ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 พ.ค. 2024
- In this installment of my series on how history outside the Bible backs up the Gospels, I examine three instances where Matthew discusses money. His accurate details suggest he was not only a credible historian but likely a tax collector. These insights strengthen the authenticity of his account.
Lydia McGrew, Testimonies to the Truth, amzn.to/4bdEFew
Are you a Christian struggling with doubts? Get 1-on-1 counseling at talkaboutdoubts.com
Help support me: / isjesusalive or paypal.me/isjesusalive for a one-time gift
Amazon wish list: www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Visit my blog: isjesusalive.com
Recommended books on defending the Gospels: isjesusalive.com/recommended-...
![[UNCUT]"เศรษฐา" โดนบีบให้ลาออก เผยดีลลับ "ทักษิณ" ต้องต่อโปร ไม่งั้นเจอจุดจบ! I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XlH3k81dxmE/mqdefault.jpg)
Matthew (Levi) the tax collector should surely know his way around taxes and money
Mathew was the only IRS guy I liked!
Yep, and that is why early Church fathers picked him as a plausible author of this otherwise anonymous gospel. Obviously a good choice, after all it convinced you.
@michaelsbeverly I would assume a CPA knows more about taxes, and would use money as an analogy more than a doctor. Even though the doctor would be more educated than the CPA.
It's not so much would they know about, as would be be obsessed with.
@@michaelsbeverly considering that the usual argument is that the gospel was written much later by someone else, it’s pretty significant. Every Jew knew about the 2 drachma tax, sure, but it was only paid while there was a temple (before A.D. 70). Most everybody knew that a denarius was the pay for a day’s labor. Until Nero’s time in the 50s when its value fell, apparently. Do _you_ remember what minimum wage was 40 years ago?
The point here isn’t that Matthew definitely wrote it. Instead, it’s that the author fits all the criteria of being an eyewitness of Jesus’s life, demonstrating detailed knowledge of the culture, time period, and Judeo-Roman relations. So we have a trustworthy account of the things as they were written.
@@michaelsbeverly Did you miss the part where I said that Matthew the tax collector being the author isn't the main point? I also don't believe he (the author, even if it's not Matthew) was an eyewitness of every single thing he wrote about, either. Joseph's dreams, for example, or even the visitation of the magi. As in the case of Luke's gospel, we don't even have to assert that the author himself was an eyewitness, just that he had access to eyewitness testimony which was faithfully compiled together.
"Imagine if you were writing your own life story ..." OK, fine, but that's not what the Gospel is. These are biographies and historical narratives, not memoirs. And in that period, plagiarism was not only accepted, but expected to a degree. Matthew and Luke both use (some of) Mark, and have other parts common to each other (leading to the famous Quelle Theory), and their own unique pieces. That doesn't make any of them less than the truth or reliable messengers of the truth.
I have, in fact, read the gospels multiple times, and it never, ever occurred to me to think that any of them are correcting mistakes in others.Thousands, if not millions, of people have had the same experience as me. And some of them actually wrote their own books on the subject, and still never thought that. Differing purposes lead to different emphases which lead to different details being included or excluded. Your skepticism and cynicism is _not_ the only way to read these texts.
Now I'm thinking of Matthew as the Mr Krabs money crab meme
3:06 Coomer Nero is very funny. Good video as always
Did you know that this video and the Galilean one is unlisted? They aren’t getting a lot of views because of it, and they are great vids which deserve it
Yes. They'll be out later
Shhh, don’t tell anyone the mystery door to early access videos of Testify’s.
@@MrMortal_Rathe mystery door isn't a very good secret
The door is open where was the hidden key?@@MrMortal_Ra
@@charlesnunno8377But you keep coming back tho😏
Sorry... memories from years ago... hazier times in life... but when you said tithing your "herb"... I could just imagine trying to do that 😂...thank God for Salvation!
I was raised around church but I remember one day at Sunday School when the teacher referred to Stephen being stoned...it meant something completely different to this new kid at church. He asked the teacher "Stephen was stoned?" in sort of disbelief and then she had to explain. 😂
I promise I'm not a stoner, and I never share stories about my past but I just got tickled tonight thinking about someone paying tithes on "herb".
Growing up as a church kid... I have too many stories lodged away.
Anyway don't kick me off your channel Testify. Maybe I'm just up too late 😂
I really love your videos! The Bible is amazing! I don't know why anyone can doubt the reliability of Scripture. Truly He does all things well ✝️💯
😆 🤣
You should look into "kaneh bosm", a Hebrew word for an herb and oil often translated as "cinnamon," "sweet cane," or similar and is where our English word "cannabis" comes from. It is 1 of the 4 ingredients in the holiest anointing oil blends - which is exclusively used for Temple services and scripture forbids the use of that oil blend for common use. Cannabis oil residue has been discovered on the altar and is said to have been discovered in King Solomon's grave, although I have only heard of the grave discovery and not actually read about it. Interestingly, our cannabinoid system (our neuron system) is named as such specifically because of the high similarities to the cannabinoid compounds found in cannabis.
Additionally, it is even more interesting to look into the fact that many of our words come from Hebrew - even our alphabet comes from the Hebrew Aleph-Beyt. Kaneh bosm is one example, but far from the only example. "Hallelujah," for example, comes from the Hebrew "Halelu'Yah." The "Yah" part being the "YH" in the tetragrammaton. The Greeks changed the "Y" to a "J." In other words, it is the "Jah" in "Jehovah." Only, "Jehovah" is "Yahuah (Yah-oo-ah)."
I made a video about His name, titled "Sacred Name and Deceptions," if you are interested - but I do need to update that I have changed my stance on the Messiah's name - I'm convinced that His name is "Yahushua (Yahu-shu-a)" instead of "Yahusha (Yahu-sha)."
I’m currently reading Lydia McGrew’s book “The Eye of the Beholder: The Gospel of John as Historical Reportage”. And so far I’ve read the first four chapters just got finished reading the sections which demonstrate John’s historical accuracy and truthfulness, and I’m absolutely baffled. You have no idea how surprised I was with the amount of accuracy on geography, customs and culture, and one that I wasn’t expecting was name statistics and disambiguations. Lydia also addressed almost half a section to refuting the alleged contradiction of Jesus carrying his cross in John compared to the synoptics, commonly brought up skeptics. She also refuted Craig Kenner on this very matter as well. Needless to say I was left with this one question for myself, why not now say that John is generally reliable?
I watched her on a podcast a few months ago without knowing who she was, and thought her book sounded pretty interesting. It sounded like something like I've been looking for.
I'd like to get it, but I have a list of several books that I would like to get.
@@Gutslinger Nice. If your thinking about price wise, the book is free on kindle, if you have it. I’m currently half way through chapter five and I cannot recommend it enough. Lydia also has a channel here on TH-cam if you want to check that out, I also have a list of several other books I’m looking to get. Lol.
Man your videos are just getting better! Love the facts. Keep them coming and keep the skeptics on their toes! "But...but...muh spoiderman"
The entire video I was thinking to myself how obvious it was the Matthew's ears would perk up any time money was mentioned, and he clearly had an impressive understanding of how it work at the time.
Then you brought it up yourself. Sharp as ever man, keep up the great work!
I love this series. It's a peak into the ancient world and definitely adds more colour to the text.
Something interesting would be to go through the Christian apocryphal works and show how they don’t meet these criteria.
I've mentioned it. I'll try to make it even more explicit. Good point.
@@TestifyApologetics that’s where I got the idea! You and someone else who’s video I can’t find but mentioned the names in the Gospels matches with archeology and apocryphal works like Peter’s Gospel don’t. He mentioned it in passing that’s why I can’t find it.
the christian apocryphal books don't even match the life time of the supposedly authors, the proto gospel of James, has mentions of the gospels of Matthew and Luke but James died in 62 AD. And it's clearly trying to rebute a accusation that Mary was a poor woman by saying that she came from rich parents, but those accusations were made by Romans anti-chistrians in the 2nd century.
More context:
"Penny" is not a denomination. A penny is a weight. You can still see this today, where some places sell precious metals by pennyweight.
A pennyweight is 1/20 of a Troy ounce (which is not the same as the ounces you see in the US - a US / avoirdupois ounce is ~28g but a Troy oz is ~31g) and if you look up the spot price of silver on kitco you'll see it's still listed in price per Troy ounce.
Silver pennies existed as a standard coin all throughout medieval Europe. And as you can see the objective value of that coin would be over 100 times what a US penny is worth now, and even more when you consider world silver supply is much higher now.
Lastly - the former UK money system of pounds/shillings/pence was known as the LSD system - the L is for Libra Pondo (literally weighs a pound, because a "pound sterling" used to be a literal Troy pound or 12 Troy ounces of sterling silver), the S is for Shilling, and the D is for...... denarius.
Their term for a penny was a holdover from Roman occupation.
That's a long way of saying that's probably why they translated a day's wage into English as a penny.
actually the people who lived on the isle of britian in the first century called a denarius a penny. The denarius was 2 grams of silver and in 1611 the penny in britian was 2 grams of silver.
Let's not forget that Matthew was a tax collector.
The Praetorian guard did NOT deserve that 2 denarii per day.
Genuine question from a theistic leaning agnostic: assuming that the gospels and other new testament books are reliable, which im actually pretty happy to grant, how do we possibly leap to the resurrection? Wouldnt it make more sense for us to accept the parts that make sense and throw away those that dont(like angels and the entire graveyard rising from the dead)
I've discussed this previous videos. All what I'm showing here is that the gospel authors were knowledgeable, honest and close to the facts. If that's true, then it's likely that what they claim goes back to witnesses. Given the the content of their claim (that Jesus appeared to them in multisensory modes) it's unlikely they're mistaken. Given the context of their claim (persecution) it's unlikely that they were lying.
In addition to this excellent channel...
there's good info on the channel: Cold Case Christianity. A former police detective investigates the case to be made for the resurrection, as well as other interesting topics!
You ask an excellent question.
I'll simply say that anyone can carefully read through Testify's logic here and see if maybe he's making an unjustified leap between different ideas or if they connect together seamlessly.
Great content, I love how you make it so fun to learn about history and apologetics! Humor is an excellent memory aid, by the way! Thank you so much for putting it all together and keep it up, Brother!
Dude! I am so encouraged and educated by your videos! Thank you!
Your editing is so darn good.
Recently subscribed to your channel; really digging the content, man
With regards to the initial stater thing, what timeframe was that tax in effect?
gotta address spiderman fallacy w disclaimer every vid
Feels like it
Based upon practice, it is the faithful that appear to have a problem with the content of the Book of Matthew.
I'm currently having trouble memorizing all of the main parts of the sacrificial system.
So I can't imagine trying to memorize what all should be tithed, down to the herb. Especially if I was an average Israelite layman in those days.
That's actually a good point!
Rocking it again and again. Your ministry is outstanding.
I'm certainly not shocked since there is this thing called Inspiration of scripture where the writers wrote guided by the Holy Spirit! IU really enjoy your videos ... keep em' coming please!!!
superb analysis, so, so, so, so, so good !
Only Matthew tells us about the largest denomination of a "talent" which was not an actual coin but a unit of money. Matthew definitely knew firsthand about how money was to be handled.
GREAT video here Eric. Apostle Matthew's gospel is my favorite book in the Bible, so the info here was especially cool.
Great work brother
your videos are amazing, nothing else like them on youtube
Thank you
I saw someone make the claim that the gospels where written for Christian audience? Is that true, and If so what do you make out of for example when Jesus says "pick up your cross and follow me" and his disciples didn’t immediatily say "What do you mean?" The Christian audience understands the significance of the cross because they know ahead of time about the crucifixtion and its significance?
Thank you for feeding me.
Great, informative video!
Its worth noting that a denarius was 2 grams of silver. In the first century the isle of britian called a denarius a penny. In 1611 when the KJV was first published a penny was 2 grams of silver.
itd be really interesting if we can reconcile the discrepancy in the lineage genealogies in the four gospels (also side note matthew was a tax collector, so this def made sense)
I've talked about it in my reply to Holy Kool-Aid but I am planning on doing a series on contradictions soonish
@@TestifyApologetics Ohhh, looking forward to it!
I recommend you to watch the Gospel according to Matthew by Bibleproject!
It's a rather easy "Contradiction" to reconcile since the Book of Matthew was intended to be viewed by the Jewish people who are waiting for the Messiah!
Another great video to learn from
Love the on the money pun
@4:40 Awesome! Ain't nobody got time for that!
When I'm watching this I remember one scene from the special episode of "The Chosen" where they portrayed how John interviews all the disciples to get their POV of Jesus' life as well. When he was with Matthew, Matthew said: "You're gonna make yours detailed right? Mine will be very detailed!"
Well it turns out it was indeed very detailed 😂
There is a fragment, as I understand it of an attempt to parody the Gospel of Mattehw, by a member of the Sanhedrin before the fall of Jerusalem. This strongly suggests the author of the Gospel of Matthew, was alive during Jesus lifetime, and therefore would certainly have been aware of the value and names of local currency - probably better than more recent scholars.
An English Penny at the time of the reformation was a day’s wage and even until decimalization in 1971 was denominated with a D for denarius
An old song that mentions everyone wanting LSD is actually talking about money not drugs
Fire 🔥
Sages tithing sage?
When Penn & Teller do this one, it's a phone in the fish instead of a coin.
I think more work may still need to be done to debunk the Spider-Man analogy.
It hurts some hypotheses, like the Gospels being fabricated much later or in a different place, but some other hypotheses may still pass this kind of evidence.
E.g. that the Gospels were forged by people close to the time and place, and/or by someone very well-read?
I think they still don't hold up well against other evidence like undesigned coincidences, but I do think some nuance is generally needed when thinking about different hypotheses.
Why, thank you. I've been catching up on the last few videos and it pained me to see that no Christian was acknowledging that the main thrust of the videos was for the authors were witnesses to the events described in them.
While I don't think it hurts the current dating of the Gospels (as they are all within the first century) with the authors being well read. I'm glad you can at least see that this type of widespread common knowledge should in no way indicate that the authors were witnesses.
You just honestly made my day by showing me that at least some Christians, even if they do ultimately agree with Testify, can watch these videos trying on the skeptical position and see the issues between the evidence provided and the conclusion presented. If I could give you several thumbs up I would.
I just want to note that forged wouldn't be a good word. Just a little bit of nuance that I thought you would appreciate.
@@Boundless_Border Hey, thanks.
It sounds like you don't consider yourself a Christian, but I'm glad at least someone else agrees with me here.
It's not as simple as something being evidence for or against "the Gospels are reliable", because this hypothesis (and its negation) can be broken down into many sub-cases, some of which the evidence might help or hurt.
For example, are apparent contradictions between Gospels evidence for or against reliability? The question is too simple. They might be evidence against inerrancy, but also might be evidence against collusion between Gospel authors.
Thanks for your feedback. I probably should have just used the word "fabricated" again, as I did earlier.
@@MatthewFearnley
Yes. I'm an atheist. If I remember correctly, we've actually talked a few times. And if unless I'm mistaken, I believe you are.
And I agree that lumping the idea "the Gospels are reliable" is a bit of a thought stopping device on both sides. It's too ambiguous to affirm and, as such, isn't something that allows you to determine when it is likely to be accurate and when it isn't.
As I've told someone else. A contradiction in the Bible, Gospel or otherwise, is only evidence that it isn't an inerrant text. That is all it amounts to.
So, as you say, reliability is not so simple to establish.
Honestly, the word choice issues have to do more with connotations rather than strictly the definition. As an atheist, I constantly run up to people misunderstanding that I'm not proposing the authors are lying, purposefully misleading people, or making up the entire story from nothing. But it's extremely hard to avoid and you don't need to worry about it too much.
Have a good day.
I mean he has addressed the Spiderman fallacy before in other videos. Not to mention, there is not a lot to address there, as the force of the analogy being the comparison between Spiderman, a clearly fictional character, and a book not meant to be fiction and meant to be history falls apart once the false equivalency is pointed out. Then they respond with the fact that though those two things are not comparable (if they are honest) they will say the apologist missed the point. But the point is that just because a text records true things it does not make it true. And that is not a point anybody disagrees with. But when it comes to historical texts or texts claiming to be recording reality, when the text speaks of great accuracy the events and places and a plethora of things taking place, that is in favor of their reliability, just as with every other historical text. When a text gets facts wrong, it goes against its reliability. The analogy does not address this likelyhood, but only shows what everybody knows already: that getting historical or certain facts right does not automatically make what was written true. The Spiderman fallacy cannot and does not address whether we can test a historical documents reliability by them getting facts right. It shows that fiction getting things right does not affect reliability. But the Bible does not claim to be fiction nor is it obviously meant to be. The force of the fallacy is not very strong when one thinks about it for five seconds. And Testify has given his thoughts about it in another video, so he does not need to tread water over again.
As for the example hypothesis you give, this specific video does not address this specific one. But it does address the more popular hypothesize that atheists believe and those atheists who claim the Gospels were written late way after these facts. Those other hypothesize don't work for other reasons, but the point of the video is not to address every other hypothesis out there. He has videos about the Gospels authorship which would address forgery hypothesize. To expect a video in six minutes to cover everything is a bit unfair. Especially when he has other videos that do address things, as Testify's goal is making a cumulative case. When all the data is looked at cumulatively, the secular hypothesize don't fit the data as much as the resurrection, and their reliability in reporting history grows in probability.
It's not that Testify is lacking nuance. It is a video that addresses what it specifically wanted to address, which is increasing the Gospels probability one video at a time by addressing specific problems and issues that attack certain views the atheist online on average holds.
Spooderman gang in the mud fr
Irony is, I just finished Matthew before watching this video so this info is fresh off my mind. 😂
Erik, it would be amazing if you made a video reacting to the most "Akcshually" comments in your channel
My mind would melt.
@@TestifyApologetics understandable
When was it written?
Within living memory
@@TestifyApologetics But surely there is no evidence apart from the religious texts that the religion existed before the destruction of the Jewish temple in AD70... In fact, it would seem that that event was the catalyst which prompted the invention of the religion.
Who is William Paley?
A v based 18th century Christian apologist. Check out his book A View of the Evidences for Christianity
So because certain details in the Gospels might be correct, does that mean every other detail in the Gospels is also correct??
Did I say that?
@@TestifyApologetics Then what are you actually saying?? You point out some details in the Gospels that might be correct, but what is the importance of that?
Dude it's a playlist. I clarify many times throughout. Relax. Watch more than 1 or 2.
1,000 thumbs up!
👍👍 👍👍 👍👍 👍👍 👍👍 👍👍 👍👍 👍👍 👍👍 👍👍 👍👍 👍👍 👍👍 👍👍 👍👍 👍👍
Hidden clues in Prosperity Gospel that are on the money
Could you please do a video covering darkmatter2525? His videos get on my nerves and no one seems to talk about him
I don't do responses anymore. Just keep following, positive evidence outweighs a lot of trolling junk and I'll be digging into alleged errors and contradictions soon enough
People mock because you believe the bible and dont know how to explain some of it, the parts I do know remove any doubts...
St. Matthew: 🤑
Dude you're making me look like a slouch ; )
"Greek-literate man who lived in eastern Mediterranean area in the first century AD has some knowledge of coinage, prices and wages in the eastern Mediterranean area in the first century AD" is not a startling claim
It is a shock though for those that try to claim that the gospels are just made up stories written down a century after the events "supposedly" happened, or even created by medieval monks. The fact that the customs of the day were so well represented helps prove that they were written by someone contemporary to that time and not centuries later
@@b_korthuis I don't think any sane person claims that the canonical gospels were written a century after the events, though plenty of other gospels apparently were.
The Jew knows about money
The Greeks knew philosophy
The Italians knew cooking,
The French knew wine and cheese,
The Asian knew Computer games,
The Atheists knew Spoooderman!
Matthew claims that at the time of Jesus' death, there was an eclipse and an earthquake and that dead people popped out of their graves and began to cruise Jerusalem. So, zombies? Really? All eclipses are predictable both in the past and the future. So what if Matthew knew about money.
I discuss it here. th-cam.com/video/yTpjGktBYdk/w-d-xo.html
Why is a few extra saints being raised from the dead a deal breaker for Matthew? He has Jesus rising from the dead, walking on water, and multiplying food, but you guys kinda freak out over a handful of saints. I mean, just admit you that reject supernaturalism.
But mah spiderman fallacy!!!!!!
😮😮😮
I don't know how to feel about Americans pronouncing herbs as "rbz" lol
Paulogia just uploaded a new video that contains a great response to this argument. Did you know there are many ancient books that contain plenty of correct historical details but nevertheless include supernatural elements? One example is Plutarch's Lives, which is a series of biographies. This book includes miracles such as talking statues, the divine parentage of Alexander the Great, julius caesar encounters with supernatural beings, and so on. Does any historian suggests that the historical details that are correct lend credibility to the supernatural parts? Of course not.
It's a terrible response to the argument. For example the records of Romulus ascending into heaven come hundreds of years after the events. Than is going to respond and it's gonna look bad for Paul. That video was off the charts cringe.
@@TestifyApologetics Yes but it was written by a known and reliable historian. If being written too long after the events is sufficient grounds for dismishing a book then the gospel of John is halfway there. You can also dismish the Torah and a lot of the old testament. Matthew was written 40 years after the events. Can we say with certainty that this is too little time for legendary embellishment to creep in?
Yeah you're right people can't recall stuff a few decades later. We should assume memoirs of holocaust survivors written much later in life to be suspect
@@TestifyApologetics People can also correctly recall something their grandfather told them and write them later in life, so things written over 100 years after the events took place could still be accurate. The skeptic's argument is not that Matthew was there but was unable to recall things right 40 years later. Is that certain stories or urban legends appeared around a certain Jesus figure, and they were transmitted orally for 40 years before getting written down.
This is at least a little better than your common prejudice example. But that was a really low bar.
You're right that it would take some minimal effort to depict somewhat accurately what expenses should be. But things like taxes and the value of coins would be extremely easy to uncover even without Google. And the same with wages of some fundamental positions.
Notably. In all this I want to finally lay out that these authors don't have to be inferring these details on their own. Christians, over time, could sporadically be filling in some details in their traditions.
This is ridiculous. The value of a denarius remained steady up until the time of Nero he says which is less than a year before Tacitus’ writings begin. These arguments are extremely weak and using them damages the case for Christ rather than fortifies it because they are so weak.
Its useful when you encounter people who say that the books were heavily mistranslated or written by European monks who never set foot near the area. Its helpful in ratifying authorship
This also shows the Papacy. The only two people who shouldn't have had to pay taxes (according to Jesus) were Jesus and Peter. The other apostles still had to pay the tax. Jesus says "who pays the tax, foreigners or family" and peter says "foreigners" and Jesus says "then you and I are exempt". the other apostles were not exempt, but Peter was because he had special authority given him by Jesus that the others did not.
Ehh....seems a bit like a stretch, but I love my Catholic brothers
The whole "Gospels are reliable history" gig misses the point: historical fiction can be really, really accurate.
And the Gospel writers weren't trying to write fiction; they _actually believed_ Jesus turned water into wine, walked on water, rose from the dead, etc, etc. But belief in miracles doesn't make them true.
Bottom line: the more unlikely an assertion is, the more and harder proof that's required for everyone else to believe it. And walking on water, being raised from the dead, etc are very, *Very* unlikely to happen.
Historical fiction as a genre didn't exist for centuries later my man
@@TestifyApologetics read beyond the first sentence.
The entire comment was not good.
@@TestifyApologetics because???
@@RonJohn63 Hi. Not sure what the second part of your comment is trying to say.
Should the Gospels and Acts be thought of as going into the genre of Historical "Fiction-except-they-think-it's-real"?
"Belief in miracles doesn't make them true" - yes. But it raises questions about how they evolved from non-events into detailed, consistent accounts.
The last part has been addressed by others better than I can, but I'd sum it up as just Hume saying, "it's highly improbable my worldview is false".
But these events aren't highly unlikely if Jesus is the Son of God.
I love all the menes in your videos! That oir Lord can be funny! 🎉 As well as all the knowledge. 🫡👌
Was Matthew left handed?