long🥲 especially the videos on the authenticity of the Gospels
Yeah. I see the need, but man, I'm not a fan of Tik tok.
@@maxfwhxh that is fine so long as it refers people here. Thanks!
@@TestifyApologetics Buddy I'm 21 with gray hairs so don't feel too bad😂
It must be said that, for John, there may be more than *20+ ancients* writing prior to AD 255 (i.e. 160y removed) that attribute or link his Gospel to the "disciple", "apostle" and/or "John".
12-15 of which date within
Can you tell me what those writings before 255 AD are?
Epistula Apostolorum (~140 AD)
Ptolemy (140-160)
Justin Martyr (156)
Theodotus (160-170)
Heracloen (~170)
The Muratorian fragment (~170)
Celsus (177)
Irenaeus (180)
Theophilus of Antioch (181)
Acts of John (~180)
Polycrates of Ephesus (185-195)
Clement of Alexandria (190-202)
Tertullian (200-203)
Hippolytus (200-210)
Origen (220-230)
Dionysius of Alexandria (247)
Cyprian of Carthage (250)
Treatise on Rebaptism (250-257)
Novatian (250-258)
Treatise against Novation (AD 255)
Looking back, I would not put much stock in the last bunch at all. They would be worth considering if we lost/didn't have those listed before them. Also, the datings of the two anti-Marcionite prologues to Luke and John are disputed (could be 2nd or 4th century), so I left them out.
We really shouldn’t believe JK Rowling wrote Harry Potter. Nowhere in the text does the author announce herself and tell us she, Rowling, was the author of Harry Potter.
That analogy is plain silly. We know JKR wrote Harry Potter because she claims to be the author and no one is claiming otherwise. We have nothing from the gospel authors, either within the texts or other sources where they claim to be the authors. That is what makes them anonymous.
Even if the early church fathers have guessed correctly that doesn't alter the fact that the texts are anonymous.
@@downenout8705 What Church Fathers ?
@@JohnHBA Just Google "early Church Fathers" and there's your list. From there you can find their writings.
Fyi nothing that you read will alter the fact that the gospels and acts are anonymous.
@@downenout8705Youre arguing from a standpoint of silence.
Iranaeus, clement of rome, igantius, all reference and are referenced by Iraneus' book called against heresies. Theres no evidence to the contrary that the apostles DIDNT write the books.
Youd have to objectively demonstrate why and how they did not... when we already have a layer of attestations showing otherwise.. and unanimous acceptance of Iraneus'works by the Church.
@@joe5959 Don't be silly, what you are doing is nothing more than an intellectually dishonest shifting of the burden of proof.
It is you making the positive claim regarding gospel authorship, it's for you to provide evidence.
Me pointing out the lack of evidence is not an "argument from silence".
I'll accuse you of being a "baby eater", obviously I have no evidence, other than me writing it down. You will equally obviously deny this. For me to then say that's an argument from silence and it is for you to objectively demonstrate why you are not a baby eater, would be ludicrous in the extreme.
As the late great Christopher Hitchens said "that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
This was a thorough and comprehensive debunking of that argument! Excellent work
Never stop making these videos they are much help to me
Well explained, thank you! Truly God's providence has given us all that we need to be saved by faith in the Lord Jesus and live the Christian life!
As it turns out, Papias' literary activity dates no later than AD 109, if you follow Eusebius' chronology.
(This dating has recently gained support)
Interesting, I haven't heard that before. Do you what scholars support that dating, or any books or papers along that line?
@@TestifyApologetics Robert W. Yarbrough argues convincingly in his article titled _"The Date of Papias: A Reassessment"._
Bartlet apparently also reaches a similar date.
@@TestifyApologetics
_The Date of Papias: A Reassessment_ -->
www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/26/26-2/26-2-pp181-191_JETS.pdf
Congratulations on producing an excellent, informative, and easy to follow apologetics primer! I love this channel!
Easy to follow and disingenuous
I think the first big clue that the Bible hasn't been altered is that they left in really mundane things like the dedication at the front of Luke. Millions of scribes copied out the "Hey Theophilus, look at this" and all its additional bits. They didn't have to, but they preserved the holy writ untouched because it's holy writ. Oh, and I have no idea how Bart Erman can say it should be in first person when universities make you write in third person! You aren't supposed to use the word 'I' or refer to yourself directly! You act as if some unnamed person did your research when talking about the process! Either he's really dumb, or he's trying to pull something!
The argument that it is anonymous, because the name of the author is only mentioned on the cover of the book and not in the contents, is absurd. By that logic, nearly every book ever written was anonymous because the author's name can only be found on the cover and not in the story.
So you're saying it said their names on the front? Next to Anonymous..?
Subscribed. Interesting insights, Erik.
Thank you for this video. God bless you. I'm learning seriously
"pump your brakes boo" LOL. Subscribed
Watching this again! This is just so good.
Excellent video. Much appreciated.
Your videos are great. I noticed some dishonesties in Ehrman and I'm glad you showed many of them here. Thanks for the book references as well!
OK, Cultural background maters. In the middle east and the classical age oral presentation were and are common. Evenings are celebrated with stories of all types, most about two hours long. The men that wrote the gospels that had presented this orally for years, maybe decades. Eventually these presentations these got wrote down, to preserve continuity and create a standard testimony for others. This does not mean they lost or changed the original testimony. Secondly, the Apostles may have been rustic initially, but they had decades of public speaking and debate with some of the best minds of their age. They were not ether illiterate or stupid.
Instant sub. You need more recognition my friend as you bring needed insights and responses to the skeptics. God bless.
This is a fantastic video truly showing the evidence FOR direct authorship. This is great.
One question I have, is how exactly did Luke know or learn the specific events in his gospel? Paul was not a witness of christ in the flesh, only through his few visions. So how would Luke know specifics of his gospel if Paul wasn't there till the ressurection visions?
The only thing I can think of is Luke talked with other Apostles, OR somehow Paul's visions gave him some sort of download of everything that happened?
Papyrus 4 is actually the Gospel of Luke, not the Gospel of Matthew. I got this same list from Brant Pitre's book and its wrong. I once listed this in a discussion I was having and someone pointed it out. Papyrus 4 exists, but it's Luke and not Matthew.
Good feedback. Thanks.
@@TestifyApologetics No problem, I'm new here, only found your channel yesterday. I'm loving the content, you actually address the things properly and give good answers. Keep up the great work.
Have you seen the response from hatsoffhistory on this video ?
I've responded to HatsOff when I had Stephen Boyce on my channel, check the live tab.
But if GMatthew was written by an eyewitness telling his own story, why does it seem like it copies over 90% of GMark? And why were they all named by the same convention? And are we saying that Mark (who traditionally would have gotten all of his information from Peter) would have himself titled his book "...According to Mark"? Seems like an odd title for Mark himself to pick.
Depends if he could write. If someone else wrote it they may say "According to Mark"
SInce Mark used Peter as a source(Testify did a video on this)
Mark's gospel would be seen by Matthew as reliable because Peter was with Jesus since the beginning.
I'm a believer in Matthean priority, as in, Matthew was written first. This also seems to be the tradition of early Christians as well.
There's a consensus that the book of Mark is the most sloppily written out of the four Gospels. While the author of Matthew is a lot more refined and lists greater details than those in Mark. This would make sense when considering that Matthew was probably one of the few, if not the only literate one out of the Apostles.
It would make sense that somebody such as Mark who wasn't a skilled writer, would use translated Greek manuscripts of Matthew's writings to summarize the events and life of Christ. While also omitting events that would probably be redundant to congregations under Peter. It would also make sense as to why his Gospel is the shortest out of all the others. An unskilled writer likely doesn't want to write more if he doesn't have to, and this would make sense knowing that Matthew already covered other events in bigger detail.
There's Marcan priority which asserts that Mark was written first and that Matthew (or the writers of Matthew) got a hold of Mark's gospel and wanted to correct the errors and expand upon the writing of Mark. This theory, while most popular amongst scholars isn't very convincing to me at least. Basically, the strongest argument for this priority is simply because Mark is shorter. That's generally it. This also is challenged by Papias' testimony that Matthew originally wrote in Hebrew (or a form of Hebrew such as Aramaic). So not only did Matthew translate sloppy Greek into a much more refined Hebrew, he also apparently added events from Mark despite the fact that he was a direct witness to this story. This doesn't really add up.
@@Cklert Marcan priority is not based on "because Mark is shorter"...I've never heard a critical scholar even list this among the reasons. The primary reason I hear from them is based on redactional plausibility...what is more likely, that Mark changed Matthew (including making the grammar worse) or that Matthew changed Mark (e.g. fixing Mark's grammar mistakes). I have a feeling that the "shorter" idea is either an out-of-date theory or it is a strawman used by apologists.
To many writers wrote books about world War 2, citing the same events and people. ¿Which one copy from one?
You have the most amazing videos to questions that partially stump new believers. The one on the varied ressurection endings helped dramaticly and this was an added bonus. Thank you so much brother. God bless you abundantly ♥️♥️♥️
Love the videos, Barts a radical skeptic. I'm pretty sure his argument would be that Mathew wasn't a tax collector, Earlier Christians made it up to prove he was able to read & write...lol
Thanks for the material - subscribed. Just a suggestion - if the audio was a bit louder it would be helpful.
Will work on that going forward. Thanks.
Someone with a super 5 speaker sound system can turn it down. I have my phone. I can barely hear it and there is no more up.
This is a common problem.
Bart Ehrman uses outdated arguments, that was refuted by the Early Church Fathers, Like St. Augustine of Hippo.
Basilidies, a heretic whom is pre and around Marcion I believe references the Gospel of John which is significant considering Basilidies ideals. That said, your source list is bang on
That's correct! That's who I was thinking of. Thanks for pointing out the mix up. I wish fixing that was as easy as when I make an error blogging!
Great video! The case for the traditional authorship of the gospels is extremely strong!
What’s the proof for Peter going to Rome?
Luke was "the translator of the Letter of Paul to the Hebrews." This means Clement believed that Paul wrote Hebrews. Was he right?
I needed this. This really helped my faith
God bless you🙏
Great job!
Well said man, good video
People who hate God and adopt atheism in response, constantly come up with ridiculous theories on why certain Catholic beliefs could not happen. In doing so they refuse to take into account Catholic tradition which, for the first several centuries of Christian history, was oral. For instance, none of the four Gospels give the author. None says: "I am the apostle Mark or Mathew or Luke or John and this is my story." They were telling Christ's story and they did not give their names as the story was not about them. Secondly, when you could easily be martyred in the early church for what you wrote, avoiding identifying your writing was smart. Thirdly, they did not need to identify themselves as every early Catholic ALREADY KNEW WHO WROTE WHAT. It wasn't until Irenaeus in the 2nd century finally wrote down the names of the authors, which had been common knowledge among early Catholics.
Watch Pitre pose a question to Ehrman here on CZcams (just type both names; it's a treat. Both Dan Wallace and James White have debated Ehrman and shown how Bart, when faced with substantial coherent opposition from his peers, will prove considerably more moderate than in his popular books. You're doing a great job. Kind regards Kim
Hey Erik, I've been enjoying your videos since finding your channel recently. As I was watching this, I had a thought: why do scholars argue that the Gospel accounts are anonymous? I've never really heard that explained by anyone. It seems like skeptics and/or certain scholars will just say "we don't know who wrote the Gospels!" and Christians/apologists are expected to prove that claim is false. But I've yet to hear anyone explain why skeptics and/or certain scholars even make that claim to begin with. Do you have any videos about that? Or maybe is that something you're planning to cover in the future? Thank you for all your effort.
I think it's mostly because the authors don't name themselves in the text and speak in the third person, and that John and Matthew would be illiterate.
@@TestifyApologetics that's a silly reason, in my opinion. Thank you for the answer.
@@joshua_wherleywell testify is dishonest here or straight lying, disciples of Jesus were illiterate and did not speak greek at all in which gospels were written. Watch dr Erhman or other scholars
@@TestifyApologeticsshame on you, presenting this strawiest strawman ever
@@skebo5371 First, greek was a language spoken by many jews at the time, since it was the lingua franca of the eastern empire. Also, the apostles literally went to preach outside judea, so they must have known greek. Besides, Mattew was a tax collector, so saying he was illiterate is disingenuous. And Jonh had plenty of time in learning how to read and write during his long life, or could have just used ghost writers writting what he spoke.
So true
What do you think of the idea that Mark's parents owned the Upper Room, and that Mark was the boy who lost his coat in Mark 14:51-52?
The story of Mark losing his coat has been known for a very long time. It serves no purpose to the narrative, but to include it as an inside message. I've heard that John the presbyter (the one who leaned on Jesus) might have owned the upper room, since it was customary for the owner of the house to be seated next to the guest of honor.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. If the early church fathers accepted that the gospels were written by the authors ascribed to them, then it's pretty much guaranteed that they did write them. Love your channel - you make it all so logical and straightforward, who needs to get bogged down with complicated theories that don't go anywhere at all?
Agreed - those that argue the Gospels .. are they using that also as a way to discredit those chapters...,?
Not the traditional authors.
Alright, then who? Let me see your historical documentation?
…
Wait, hold up. Papyrus 4 is part of the Gospel of Luke.
amen
Essentially they work backwards from assuming that they are false...
Once again, no contemporary sources.
There are no contemporary sources for basically anyone from 1st century Palestine, including people way more famous than Jesus.
I guess that means there were literally 0 people alive during that time.
😂😂😂
Subscribed!
I have read several of Barts books, and seen many of his discussions. I find most of the content to be quite juvenile and contradictory. I remember him claiming that Luke's writings were fiction. afterward, he claimed Peter was illiterate by quoting from Luke's-Acts where he's described as "unlettered". How can he use a source that he just claimed was not credible?
I thought he was claiming it as uncreditable because he was illiterate - like if there were a lot of spelling/grammar errors u could tell about the writer was illiterate, therefore the document isn't credible?
Consider: The internal evidence of the 4th Gospel points to Lazarus as the author. Test all things...
Ben Witherington think so but I think the evidence for that is weak.
@@TestifyApologeticsand you are?
In over a year I get crickets for pointing out all you left out that refutes your position?
I'm a little weird that you think you're entitled to a response or that you've thoroughly debunked me. I have 5 kids and help my wife run a business and I don't even remember seeing your response. Chill or just don't comment.
I wish there were more Christian apologists like you, taking on this guy.
Hubert - That would be horrible! Why does Jesus need more shallow, specious reasoning using His name??
@@greglogan7706 Because there's a buffoon called Ehrman who needs to be put in his place lol.
Well, that's just intellectual dishonesty. I haven't seen any serious scholar debate the anonymity of the gospels.
Please, I beg you. Give some evidence that the Gospels were anonymous without just citing some scholar who says they were.
@@shanetloganThe authors never identify themselves
@@Alexandros74738a lot of ancient authors never put them selves in there writings. I would check out inspiring philosophy video on who wrote the gospels. he explains this.
@@Alexandros74738 John claims that He was an eyewitness. He was present in the last supper. Only the 12 apostles were at the last supper. John, as the beloved disciple, had a special relationship with Jesus and is one of Jesus’ closest followers. John and Peter are often together in the Gospels and Acts.
Cool
Subscribed 🔥
It's fun to see how numerous anonymous CZcams channels have been battling Bart Ehrman for years now, even though he is far from the first and far from the only one to advance the view that the authors of the Gospels are actually anonymous.
bro we know that Ehrman is just giving us the supposed consensus, it's not lost on us. make an argument against what I said, don't just punt back to a bandwagon
So they've had the same attribution since they were 'given' an attribution. So what? So once they put a label on them they stuck with it. Doesn't speak to the origin.
So Aristotle's writings had the same attribution since they were 'given' attribution. So what? So once they put a label on them they stuck with it. Doesn't speak to the origin.
@@jonathanmcentire970 No it doesn't speak to the origin. And no-one is telling me I have to believe in Aristotle to get to heaven. So if it's not his work it doesn't matter.
@@absofjelly My point is, if you apply your criteria consistently, then you couldn't trust a single piece of historical writing. That's neither logical nor reasonable.
@@jonathanmcentire970 My point is that I don't base, nor am I asked to base, my life choices on the works of Aristotle. Nor is the 'truth' of what is attributed to Aristotle dependent upon his being the author. The events of the Gospels however are nowhere else attested and a large measure of their truthfulness is leverage against the claim that they are the products of eyewitnesses or close associates.
@@absofjelly Actually, much of the gospels are verified by Greek, Jewish, and Roman historians. The fact is, the majority of the evidence speaks to the legitimacy of the gospels as being eye witness accounts from those to whom they are traditionally attributed. The uphill battle is for those making the argument to the contrary. You have a bias against the gospels. You're being neither logical nor consistent. Maybe ask yourself why you refuse to face the facts.
Even if we authors of these gospel are correct it does not make the claim of what was written to be correct. There no way any of us can verify the events being reported in the gospel things like virgin birth people being resurrected. None these things can be tested or verify. Yet Christianity is asking us to believe that these are true base upon some claim that someone else claim to have witness these things. To makes matters worst look at the consequences for not believing such claimthat none of us can verify. Funny enough they will believe the claims of the bible but will not believe other claims of miracles outside of their world veiw
Yes, the correct authorship won't make them correct, but it is still an important discussion, since the gospels being written by eyewitnesses and followers of witnesses is an important input for this discussion.
What do u mean would believe claims of miracles..?
This is why scholars remain scholars, and frauds make youtube videos like these
The fault of your argument is that in the text of these four documents none of them are written in the first person the authors don’t interact with any of the characters in the stories they’re just putting down things that they have heard, or were told same thing there would’ve been no reason for the apostolic fathers to have discussions on who might have written these if they actually knew.
Write a book on this topic in Polish and I will be a step closer to agree with you that illiterate peasants from Galilea that spoke Aramaic were able to compose and write such long and complex texts in Greek... :) This alone makes your case totally implausible if not absurd. According to ancient standards you are extreme highly educated man and maybe therefore you don't even recognize at fist sight how ridiculous the idea is. If you really find it plausible, just give me a few other examples of such miraciulously educated ancient peasants who spent time writing their memoires in foreign languages... :))) Referring to Papias or Justin Martyr who replicate anonymous gossips that have been in circulation for decades doesn't make your case any stronger. :) This includes of course the gossips about Mark who would wirte down "everything that he heard" from Peter... :) Read his gospel. How long do you need to do it? 2 hours? If so, isn't it astonishing, how little Mark remembered? Putting aside Peter telling the stories many, many years after Jesus death and Mark translating the stories "on the go" from Aramaic to Greek. :))) BTW, have you ever translated a text in this way? Without PC, Mac or iphone? :))) Just give it a try. Ask a friend to tell you (or read) stories for a few hours, in any foreign language you speak, and then just try to recall and translate them. :))) How good will you perform? Things like "Anonymous gospel theory" that allegedly came up around 400 AD is another funny invention by you but not very helpful. Your case is absolutely absurd. :) If you convince me on anything with this video then it is the fact that someone who wants to believe will believe anything that supports his belief - no matter how irrational it is.
Sadly they are still anonymous and it is widely accepted. These names of the gospel writers aren’t even their real names!
Assertions aren't arguments or refutations.
@@TestifyApologetics Why were the names attributed to the gospel writers when they were buried? We don't know if they were eye witnesses. On top of that you have the many contradictions its just too much to wrap my head around... I'm an athiest so I like to think things from a natural point of view.
You are still giving me assertions but not offering evidence. You're just stating contradictions and judging by your statements I'm not sure you were paying attention to my arguments. Please don't comment unless you're doing to directly respond to an argument with an argument, not just some kind of contradiction.
@@TestifyApologetics there anonymous no matter how much you don’t want them to be. Your delusional wishful thinking isn’t going make your cult true.
@@user-xs2qq7kv9w doubling down without proof isn't validating your claims.
"IT JUST IS, DEAL WITH IT!"
This could apply to any number of things we currently find objectionable.
"The world us just flat, deal with it!"
"Flies come from rotting meat, deal with it!"
"Mankind will never be able to get to the moon, deal with it"
That last one is actually giving you too much credit since, before the 20th century, all the best evidence a available would support this assumption even if we now know it to be overstating such a case.
The attributions of authorship to the gospels have followed the documents themselves for their entire history. Only post-enlightenment critics have enough distance from the context to pretend that's anonymity.
Yes they are anonymous. Citing early Church fathers is an appeal to authority.
Clearly you don't know what an appeal to authority is. Citing modern scholars is also an appeal to authority by that same reasoning.
Appeal to Authority is only a fallacy if you cite an irrelevant authority. Theologians writing about Church history from all over the Roman Empire are obviously reliable authorities about the early Church. They lived during that time and were in a position to know things more reliably than we are today.
There is no single anonymous manuscript found. If names were added later, the Gospels would be in different names in different places.
Yet we see them in same names in different places. No disagreements.
Coincidence?
I think not.
I'm sorry to burst your little bubble but this doesn't prove anything, your Gospels are still anonymous and you have no idea or wrote them originally.
Sorry to burst your bubble but assertions and condescension isn't a refutation
@@TestifyApologetics Eh wrong again Christian apologist, no assertions or condescension here. Just stating fact as Bart Erhman has done plenty of times - you people don't know who the original authors of the Gospels were. No amount of mental gymnastics is going to make you right or prove him wrong. I think you've just came up with all of this out of sheer desperation.
There's no mental gymastics or desperation here. You're bad at arguing and mind-reading.
@@TestifyApologetics I think you'll find it's you who is bad at arguing posting this garbage against a world renowned scholar in Biblical studies & ancient religious texts who has mountains and mountains of evidence to show that your precious Bible (which one out of the 100s of versions do you use btw 😄) is corrupted, illogical and completely anonymous. It is sheer desperation on your part, just admit it and we can all go get some sleep. There's no shame.
@@AK-fk8zo So, Testify quoting early Church Fathers, who would be in a BETTER position to know the authorship of the gospels, than Bart Ehrman. Bart Ehrman, who seems to agree that 98% of the Bible has been preserved, but somehow comes to the conclusion it is hopelessly contradictory, contradicts himself. There is zero evidence that they are anonymous, you keep saying mountains of proof, yet, you provide none.
@paulogia