ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ส.ค. 2024
- #apologetics #bible #christianity
Rabbi Tovia Singer says there is nothing in the Gospel of Matthew that would indicate the Apostle Matthew wrote it. In fact, he indicates that the story of Matthew's calling would seem to show that Matthew couldn't have wrote it. This is because it's written in the 3rd person. The thing about this objection is it was destroyed over 1600 years ago.
original video • How did these four Gos...
Help support me: / isjesusalive or paypal.me/isje... for a one-time gift
Amazon wish list: www.amazon.com...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Visit my blog: isjesusalive.com
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA W2D1 | Fall | ต่อเนื่อง ในสัปดาห์สอง](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ElcO9uC_Dbk/mqdefault.jpg)
Replace the word Matthew with Moses and the Gospel with Torah. "There is nothing in the Torah that suggests Moses wrote it" and Tovia flip his lid. But it is essentially thw same objection. Everything Tovia brings as a complaint against Matthew could easily be used against the Torah, and many other historic texts. This is a classic double standard and cake situation.
I forget who he was debating but someone made this same objection over the authorship of Daniel and Tovia essentially said scholarship was wrong and Daniel wrote Daniel, end of story. Because the Christian naturally agrees with Jews over the authorship of the Tanak he basically gets a free pass to ignore secular scholarship when it disagrees with his position while simultaneously throwing it in the face of the New Testament. If he tried debating someone like James White or Trent Horn, he would be taken to task over this for sure.
@@FoneyBone1
He's just a deceiver
@@FoneyBone1 Yeah, he also brought this up in another discussion about the authorship of Isaiah. He's a complete hypocrite.
Precisely. That is one of the most major problems about him. You'd never hear him say that about the Torah, Tanakh or Talmud.
@@davidstrelec2000 a total deceiver who misquotes Jewish sources on purpose.
I truly appreciate that you never make it ad hominem. You deal with the argument honestly and evenhandedly and are never disrespectful toward the other side. Lame puns are always excellent, though. Thanks for being at the ready as the semi-annual running of the skeptics begins.
None are necessary with Singer.
read matt 9 9
I’m so grateful that you are rebutting Tovia Singer’s arguments! I first came across Singer’s videos about a year ago and was frustrated by how misleading and incorrect some of his arguments are. Keep up the good work, brother.
I watched one video from Tovia a while back and he completely misquoted an old testament passage to make it not about Jesus. It was pretty blatant.
Skeptics, "Matthew didn't write of himself on the third person. Therefore, he isn't the author of the gospel"
Also skeptics, "Luke is lying when he uses the first person in acts"
Praying Singer becomes a Messianic and fellow Christian. 🙏
He would never
@@vecturhoff7502 You never know.
@waddellski You never know...
Great video, we can only pray that Singer one day learns that Jesus is indeed the Christ. And thank you for rebuking the obvious lies and false assertions of this man.
2:06 "but wait there's myrrh" nice one😂
[Billy Mays enters the chat]
@@TestifyApologetics 😂😂
@Methodius of Thessaloniki 😂😂😂😂
Another perfect response to tovia’s deception.
Another excellent video. This topic keeps coming up in my life and I'm glad you've been addressing it.
He never used the same skepticism about the Old Testament, a lot of problems in the reliability of the New Testament are also problems to the O.T
The reason Matthew writes in the third person is because he wants his work to come across as an unbiased statement of historical facts, rather than a biography based on personal experience. Instead of saying "This is what I witnessed, and this is what I heard Jesus say, and this is what happened to me", it says "This is what happened, this is what Jesus said, this is what he did". As you said, this was common practice in the ancient world, especially when authors were recording history, as the gospels were. It's almost funny that Tovia seems to think we don't have access to Google so we can take 15 seconds to figure that out.
As for his claim that nothing specifically indicates that Matthew wrote his gospel, this is actually a rather absurd claim. What kind of evidence does he expect us to find? This is like me arguing that Shakespeare actually didn't write Romeo and Juliet, because there's nothing in the text that specifically indicates he wrote it, so it could've been any random Englishman. This claim makes no sense. If Matthew writes that the sky is blue, how exactly can anyone look at that and say "Well nothing in that sentence indicates Matthew wrote it"?
Also, if Tovia wants to discredit the gospels by falsely claiming that they're anonymous, I wonder how he would feel if we all started applying that same line of thinking to the old testament? The entire old testament is anonymous, so by his logic, we should discredit it. It's actually kind've insane that he's even going down that road, considering that his own faith is built ENTIRELY on anonymous sources, so maybe he should reconsider this argument.
Praise God 🙏 that Rabbi Tovia is out there trying to rattle the faith in Jesus.🕊
We Christians ✝️ need to stay on our toes🦅
It's kind of inconsistent for an orthodox jew like Tovia Singer to act like Matthew couldn't have been the author of the gospel of Matthew because it's written in the third person yet orthodox jews believe Moses wrote the Torah. Which would mean that Moses also wrote about himself in the third person. 🤔
I have heard for a very long time that the authors of the 4 gospels are unknown and they were given the names by the early church.
I guess when you are a Talmud Jew it is your number one priority to deny and discredit Jesus.
Feel sorry for them, time is running out...
Tovia Singer is trying hard to keep Jews from converting to Christianity. Fine, if that's all he is doing. But, when you read many of the comments under his videos, you see way too many Christians being swayed by his arguments.
I love your videos, I was curious as to if you were going to make a video on the reliability of peters epistles?
It's part of the plan, just a matter of when
Very succinct. Thanks for another great video!
Another aspect of the account of Matthew's calling in Matthew 9 that provides evidence for Matthean authorship is the citation of Hosea 6:6 in Matthew 9:13. The parallel passages in Mark and Luke don't include the citation of the Hosea passage. That Hosea passage not only appears in Matthew 9, but also in Matthew 12:7. The gospel of Matthew is the only gospel to cite Hosea 6:6, and it does so twice, the first time being in the account of Matthew's calling. It makes sense for the author to have more interest in including a comment Jesus made about compassion for tax collectors if the author is a tax collector in whose house Jesus made the comment. Jesus' citation of the Hosea passage probably left a strong impression on Matthew in the context of the events of Matthew 9, so it's understandable that he'd also have remembered another occasion when Jesus cited the passage. Not only does Matthean authorship make more sense of the first citation of Hosea 6:6, but it also makes more sense of the second one.
And to add to Erik's comments on Augustine, it should be noted that one of the other points he made in response to Faustus was that Matthean authorship was "affirmed by the continuous testimony of the whole Church, from the days of apostolic presidency to the bishops of our own time" (Reply To Faustus The Manichaean, 28:2, 32:21). Augustine seems unaware of any early source, Christian or non-Christian, who denied Matthean authorship (even though doubts were raised about the authorship of other New Testament documents). Furthermore, Faustus apparently wasn't consistent on the matter. He seemingly affirmed Matthean authorship at times (2:1, 7:1, 23:1-2), though he questioned it or denied it on other occasions. Multiple non-Christian sources before Faustus referred to Matthew as the author of the document (e.g., the examples discussed in John Cook, The Interpretation Of The New Testament In Greco-Roman Paganism [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002], 140, 184, 198, 203, 235, 263, 289, 297, 301, 303-4).
Good work Eric, another good example is that Matthew being a tax official would have had access to the Census records which he gives at the beginning of his Gospel.
Spot on, great work brother!
Tovia Singer has refused to debate Dr. Michael Brown for years. Enough said about his character.
Merry Christmas, Testify!
Well Moses didn't write some of the books he was claimed to have written. Especially where he talked about where he was laid to rest. Impossible as he was still alive.
Can Tovia Singer show where Moses exactly wrote the books of the Pentateuch?
We should all pray for tovia that he comes to know Yeshua as his savior
So because the book of Matthew talks about money, taxes, debt, it has to be written by Matthew because he was a tax collector? I do not think that is a good case. I am not saying he was not the one, but I think this is a pretty bad case.
It matches the data we have from the patristics, and it moves the needle in the direction of Matthew writing it. Remember Singer said there's *nothing* in Matthew that would indicate he wrote it; he said the internal evidence was against it. Both of those claims are false.
gee I wonder if Singer is as keen on applying modern critical scholarship to the Torah as he is when it comes to the Gospels...
yeah, remember thinking about becoming jewish and falling away back in high school from this guys videos. I'm glad it didn't stick.
Even early apostolic church fathers said Matthew was written in hebrew
"New evidence indicates that the Gospel of Matthew was an original Hebrew composition.
"Indeed, it is now possible to recover much of this original Hebrew composition from an extant manuscript."
~George Howard, a Professor Emeritus from the University of Georgia’s Department of Religion, is a former President of the Society for Biblical Literature, Southeastern Region, and author of Paul: Crisis in Galatia- A Study in Early Christian Theology.
Bishop of Hierapolis wrote before c. 100
"Therefore Matthew put the logia in an ordered arrangement in the Hebrew language, but each person interpreted them as best he could."
~Eusebius, "History of the Church" 3.39.14-17, c. 325 CE, Greek text 16: "ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἱστόρηται τῷ Παπίᾳ περὶ τοῦ Μάρκου· περὶ δὲ τοῦ Ματθαῖου ταῦτ’ εἴρηται· Ματθαῖος μὲν οὖν Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ τὰ λόγια συνετάξατο, ἡρμήνευσεν δ’ αὐτὰ ὡς ἧν δυνατὸς ἕκαστος. Various English translations published, standard reference translation by Philip Schaff at CCEL: "[C]oncerning Matthew he [Papias] writes as follows: 'So then(963) Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.'(964)" (Online version includes footnotes 963 and 964 by Schaff
Some have claimed that by "Hebrew" Papias would have meant Aramaic, the common language of the Middle East beside koine Greek.
~Bromiley 1979, p. 281
Jerome (c. 327-420) claimed that all the Jewish Christian communities shared a single gospel (the so-called Gospel of the Hebrews), that was practically identical with the Hebrew or Aramaic Matthew; he also claimed to have personally found this gospel in use among some communities in Syria.
~Köster 2000, p. 207
"Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed. Who translated it after that in Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian city of Beroea to copy it."
~Jerome: De viris inlustribus (On Illustrious Men), chapter III.
"He (Shaul) being a Hebrew wrote in Hebrew, that is, his own tongue and most fluently; while things which were eloquently written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek.""
~Jerome, 382 CE, On Illustrious Men, Book V
"Matthew also issued a written gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect."
~ Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:1 [c.175-185 A.D.]
"Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could. [The same person uses proofs from the First Epistle of John, and from the Epistle of Peter in like manner. And he also gives another story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is to be fount in the Gospel according to the Hebrews."
~Papias circa 120 CE, quoted by Eusebius, Church History
"First to be written was by Matthew, who was once a tax collector but later an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it in Hebrew for Jewish believers."
~ Origen circa 210 CE, quoted by Eusebius, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 25, Section 4
These devils don’t realize they argue against their own selves. They’ll have their part in the lake of fire
Speaking of yourself in the third person is a very common first century literary device. It is called an "Illeism". One of the most famous and often abused illeism is in John 17:3. Check out on YT "Daily Dose of Greek" for that passage.
I've seen tovia singer literally say the opposite of true facts just to spin his narrative its really hard to listen to him
Yes. Matthew speaking of himself in the third person speaks more to modesty than anything else.
Thank you for your ministry 🙏💖🙏💖🙏
We all love you, brother
Kind regards Kim
Zigner's arguments are on the level of a salesperson, not of a scholar. If this excellent video does not convince you, check out Dr. Michael Brown's rebuttles.
I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
-Revelation 2:9
This is random but ive been really trying to figure out how exactly we date the destruction of the second temple. Does anyone know?
Talk that talk 🗣
I love the way most of these points have been discussed and disproven 1600 years ago
Once a LIAR is always a LIAR. That is what I like about Imam Singer. He sticks to his true colour of being a LIAR.
Tovia made me leave Christianity. I found him in time of weakness in faith many years ago. I trusted a lot of his teachings as I thought he was an honest rabbi. He is NOT. most of his videos are false and he lies very often.
He looks very deceptive, he over analysis Christianity in a way he don't do with Judaism
excellent video brother
4:01 It can be added that Tovia Singer also was arguing against Moses writing Exodus ... by extension.
Could I get the link for this video please? I want to see what his objections are in full.
th-cam.com/video/HabMqyhx3YY/w-d-xo.html
@@TestifyApologetics Thank you brother!
Augustine's description of Faustus could be used for all of these athiests who make videos on Tik Tok in order to deceive people with little faith
This comment thread is a microcosm of what's wrong with our society right now. Lots of insults, unfounded accusations, cheering for the home team, etc. Also, some Jew hatred ("these devils," "synagogue of Satan"). It's unlikely that Tovia Singer is a counter-apologist out of some malevolent intention to deceive, as several condescending commenters have stated here (not Erik, to be clear). Singer just sees missionaries of another faith recruiting people to leave his faith, deliberately targeting them. Maybe a little empathy can help people understand how he must feel. (How do you feel about Mormons and JWs evangelizing evangelicals?)
Erik, I do appreciate your civility. One question: What do you think of Marcan priority? If Mark's gospel was the first written and if the other Synoptics drew heavily from his material, wouldn't that work against Matthean authorship? Why would an apostle lift so much material (including his own calling by Jesus) from a non-apostle? I think it's a valid point.
In the end, I'm convinced we simply can't know who wrote these works. Matthean authorship is dependent almost entirely on external witnesses. If none of the fathers had named Matthew as the writer, I doubt any of the internal evidence would look very compelling. But ... what do I know?
The "muh anyonymous gospel argument" can also be used against scripture in the Old Testament.
But this Jew would never dare say that.
No, nobody should have empathy for people who lie about other religions, just because theirs is losing followers. I don't think really think that's the real reason though, since Rabbinic Judaism is pretty ethnocentric for the alleged Israelite-discended population of modern Israel.
No this charlatan defames our faith because Christians are the new covenant and Jews have been unable to accept that in the last 2000 years. You also have to consider that there is more to Judaism than the Torah. There is also the Talmud which is preceded by Christianity by half a millennium. In this book, Christ is depicted in boling excrement for the "betrayal of Israel". No malicious intent?
Concerning the primacy of Mark's gospel, who never witnessed Jesus, you forgot to factor in, that Mark was intepreting Peter's words and would have little intention to make things up.
Thus, Christians should not stop defending the traditional authorship of the gospels. Deeming them anyonymous is a way to dismiss the entire story of Jesus inside the bible as fiction. It is a direct attack on the basis of our faith and TESTIFY is doing good work to disprove the claims of the self-appointed biblical scholars.
@@Michael_the_DrunkardA few rebuttals:
>The "muh anyonymous gospel argument" can also be used against scripture in the Old Testament.
Of course it can. We can't know the authorship of any of these works for sure. The only people who pretend to know are the ones whose dogmatic views necessitate traditional authorship.
>No, nobody should have empathy for people who lie about other religions
If you're talking here about the anonymity of the gospel writers, that's not a lie. It's true. If there are other things you're referring to here, please be specific. An open disagreement with someone else's faith doesn't have to be a "lie."
>Christ is depicted in boling excrement for the "betrayal of Israel". No malicious intent?
Do you want people to hold you personally accountable for every malicious, horrible thing that Christian authors have spouted over the last two millennia? I would hope not.
>Mark was intepreting Peter's words
Except that the text never states this. You're 100-percent dependent upon Irenaeus telling us that Papias said this. Second-hand hearsay is the best you've got, and that, close to the third century. BTW, Papias also said that Judas' body swelled up to such a huge proportion that he couldn't fit down a street and that a chariot crushed him. I doubt you'll accept that version of the story. Also, Eusebius pretty much tells us that Papias wasn't very bright. Not the most robust cord on which to hang Marcan authorship.
>Deeming them anyonymous is a way to dismiss the entire story of Jesus inside the bible as fiction.
It doesn't follow that the Jesus story is false just because we don't know who wrote down the second gospel.
>It is a direct attack
Sigh. Every disagreement with you doesn't have to be a "direct attack." Sometimes it's just a disagreement. Don't be so grandiose.
The argument that since it isn't written in the first person It couldn't have been by Matthew is so lame, the ancient world didn't use the first person very often even Caesar's War Commentaries are written in the third person "Caesar did this, Caesar did that', speaking of oneself in the third person was commonplace. Only someone with no knowledge of Greco-Roman literature would find that a compelling argument
Frankly I personally never really understood what the point is in Rabbi Singer trying to argue that we don't know if Matthew wrote this. Does it really matter? The real question is who is Matthew. The real question is how do we know any of this stuff Matthew (or whoever the author is) is telling us is true. Let's just for arguments sake say that Matthew did not write this and somebody named George really wrote it. What's the difference? Does that make this any less authentic? Whether it was written by George or Matthew, we still have no idea if any of it is true or any of it is authentic. The one thing we do know is that according to the rather huge consensus about when these gospels were actually written, it is nearly impossible that they were written by anyone who knew jesus. Therefore does it really matter if a guy named Matthew or whatever wrote it? They could not have seen anything. That is the point that should be focused on. This is of course besides the fact that Jews typically did not even speak Greek let alone a highly literate Greek writer, they were usually illiterate and even Acts says this.
The Septuagint was made by Jews and used by them too, and it was written in Greek
@@vecturhoff7502 I didn't say they did not know Greek. I said they didn't speak Greek. In other words, this wasn't their first language and the one they spoke. Therefore, it is highly unlikely they would have written this in a language they didn't speak to each other. This is of course besides the fact that Greek is not exactly a holy language. Why in the world would they not have written this in Hebrew? Hebrew is the holy language. Hebrew is the language the bible was written in. Why would they use Greek, which is not only not holy, it represents the culture which is the very antithesis of Judaism and anything godly ie. Hellenism etc. Why would God use such a filthy language to write his bible? The whole idea is just so absurd.
@@nothingbutthetruth613 The whole point of the gospels were to spread to multiple places, both to gentiles and to the jews, greek was a language that almost everyone could understant.
@@vecturhoff7502 True but remember that Hebrew was written over many many centuries and undoubtedly many cultures and many spoken languages. We know they did not speak Hebrew most of our history which is why many passages are written in Aramaic. If so, then why was it not written in the language of the time period? This also does not answer how a holy book could be written in such an unholy tongue.
@@nothingbutthetruth613 Just a bit of the old testament was written in aramaic, and the english of that time was greek, comparing to hebrew much more people spoke greek than hebrew and even aramaic, it was to spread more easily. and it can be seen as unholy for you, but at the time they weren't thinking about what would be holy on a book, but how many people they could save.
Doesn't Papias say that Matthew wrote the λόγια (logia) in Hebrew? Are you aware of anyone who did a comparative study on the number of Aramaic/Hebrew loanwords in gMatt in contrast to, gLuke and gMark (since neither Luke nor Mark were Jews, and probably did not write in Hebrew)? In my opinion, this could strengthen the case for Matthian authorship.
There's some pushback to the whole thing with Papias that I'd like to cover in a later video.
There are no Aramaic/Hebrew loanwords in Matthew, there are general semitic words that were borrowed by Greeks as a whole (for example wine oinos from ayin or earnest-money arabon from erebon, but even secular pagan Greeks used it on a regular basis, probably borrowed from Phoenicians in mycenaean period), and there are transliterations from Aramaic in Matthew in exact places like in Mark and Luke (for example Eloi Eloi lama sabachtani, or Talitha cumi), but its actually a proof against Matthew being written in Aramaic cause in Aramaic he didnt have the need to write the same saying twice as we find it in Greek (first time in Greek and then in transliterated Aramaic), and the fact that those places agree with Mark and Luke who at the exact same place use the transliteration shows that the author of Matthew was introduced to Greek synoptic tradition.
Matthew also quotes Septuagint and sometimes quotes from his mind and thus deviates from the OT a lot. And there are also mistakes in Matthews translation of Hebrew when he quotes OT meaning that the writer either used flawed translations of OT or that he himself made mistakes, but there arent comparable mistakes in the narrative itself. That shows that the author of Greek Matthew Gospel was prone to make mistakes when translating OT but somehow didnt make blunders when translated the Hebrew narrative from the alleged original Gospel according to Matthew thats written in Hebrew.
@@magnificentuniverse3085 Personally, I think it was written in Greek. I've personally compared the Septuagint with gMatt, and in all the cases I looked at, the quotation was one to one. I'm just interested in whether there was an Aramaic/Hebrew gospel at one point. Josephus wrote in Aramaic (Jewish Wars) and Greek (Antiquities). I'm also not sure whether the author is Matthew himself or some of the followers of Matthew, which is also plausible, mainly because the author relies on the Septuagint. It is also possible that Matthew left some logia that his followers later complied into a gospel. This is all highly speculative, of course.
@@magnificentuniverse3085 can you show one such error in translation?
@@noname19816 just compare Matthew with prophecy about Betlehem from Micah, prophecy about "out of Egypt I called my son" from Hosea and ofc quote that Matthew wrongly applied to Jeremiah but is actually from Zechariah, that one is the weirdest... I dont have time to check the other ones, but he probably deviates there too... ok lemme find one just to prove my point, woah on my first try such a deviation... let us compare Matthew 12:18 with LXX Isaiah 42 its completely different, just look at the first few words:
Matthew:
Ἰδοὺ ὁ παῖς μου
LXX Isaiah:
Ἰακὼβ ὁ παῖς μου
The rest is also completely different too... Matthew is actually "more faithful" to the Hebrew text
I watched Tovia a few times years ago and quickly realized he is full of manure.
One of the key points of Christianity is to humble yourself the message even if it happens to you isn't about you it is about the message so a Christian would try to make it about the message and not them so writing in the third person (which was done by others at that time as well) helps keep the focus on the message and not the teller.
I really want you to answer this question that's been on my head for a while. Why did God have to kill the other first born of Egypt, why not just Pharaoh's son specifically?
What does that have to do with this particular video?
@@TestifyApologetics I'm sorry, I just really wanted to have this particular question answered, as it's been bothering me for a while.
Good video.
One of the saddest verses in the entire Bible:
“He came to His own [the Jews], and His own did not receive Him.” (Jn. 1:11)
Tovia Singer agrees with what Islam teaches. He don't condemn Islam to be false. He don't condemn Muhammad to be a false prophet. There goes his hypocrisy.
Now when he is a hypocrite, will he not lie about Christianity when he is fully aware that if Christianity is true, Judaism is obsolete.
Hence to make Judaism relevant in this day, Tovia must destroy the credibility of Christianity.
One thing Tovia Singer will never give a definite plausible reason is why the Jewish Temple was destroyed in 70 AD and why Jews were exiled from 70 AD to 1948 AD.
Wasn't the strongest reason is the rejection of Jesus Christ and the persecution of Christians by the religious Jews?
No that's not the reason.
@@SamAdamsGhost
Then what's the reason?
@@justthink8952 Roman then Christian and Muslim persecution.
@@SamAdamsGhost
Be honest man.
Read the history of Israel.
As long as Israel was faithful to their God, no foreign powers could do them harm. God did unbelievable miracles and saved them from seemingly impending calamity. That's how the God of Israel was.
The Romans ruled Judea during Jesus' time. But they didn't destroy their Temple or try to destroy Judaism. Romans respected their religion. But they eventually destroyed the Temple in 70 AD and exiled Jews. Romans will definitely have their reason for that. But I am not interested in the perspective of the Romans.
I want to know from the perspective of the God of Israel as to why did he allowed his Temple be destroyed? Why did he allow heathens to trample on his chosen people for about 2000 years. Why?
@@justthink8952 The same reason He allowed Christian persecution.
I had a "friend" send me some of Rabbi Singer's videos trying to destroy my Christianity. I watched the video and showed her where Rabbi Singer was being deceptive. He's perfectly willing to hide information that he hopes his viewers don't have if it serves his purpose.
I pray that Rabbi Singer finds Jesus before it's too late.
Do you think Mark or Matthew was firsta
Mark, but not necessarily dogmatically so.
@@TestifyApologetics do you think all the other writers copied from Mark? If so why would Matthew copy a story he witnessed 1st hand? (BTW I don't believe this but it's top in seminary) @
@@eogh
Probably because he thought mark was already good enough he just added his own narrative on top
@@davidstrelec2000 Maybe still very weird to me when Mark is traditional a second hand witness via St Peter, and Matthew seems to be a lot more focused on details. Personally I really want to believe traditional view but it's hard at the moment.
@@Biblical_Studies What do you think about the argument that the mistakes in Mark aren't present in Matthew when the events and wording of events are the exact same? Why would Mark copy from Matthew and then add mistakes linguistically etc..?
First
Well, so what you've demonstrated is that the author of Matthew was more financially-minded than the author of the other gospels. You've not come anywhere near demonstrating that it was therefore the apostle Matthew.
A financially minded author is not particularly surprising on the hypothesis that Matthew is indeed the author given the amount of manuscript and evidence we have from the early church fathers which I've discussed elsewhere. But this data is at least somewhat surprising if it is false that Matthew is not the author.
It is a common misstep made by many skeptics to think that if a particular piece of evidence fails to logically entail a conclusion, then that same piece of evidence also fails to support the said conclusion. This is poor epistemology. A piece of evidence may be confirmatory of a conclusion without establishing it.
@@TestifyApologetics but your video doesn't make it clear that you cannot conclude who the author is based on the evidence you present. And isn't that just the tiniest bit intellectually dishonest?
Also I'm not sure what manuscript evidence you are referring to, most biblical scholars agree that the authorship of the gospels is unknown. Which means that it would surprise me if the amount of manuscript evidence were truly significant.
@@ElroyMF1 every manuscript we have and every church father we have attributes it to Matthew. This attribution of authorship is also geographically diverse. I never said I was proving anything in the sense of proving certainty, only that Singer is wrong that there is no evidence that it was written by Matthew. You need to slow down with words like intellectually dishonest, brochaco
this are signals that the gospel was written by Matthew in the scripture alone. Some early church fatthers attributes the gospels to Matthew