I know you said you wouldn’t - but please please do a video on the apocrypha of the New Testament. This is a topic I have always been interested in and I’d love to better understand the historical understanding of some of these texts.
@@urieldaboamorte Overall the episode is about History and more broadly Religious studies, but around the 11:30 mark he goes into what he means by the term Theology in reference to the Gospel of John. That was what impressed me. I feel sometime many people throw terms around without realizing that not everyone is familiar with them. I appreciate the breaking down the meaning in order to demystify the term. (Pardon the confusion)
Funny enough, Religion For Breakfast popped up in my TH-cam feed because I'd watched so much UsefulCharts and I became a big fan of his content. I felt sad that y'all had never collaborated. Glad you have now!
As always with the videos dealing with religion, I'm amazed at how well this channel balances western science with the various belief systems. It's respectful to all, catering to both believers and non-believers while still not being watered down. Even for non-believers, the jewish and christian theology influence us all in the western world. Looking forward to future episodes!
@@VSP4591 you do know that algebra is created by a persian guy name al-Khwarizmi’s who the word algorithm name after right , and geometry, calculus, physics all independent develop around the world there is nothing call western science
@@quanghuyvo6112 Dear Quang, I do know that some random discoveries in science were made in India, China, Persia etc. The real development in science was recorded in Europe starting with 15th century. The most mathematicians, physicists, biologist that mattered are from Europe. All important discoveries in mathematics were made systematically in Europe meaning that a discovery in one place was continued by a scientist in other European country. This you may find looking for discoveries in science and you may found a majority in Europe and some in other parts of the world. This is a pure statistical approach and we do not contradict this.
@@VSP4591 eh, yes and no. For one, "western science" would be more accurately described as the body of philosophies that revolve around naturalism and empiricism to shape our understanding of the world. Though, truth be told, there's nothing western about the scientific revolution that started in 15th century, as it was fueled just as much by Middle Eastern ideas and technology as it was by rediscovering Roman and Greek ideas. And quite frankly, European scholarship would not begin to surpass Middle Eastern and Chinese scholarship until the end of the 17th century. Even at that, the supremacy of European scholarship would only last 3 more centuries before Europe's influence on the world would diffuse its role in driving innovation.
As a christian who actually likes both knowing the traditional way of viewing the Bible as well as the more critical and historical way I just want to say good job. I always enjoy taking a critical eye to the history of it just to know how things might have happened. I think you hit the nail on the head about what caused the split between Christian theology and Rabbinical Theology, I'm pretty sure the traditional view is that the Gospels were written expressly because the temple was destroyed and people were forced to adapt to the situation.
@@austinapologetics2023 Where are any of the original documents? When did Christians first realize they were missing? Who was the last person known to have handled them? How and why were they disposed? What year? What century? Why does no one have a clue? Every cathedral in medieval Europe had a torture chamber because that’s where faith comes from.
@@charlesbrowne9590 we don't know where the original documents are because we don't know where the original documents to any ancient text are. The idea that we don't have the originals may seem convincing on the surface but if it is used against the New Testament then it can be used against everything ever written from that time period and beyond. The reason the synoptics and Acts most likely predate the destruction of Jerusalem is because Acts concludes with Paul still alive despite spending a quarter of the book building up to his impending trial. Paul died prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and considering the synoptics predate Acts and Acts predates Paul's death and Paul's death predates the destruction of Jerusalem then it seems logical that these four books predate this event. There are other lines of evidence but this is just one.
@@austinapologetics2023 We have the Dead Sea Scrolls. We have the Nag Hamadi library. The oldest extant NT dates from the fourth century, which means it has survived sixteen centuries. We do not have originals from Homer or the original Koran. Homer is not a problem because no one claims divine authorship for it. Is God’s forgiveness a license to sin?
I'm really not surprised that it's possible an omnipotent entity from Star Trek has such a fundamental role in the development of the Bible. Q just can't leave well enough alone.
I highly doubt that the Q source existed, but it stands for Quelle, the german word for "source". In the end it is all made up fairy tales anyway so let's go with Q from Star Trek, would be a more interesting plot twist.
I majored in Religion 20 years ago, and it is nice to see some new theories. I can from Religion for Breakfast, and your channel also does a god job of explaining things. At let me say, your respect for different religions and your giving your own biases, and your understanding of faith and evidence is a wonderful breath of fresh air to me, who also is religious but interested in evidence and what it means. Excellent channel, I am excited to watch more. Good work!
Interestingly the historical critical academic view on the bible texts gave me more trust into what Jesus really meant with a kingdom of god that is to come but is actually within us. Scientific work in the texts aren’t against faith at all. It shows that faith isn’t anything that relies on accuracy but on personally beeing hit by the content it says about mankind and what you can’t see. Even as an atheist it can be valuable to think about concepts of loving of enemies for instance. People claim often they can only believe in what can be seen or measured. They say they believe in the “common sense”. Isn’t “common sense” also just a concept what nobody is able to show (besides making brains 🧠 pictures with MR or Computer Tomography)? What is “Love” sung by every artist if not only a valuable concept?
Just taking a wild guess, but I'll bet your teachers neglected to mention how the Bible was hijacked and corrupted by the Roman Emperor Constantine and his Council of Bishops to align with their violent, hedonistic lifestyle of flesh-eating and replacing reincarnation with eternal damnation after just one life. Or how the "Apostle" Paul in the New Testament was an infiltrator and referred to as The Deceiver and a liar by the Nazarenes. Thomas Jefferson even said "Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus."
your videos have consistently brought the human aspect back to religion, and that has greatly increased my respect for it as a human tradition subject to human flaws
I was surprised when my American religions textbook used the word "Judaisms," the plural of "Judaism." Like, "there are many different Judaisms in America." I still haven't seen that anywhere else. EDIT: It was written by Neusner, who I guess is a real fan of that term, because he wrote two more books about it.
Which also implies some things are more "Jewishy" than others- "Jewishier", and that something could be the most "Jewishy"- "Jewishiest"! Gotta love the English language!
It must be like juggling chainsaws dealing with all this information whilst being cautious of everyone on TH-cam's individual theological peccadilloes. Amazing!
I'm honestly of the opinion that it doesn't really matter which one was written first, and that all three synoptics may have even been written around the same time. Much of the differences can be attributed to the audiences that they were intended for more than anything. Matthew's Gospel was written for Jews. As such, he portrays Jesus as a second Moses (the core of Matthew's Gospel can be broken into 5 parts of miracle working/narrative followed by long speeches). Mark's Gospel was written for Romans - and was written in a very quick, easy to read format that was popular in Rome. It portrays Jesus primarily as a miracle worker. And Luke's Gospel was written for Greeks - but also emphasized Jesus's care for the outcast, focusing on the universality of the Gospel. John's Gospel is the heresy-killer. And was written as such. The other Gospels are ambiguous as to what is meant by Jesus being the "Son of God". But John's Gospel leaves no doubt - Jesus has existed eternally as the eternal Word, became truly human, and yet always knew that He was also divine. The reason why John's Gospel does not have the same miracles as the synoptics and shows Jesus differently has to do with the fact that the synoptics were written primarily for evangelization - that is, spreading the Christian message itself. But the Gospel of John was used to teach catechumens (that is, people preparing to become Christians) the deeper mysteries of faith and to fight heresies that had cropped up.
@@Carlos-ln8fd all the stories about jesus in marks gospel can be found in the OT...that's just the most massive coincidence of all time or he just had the OT in front of him when he constructed his narrative...whats more likely...take your time...shouldn't take you long
@@paulrichards6894 no? i mean- there are things later christians projected on to the new testament, but jews see nothing related to Jesus in the OT. In the scholarly view its most likely that later christians projected these prophecies onto the new testament. Almost all scholars agree that while we cant know much about his life, he was a man, probably a gallalian jew in historical palestine, and he was probably crusified.
@@paulrichards6894 so your saying the Old Testament was correct in its prophecies? Why are events (Jesus’ crucifixion, empty tomb, three hours of darkness, his miracles) and over 30 figures found in secular sources ?
This is seriously fascinating, thanks for all the work you put in to make this and the other videos in this series, it is a topic I've been interested in for a long time but it is hard to parse through and understand the complexity and you do such a great job of presenting it ! Would LOVE to see a video in the future on the canonization process of the Bible, if that info is even out there.
Definitely. When the first one came out, I was thinking “December is so long from now. I can’t wait for the last episode” and what feels like days later it’s now September…
If I recall correctly, the traditional order of the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) predates the theory that they must have been written in that order. I think the early church fathers assumed they were written in that order because they had always been arranged in that order, not the other way around.
10:42 Are you familiar with the idea that the three Synoptic Gospels represent differing positions on a fundamental issue that challenged the early christian church: do you have to be Jewish to be christian? Mark, wanting to spread the message far and wide, says here is the good news, and no, you don't have to become circumcised to join the club. Matthew, being traditional, responds saying here is the good news, but yes, you do have to be circumcised to join the club. Luke responds to the growing schism by saying, look, can't we all just be friends, here's the good news, but out the corner of his mouth, says you don't have to be circumcised.
When I was studying the NT, I learned a similar version of this idea, but in the case of Luke it was directly aimed at the persecutors of Christians, humanizing them and making it clear that they were not a threat to the order of society.
I doubt it. It's more likely that Matthew was intended for a Jewish audience, and Luke was intended for a Gentile audience. (And Mark wasn't intended for anyone in particular). The question had been settled by the time Luke was written, and probably by the time Mark and Matthew were written. The Council of Jerusalem which addressed the issue was probably in 48, and Paul's letters on the topic were in the 50s, and hardly anyone thinks the Gospels were written that early.
Such a clear and engaging overview-- as usual! Thank you so much for mentioning the apocryphal gospels and multiple early Christianities. While it would be nice to see you present a fuller exposition of New Testament Apocrypha, I know you have a lot of other subjects to cover and completely understand why you wouldn't get too deep into that niche topic.
Thank you for this video, especially for the discussion of theological versus strictly historical writing. I've been trying to figure out how to balance faith with a more historical/archaeological understanding of events, and this really clarified things for me!
I suspect the Gospel of George would be a bit somber. But, I would love a Gospel of Ringo! I imagine the Gospel of Ringo to be like the story of Jesus meets the movie "Yellow Submarine".
The religion videos from UsefulCharts and and Religion for Breakfast have instantly become videos that I click instantly upon seeing and watch several times. I never could have seen that coming.
I am now non religious but, as almost every Italian, I was raised as a catholic which makes this video so interesting for me! Thank you! Looking forward to the next one :)
Ohhhh so I was familiar with the "doubting Thomas" part of the Bible but it's interesting to know it might have represented a conflict between two Christian Schools
There are subtle references to different communities throughout early Christian literature, but no one ever clearly wrote down what sort of arguments were being had. It's really interesting!
I know it was probably a lot less fun at the time, but I love the idea of a bunch of really pissy scholars shading each other's views by rewriting each other's favourite disciples as wankers in their own theology. It makes me think of Team Edward vs Team Jacob - heresies as a fandom war.
It reminds me a lot of someone's passive-aggressive diatribe where they're "finally addressing all the concerns", and even though you don't know who exactly they're pissed at or for what reason, their weird need to EMPHASIZE certain otherwise minor details over and over gives you a pretty good sense of where the points of contention are
@@z-beeblebrox the conflict between the various factions of Christianity was very aggressive, not passive aggressive, which is why most of the original diversity of the religion was wiped out and the alternative scriptures were found by chance rather than being present in Europe's ancient libraries. The Thomas faction was so unwelcome that it was driven to India, being the only native form of Christianity in India before colonialism.
I appreciate the use of graphics SO SO MUCH. Visuals help me understand so much more. As opposed to words and concepts that float around without a framework to imagine them on
I can't thank you enough for making these videos! I was raised in a Biblical literalist family and a church but I have since stepped away and no longer believe in god at all. One of the hardest parts of this transition has been trying to reconcile all of the traditional church interpretations of the Bible with actual history. I didn't even know how to start deconstructing that part of my old faith until the first video in this series came up in my recommendations. These videos have given me so much peace. When I was taught about the history of Christianity there was the Bible (which was 100% true history), then a brief mention of Constantine converting, then Martin Luther, and then Billy Graham. The hundreds of years between these men were just glossed over. Without this sort of history and scholarship, it is impossible to understand the real evolution of the Christian faith. Thank you again for all of the work you put into these videos! I, for one, am a better and stronger person because of them!
@@MWSin1 The census which Luke wrote about is one example of a time when Luke was thought to have entirely missed the boat in events he portrayed as surrounding the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:1-3) Critics argued that there was no census, that Quirinius was not governor of Syria at that time and that everyone did not have to return to his ancestral home. First of all, archaeological discoveries show that the Romans had a regular enrolment of taxpayers and also held census every 14 years. This procedure was indeed begun under Augustus. A Papyrus found in Egypt gives directions for the conducting of a census. It read: "Because of the approaching census it is necessary that all those residing for any cause away from their homes should at once prepare to return to their own governments in order that they may complete the family registration of enrolment…" Second, we find evidence that Quirinius was governor of Syria around 7 BC. This assumption is based on an inscription found in Antioch ascribing Quirinius this post. As a result of this finding, it is now supposed that he was governor twice - once in 7 BC and the other time in 6 AD, that date Josephus ascribed. Specially since both Josephus and Luke mention the census in 6 A.D, but Luke says of the census at Jesus’ birth was the first census that took place while governor (Luke 2:2), so Luke acknowledges the other census of Quirinius in 6 A.D (Acts 5:37).
@@farmercraig6080 I've never heard any of that before. Quirinius was, as far as everything I've ever read, serving as legate in Galatia until about 1 BCE, then Gaius Julius' tutor until 4 CE, and then Governor of Syria from 6 CE to oversee the integration of Judea, which wasn't even made a part of Syria or taxed by Rome until Herod the Great's son Herod Archelaus was deposed.
@@MWSin1 In his book, Was Christ Born At Bethlehem, Sir William Ramsay noted, “The only certain dates in the life of Quirinius are his consulship in B.C. 12, his second government of Syria beginning in A.D. 6, and his prosecution of his former wife, Domitia Lepida in A.D. 20 and his death and public funeral in A.D. 21." In the years since he penned those words, no significant discovery has been made that positively dates other events in Quirinius’s life. The only other major event that is know is his role in Syria leading the war against the Homonadenses sometime between 12 BC and 6 AD. Beyond various theories, we cannot even say with certainty the exact year this took place. The fact is, that much of what is known about Quirinius’s life around the time of Christ’s birth is unknown. In addition, historical sources indicate that Quirinius was favored by Augustus, and was in active service of the emperor in the vicinity of Syria previous to and during the time period that Jesus was born. It is reasonable to conclude that Quirinius could have been appointed by Caesar to instigate a census-enrollment during that time frame, and his competent execution of such could have earned for him a repeat appointment for the A.D. 6/7 census
This is another excellent vido of the series “who wrote the Bible”, and will be waiting fir the rest of them. They are very well described and developed. I’ve read many books about the subject, and this video is a great summary of what scholars thing about this subject. Now, people can believe what they want. The problem is that religion has been mingled with politics and we have even a “Supreme Court” using religion as a matter if law, as well as many corrupt politicians using also religion to manipulate their congregations into voting for candidates who actually do thing in detriment if the same voter who helped elected him. That is a real shame and a source of all kind of problems. Politics and religion should never be mixed.
I agree that the two shouldn't mix but it seems to be a nessasary evil if a religion wants to survive long term. I just watched a video about Manichaeism, which is a religion that was wiped out. It basically failed where other religions like Christianity, Buddhism ect. had succeeded; Manichaeism had tried to become a national religion but it never happened and was persecuted into oblivion. My explanation is rough and misses a few things, I'm sure but I just am reflecting that a religion might not survive if it is not adopted by a country.
Very informative! Being Jewish I tend to not think about the New Testament and it’s development at all, so I learned so much with this video! I don’t know if this fits within the scope of your channel, but I was wondering if you would consider creating a video on the spread of Christianity and how it became so popular. (This could possibly be followed up with a video on how Islam also spread and became so popular). ❤️ Best
Just a small correction: Griesbach would be pronounced like Greesbach. Greisbach = Grisbach Griesbach = Greesbach Great video though! Keep up the good work!
I appreciate you speaking about how Jesus cried out to the Father while on the Cross. It's overlooked by many but I view it as an extremely important part of the narrative that emphasizes the humanity of Jesus. I am not a fan of John as his theological points stray from this... but still wanted to just thank you for mentioning it.
So either John took some creative liberties to make Jesus more godlike and powerful, or the other three took liberties to make Jesus more human and relatable.
@Fateh Mammadli he's quoting psamls 22, in ancient times it was Jewish custom to only cite the 1st verse to quote the entire thing. Since chapters and verses were added later to help ppl in a more written culture, it was easier to do it that way.
@@raphchelly3413 Tell me, was Jesus quoting Psalms in Matthew 26:39 when he said, "O My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless not as I will, but as you will". This verse clearly shows Jesus struggling to accept his fate, revealing an aspect of his human nature. What you assert as being "my view" is substantiated by many verses in the gospels, such as the one I just quoted. The view of Jesus being human is also widely accepted in mainstream Christian theology. Why you are rejecting this, I am not sure.
Thank you for a clear and fair and sympathetic analysis of a subject that people can take very personally. As a Catholic Christian, I am really enjoying this series and feel that the history offers insights into the origin and roots of my faith.
This series is so interesting. I just watched episodes 1 - 5 back to back. It is time for a brain rest. I wish my Dad was still alive to watch your videos, although I think I hear the muffled rumblings of him turning over in his rest. He took the more literal side of the teachings, which is fine.
these episodes are very interesting. like listening a mystery case from detective. PS: Griesbach is supposed to be pronounced like Greezbach since he is german
Five years ago I was on the verge of throwing out all my religious books. Luckily I did not, mostly because I wanted to be able to refute religious people but I kept them nonetheless. I am grateful for all your hard work to make the development of scripture visible. I don't know what to do with spirituality in this stage but I hope it gets built up again to a point that I'm comfortable with. Maybe I get some understanding (back) of what the principle of a god might entail.
I would actually dive more into open philosophy like deistic approaches or debates about deities in a more generalized way instead of biased cultural ideas already poisoned with very specific traditions. The religious texts can be interesting, but more from an anthropological perspective. It is clearly menmade. And by men made I mean Males owning females as property most of the time.
This is a fun flick. Thanks for your use of "probably" and "possibly" throughout. This narrative (as do the Weisse's and Holtzmann's two-source hypothesis and Griesback's easily refuted Matthean priority voodoo) completely ignores the gospel development proposed by the 1st and 2nd century patristic writers (i.e., Papias' "Fragments" which ARE extant, Irenaeus, the Muratorion Canon, etc.). Shouldn't those closest to the original events be more credible and authoritative than those appearing 1800+ years after the events? Great vid; it should make viewers think about what they are watching.
Great video! I especially appreciated the distinction between how we view fiction and non-fiction and the way stories are told in the Old and New Testaments. Really makes sense.
In ACTS it ends with Paul still alive Tradition dates his death to 64 AD during a time of persecution, also not mentioned. If Acts was written after 70 AD, then Paul's death would have been big news and would have been referenced. Thus, it is more likely that Acts-Luke was composed before the Temple destruction. This also pushes the rest of the NT material further back in time.
I'm a Christian, a United Methodist, and I found this presentation very helpful. I will probably watch it again to internalize the information. I only found out recently that the people the Gospels were named after weren't the people who wrote them. That shook my faith but I settled down again and focused on the Good News itself. Your explanations gave me options of what to choose to believe. I love the Gospel of John because I really want to get to know Jesus better, even though I've been a Christian a long time. I want to read the Bible regularly. 😊
Hey. A great resource that looks at challenging things with compelling evidence for the validity of our faith is mike winger. I had my faith shaken before by things presented biasly from secular perspective as if there were no other sides and I’ve come out even stronger in my faith. Now I love learning about my faith and even things that at one point could have been scary because one my faith is so strong in Jesus and two there truly are answers.
At 3:40 is a blatant lie. The attributions have been with the texts from the very start of Christianity. The names we have are the names of the people who wrote them, as surely as we can know the name of anyone who wrote an ancient text.
Papias, Clement, Iranaeus, Melito, Eusebius for historical sources. Muratorian fragment, Codex Sianaiticus, Codex Sinaiticus, Ethiopian codices for archaeological sources. Can you produce a complete manuscript of any gospel that is introduced as anonymous? Is there anyone in the first or second century who questions the authorship as given by tradition?
At the Council of Nicaea 325CE, all, except a handful of people agreed on the doctrines and there was full consensus on the canon. Also, 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is *much older than the Gospels* and it shows that under Christians was a unanimous agreement on the fundamental doctrines of Jesus' resurrection. The text is stylistically written like a poem to help memorization, which is why Paul uses a different tense than he would usually.
Hi, I can't track down the video where you had shared a list of books. But only one of those was on audible - "The Lost Art of Scripture". I'm in LOVE with this book! That thing was PACKED with amazing info! Thank you so much for suggesting it. I now have to get it in physical form and probably a few more highlighters too, lol. The way she 'translates' history of scripture into left and right brain hemispheres and paints this exquisitely beautiful picture of a world of people discovering universal truths at different times by different means from different circumstances. Giving reverence to each.
This is a bit of a deep dive, but there’s a scholar called Bart D Ehrman who has specialised in the differences between the gospels textual variants worthwhile for any listeners who are interested. Extremely fascinating.
I'm glad you bring up Hellenistic Jews. I've had numerous people argue with me that John Mark wrote the gospel of Mark even though it was authored in Greek and John Mark probably didn't know Greek.
In Brian C Muraresku's book, The Immortality Key, he points out similarities between the book of John and stories associated with Dionysus in Greece. In particular the story of turning water into wine. He makes the argument that the book of John, which stands out from the synoptic gospels, does so in the spirit of reframing the Gospel narrative into one that Greeks would directly understand through their understanding of Dionysus. I'm curious if this theory has any standing in theological society?
People are always trying to undercut Christianity by saying that it just copied various pieces from Greek, Roman or other religions. But it isn't true (with the obvious exception of Judaism). It is probably true that some Romans thought that Christianity was just a Dionysus cult (cult in this sense not having today's negative connotation), but they also thought that they might be cannibals, because the Eucharist is the "body of Christ." Well, according to Catholics that's even true! But Christians were obviously never either cannibals or a cult of Dionysus. The Gospel most concerned with presenting the story to Greeks and Romans was Luke, not John. Luke reads like a biography and doesn't assume knowledge of Jewish culture and geography like Matthew. Mark reads like lecture notes, as if the reader is expected to already know the outline of the story. John also assumes the reader knows the story, but instead focuses on explaining salvation, the Trinity (sort of) and why Jesus isn't just a wandering preacher. It's important, but it's clearly not intended for any particular audience other than Christians in general.
The audience intended for John is likely Christians who identified as Jewish and were part of their local synagogues. John references the removal of Christians from synagogues. However, undoubtedly there is at least a modicum of influence. The cultures of the Mediterranean, especially during the Roman Empire, influenced each other due to to interconnectedness of the region.
Muraresku effort to draw connection to early Christianity in the book is quiet a stretch honestly. I recommend Nathan Nadeau article "Eleusinian Mysteries, Eucharistic Myths: Problems for B Muraresku's Immortality Key", 2021.
Former Episcopal Deacon here, so all of this is great to see especially on this platform. I am exploring Christianity without religion. God is God it may not matter two hoots what I believe but it does matter what I do. Do to others as you would have them do to you. That is teaching I try to remember. The other one I like is..."you know what?, I could be wrong."
I love studying the New Testament and especially the Gospels, Acts and Epistles. Maybe you can cover the other New Testament Apocrypha, like Judas and 1 and 2 Clement?
I still think what we learnt from the early church fathers is the best info. The correct order, Matthew, Mark, Luke/Acts and John. The correct authors, they never disagreed on the authors, and all manuscripts have the titles on them with the correct author. There early, why because Luke mentions in his intro that he is using eyewitness sources, and who does he quote from Matthew and Mark. Here’s the kicker, Paul who’s letters are dated in the 50’s quotes from Luke twice ( in Acts the author is a companion to Paul on his journeys), even calling it scripture. So this puts Luke, Mark and Matthew quite early. also The book of Acts doesn’t mention Paul’s death, Peter’s death, James the brother of Jesus’ death as Josephus does and that happened in 62 A.D, but Luke doesn’t record the fall of Jerusalem a huge event. Why not record this event as a fulfilled prophecy as he did on another occasion in Acts. Simply because it hadn’t happened yet. With John it’s just simply a case of (as Eusebius the church historian makes a point of) he was given the three gospels and gave of their approval. He most likely didn’t want to repeat the same story again so he filled in the missing details. Take for example the sign on the cross of Jesus. Really the modern scholars probably should give the original history of the New Testament another look, because it’s the true story and most simple explanation for the New Testament.
I think some main issues are: - the incredibly abrupt ending of Acts - the many signs of eyewitness testimony and other signs of authenticity And scholars assuming naturalism when they say that the second temple being destroyed wasnt actually prophesied.
thanks for commenting this, i got to the part where he dated them and was like hold on this isnt right 😂 appreciate you putting in the effort for what’s true, god bless
@@bensicilia9539 yessir, no problem bro. Lotta good content like this on YT that goes into more detail. Lydia McGrew, Testify, and InspiringPhilosophy are my favs
Great video! I'm sure you have a lot of video ideas, but I think it would be cool to take a look at the chronological ministry of Yeshua. I know the common narrative is that there was a three and a half year ministry, but I believe there is prophetic precedent set in Daniel 9:24-27* the ministry of Yeshua was 70 weeks+. It would be interesting to see you do a layout of the two positions and see which one makes the most sense biblically, prophetically, and realistically. *You do have to do some gymnastics to make it fit perfectly, but if you think about most of the book of Daniel, the time frames are not clearly laid out. I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say that 3 time periods mentioned (7 weeks, 62 weeks and 1 week) aren't listed in the correct chronological ordered during the prophecy. +This theory does hinge on a mis-interpretation early on in the copying of the bible. This occurred at John 6:4. The verse today mentions Passover which, in context to the rest of John 6, makes no sense. It is believed that one of the earlier manuscripts of John said something a long the lines of "the high feast of the Jews was nigh." with no mention of Passover, this was an interpretation by a non Jewish scribe. If this interpretation is removed and replace with either the feast of Trumpets or Tabernacles you have a nice 62 weeks ministry from the baptism of Yeshua to his entry into Jerusalem (on the 1st day) before Passover. Next you have the week where the anointed one makes a strong covenant (the hebrew letter Tav had the proto-hebrew symbol of crossed sticks or a cross, and represented a sign or covenant) . On the 3rd day, Wednesday instead of the common Friday, Yeshua was crucified and rose 3 days and nights later at the beginning of the 1st day [exactly 1 week]. Now we can go back to the first time period of 7 weeks mentioned in the prophecy of Daniel, this is the period between the resurrection and Pentecost, where the holy spirit was given to the Apostles. This make the Ministry from the Baptism to the Coming of the Spirit exactly 70 weeks.
Excellent as always. Received some great Teaching with some things that I thought or knew. The Q Source is a new teaching. Although I have read/heard that the Authors were not the authors, I liked your description of the different Communities that developed out of their ministries. The best and most simple explanation of the hypothesis and different theologies or communities: Thomasine, Johannine, Edionite, Docetist, Arian and Marcionist are great. I've studied much on Marcion from Rome. Viewed the collaborate on Gospels. On to # 6. Thanks, and God Bless. "Shalom".
you should watch acts 17 apologetics and pfander films and dcci ministries and Christian prince and cira international and shamounian and soco films on TH-cam and watch all the channels on TH-cam Santos 😀😀😀
I like the way you present these videos, you have and objective perspective, i went to an inter-denominational bible college in the late 1990's, they presented the classes this way, and you remind me of that
This is good information! It's important to know, whether you believe in a god or not. You have to understand what you are looking at, in order to make an informed decision. I don't understand why we haven't found anything of Q or the other possible references since we have books that have survived a lot longer. I think you did a great job of being non-biased in your presentation, and appreciate that you did so. I, myself, have been an atheist for 40+ years now, but I still look for a deeper understanding when new evidence may arise. I was aware of this information from multiple other sources, but your charts and timelines help put it in easier way to understand. Thank you!
Unless Monks took the time to copy and recopy a book it has not come down to us (except for a small handful we find buried in the desert that manages to survive by phenomenal luck (or divine intervention if your belief system tilts that way). The fact that Papias does not make the cut is pretty surprising but it is also important to recognize that natural disasters, wars and famine could effect the monks as well and if their temple got burned down any copies they might have made went with it.
@@JeremyMacDonald1973 I can see that. I know the Romans destroyed as many of the other books as they could find, but you would think that someone, somewhere saved them. Hell, for all we know, the Catholic church has them all, but won't share because it would make them look worse than they are. It doesn't matter to my life, one way or the other, but I like to understand things as best as I can.
@@perplexedpapa History is usually more complicated. The Romans (the early Christians were Romans themselves) didn't necessarily destroy books voluntarily. A general rule of thumb when it comes to Antiquity is that of all the books that were written, we know of only c. 10% of them that they existed. And of only 10% of those we have actually some extant text, often just single sentences or a few words cited elsewhere. And that includes non-Christian books as well. The actual numbers are probably off by quite a bit, but as a general guideline to how much we have lost, it's useful to keep in mind. The survival of texts from Antiquity is more often than not purely luck-based. That a book was written by someone famous, or about something important, does not mean it should have survived. No, the Catholic Church doesn't have them, either, unfortunately.
Honestly, 70 years past someone's death to know them seems like a bit of a stretch. It would mean 80+ year old person. Their memories from when they were 10 would be unreliable at best.
@@grantexploit5903 No one reliable ever wrote of Jesus during his supposed “life”, while many other claimed messiahs were during this same time period.
@@grantexploit5903 So what you are saying is you favor possibility over probability. You favor the lest likely over the most likely. As a result, you are arguing for a predetermined outcome, instead of following all the information and going wherever the information takes you. Magic and miracles are the least likely reason for any outcome, in the case of Jesus, the outcome is story. In this case, there is only one religious story that is true, Jesus, and all others are false gods. There are too many mental gymnastics going on to argue Jesus is historical. The Gospels are anonymous, non-eyewitness, topological and allegorical literature, and the writers of the Gospels sure do know all about the astronomy of the Galactic Alignment that we call December 21st, 2012, or Dec. 25th in the Julian Calendar.
The earliest mentions we have of Jewish are going back to the 40's so it's more a matter of 5-10 years that 40. Add to that the fact that we are now in a written culture but at that time they were in an oral culture, their memories would've been better that ours when you can check anything from the internet or books very easily. John was known for living to a very old age, he's referred as John the Elder in the writings of the Church fathers.
@@ivermectin7928 yes no one wrote during his life because at the time oral transmission through an unbroken chain of witnesses would've been more authoritative than a book. When the apostles got old and close to death it made sense for them to write it down since after their death ppl would not be able to go back and check with them the oral tradition they heard. You having 21th century expectations for the 1st century is ridiculous. And you mention other "Messiah" but when are the 1st mentions of their life we have?
As someone who isn't religious at all, I find this very fascinating. Hope that more texts will be find in the future that will shed light to the synoptic problem.
Interesting as always and glad, you mentioned the non-canon gospels, people tend to forget it was choice which they took. Wish we could know why they decided how they did.
Well, we know some of the reasons given by the first person to call them by those names (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) and decide that there had to be four of them. _"It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, ... "_ - Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 11, Section 8) Those grossly ignorant and superstitious people believed that the Phoenix Bird (that mythological animal in Harry Potter) was a real animal.
It was most likely a matter of Darwinian selection. Those gospels that; (i) were understood to be written by disciples or other intimates of Jesus; and (ii) expressed a theological tone consistent with the then-developing theology of the early church; were more favored and copied and read more often that other gospels. Copying a gospel was an expensive and time-consuming task, not something undertaken lightly. So, the more popular texts, gradually, over the decades, assumed a kind of de facto prominence and hence, ultimately ended up in the Canon. But, the idea that gospels or their authors were "competing" for a place in the Christian Bible, is nonsense. The Christian Bible did not exist until hundreds of years after the gospels, canonical and non-canonical, were written. There was nothing for the authors to "compete" for.
Because the apostles confirmed the gospels that were true and those that weren’t, and then the majority of non-canon gospels surfaced after their deaths.
@@enriquepenanieto4398 Who told you those things? You seem to be unaware that the four gospels are anonymous and that the first complete list of the 27 books that now appear in the New Testament was in the year 367.
My favorite book is probably Ezekiel or Isaiah based purely on how insane the imagery is, and my favorite adaptations are The Prince of Egypt and Jesus Christ Superstar
Im moslim and all this is new data for me but in a way its makes sens and confirms the islamic narrative about Jesus, early Christianity and Judaism... Good job
Judge: Bring on the eyewitnesses! Lawyer: Ehm well I've got a guy who claims he knew a guy who claimed he knew a guy who claimed he knew a guy who once told him this interesting story about a guy he claimed he knew Judge: That's good enough for me!
@@SusRing my friend's friend's cousin's dreams are way more believable though 😋 and we all come in peace with nuclear weapons aimed at your children's hospitals
A number of scholars are now turning to the idea that Luke references both the War of the Jews as well as Antiquities of the Jews and are now dating Luke/Acts at around early second century and John a bit after that.
Matt Baker is wrong here about the oldest editions of the Gospel of Mark, since Irenaeus in 168 A.D. quoted directly from Mark 16:19, 100 years before the record of Mark mentioned in the video.
Mark (and the other gospels) speak about the exorcism of the pigs - Jesus casting out demons and sending them into pigs, which ran over a cliff into the sea Genezareth. The Gospels use different names for the place where this occurred: Matthew 8: 28 ... the country of the Gadarenes. Mark 5: 1 .the country of the Ger’asenes. (als Luke 8: 26 ) Interesting is now that the roman legion of that occupation symbol a pig was actually at Genezareth sea located a bit moved from the main control city matching the jewish war as task location. This let some scholars now conclude the author of mark must have been informed by the movements of the "pig legion" position, which is during the Jewish war.
For me, the Gospel is split between Matthew for the plot and John for the themes. *Matthew* is the quintessential Jesus story, well balanced between theology and events, includes plenty but well paced and focused. *Luke* is to Matthew what Chronicles is to Kings; same story, but it reads like a bullet summary of events with little thematic threads or pacing to tie it all together; all events but no narrative. *Mark* is the stubby TV edit of Matthew. And then there's *John,* which is laser focused on highlighting the spiritual journey and context of Jesus without paying much regard to the specific events or timelines. Little plot, all theme and character. John is very much a character study and commentary to add depth to the basic events we've already heard. Rather than going over the birth and all that, he instead begins with the beginning of time and what God wanted for us, and then immediately jumps to John the Baptist being a precursor to Jesus' movement, skipping the birth story because Jesus' baptism is where he actually joins the story. My guess is Mark is the serviceable original, Luke is the mega-extended version with all the bonus material, Matthew is the more methodical remake that ties it all together but remembers to tell a story, and then John is the one made years later by an auteur who ignores history and audience expectation and is like "this story isn't about you, it's about God." and does its own thing.
John is pagan nonsense that got added to sell out to people who couldn’t get over the concept of one god, so they sold out and created a semi polytheistic Hellenize demigod Jesus that acts like a myth character The local Gentiles would’ve been familiar with from their Olympus theology.
can you make a video about the stories that weren´t included in the bible but were considered during the creation of the modern version? Or lost texts like Q and Papias?
Knew they weren't written by the named authors ("probably") but didn't know they were then more likely attached to communities associated with those people. Actually brings back some of the 'legitimacy' the more basic understanding loses. Love it :)
UPDATE: A summary chart is now available: usefulcharts.com/collections/religion/products/timeline-of-the-bible
Complete Series:
1. Torah - th-cam.com/video/NY-l0X7yGY0/w-d-xo.html
2. Prophets - th-cam.com/video/IAIiLSMOg3Q/w-d-xo.html
3. Writings - th-cam.com/video/Oto0UvG6aVs/w-d-xo.html
4. Apocrypha - th-cam.com/video/HYlZk4Hv-E8/w-d-xo.html
5. Gospels & Acts - th-cam.com/video/Z6PrrnhAKFQ/w-d-xo.html
6. Epistles - th-cam.com/video/2UMlUmlmMlo/w-d-xo.html
7. Daniel & Revelation - th-cam.com/video/fTURdV0c9J0/w-d-xo.html
8: Summary Chart - th-cam.com/video/9uIXzUEwrOg/w-d-xo.html
This series is fantastic, thank you for creating it.
I like how you *seriously* say : "Jesus was probably born in 4 *BCE* " 😂
How is that even possible ?
Or did the Holy Church gooffed up again ?
Interesting content. However the true authorship of the bible has been occulted (hidden).
I know you said you wouldn’t - but please please do a video on the apocrypha of the New Testament. This is a topic I have always been interested in and I’d love to better understand the historical understanding of some of these texts.
@@goofygrandlouis6296...?
“Jewishy”, Never thought I would hear that word lol.
Jewishish.
I just expected Jew-ish.
@@jvgreendarmok if you're only jewishish, you are not the jewishest person in the room
Does the Eye of the Sahara look like Atlantis to you?
@@gmxealot6236
Makes us all kinda Jewish huh
DUDE!!! I'm loving your respect and commitment to clearly talk about Theology! This is beautiful! Thanks for this vid!
I believe he's talking about religious studies, not theology, no?
@@urieldaboamorte Overall the episode is about History and more broadly Religious studies, but around the 11:30 mark he goes into what he means by the term Theology in reference to the Gospel of John. That was what impressed me. I feel sometime many people throw terms around without realizing that not everyone is familiar with them. I appreciate the breaking down the meaning in order to demystify the term. (Pardon the confusion)
As a Jew who has never learnt about the New Testament properly before, this video is exceptional, clear, and informative! Thank you Matt!
hahah
Stop stealing all my money pls
As a Christian, even if you don't believe in It's legitimacy I appreciate non-Christians learning about the story of Jesus and his apostles
Have you tired readying the Gospel? Great read regardless of your identity
Funny enough, Religion For Breakfast popped up in my TH-cam feed because I'd watched so much UsefulCharts and I became a big fan of his content. I felt sad that y'all had never collaborated. Glad you have now!
Funnily enough it’s the other way round for me.
As always with the videos dealing with religion, I'm amazed at how well this channel balances western science with the various belief systems. It's respectful to all, catering to both believers and non-believers while still not being watered down. Even for non-believers, the jewish and christian theology influence us all in the western world. Looking forward to future episodes!
what the hell is western science
@@Phlegethon Science like Algebra, Geometry, Calculus, Physics and so on.
@@VSP4591 you do know that algebra is created by a persian guy name al-Khwarizmi’s who the word algorithm name after right , and geometry, calculus, physics all independent develop around the world there is nothing call western science
@@quanghuyvo6112 Dear Quang, I do know that some random discoveries in science were made in India, China, Persia etc. The real development in science was recorded in Europe starting with 15th century. The most mathematicians, physicists, biologist that mattered are from Europe. All important discoveries in mathematics were made systematically in Europe meaning that a discovery in one place was continued by a scientist in other European country. This you may find looking for discoveries in science and you may found a majority in Europe and some in other parts of the world. This is a pure statistical approach and we do not contradict this.
@@VSP4591 eh, yes and no. For one, "western science" would be more accurately described as the body of philosophies that revolve around naturalism and empiricism to shape our understanding of the world. Though, truth be told, there's nothing western about the scientific revolution that started in 15th century, as it was fueled just as much by Middle Eastern ideas and technology as it was by rediscovering Roman and Greek ideas. And quite frankly, European scholarship would not begin to surpass Middle Eastern and Chinese scholarship until the end of the 17th century. Even at that, the supremacy of European scholarship would only last 3 more centuries before Europe's influence on the world would diffuse its role in driving innovation.
As a christian who actually likes both knowing the traditional way of viewing the Bible as well as the more critical and historical way I just want to say good job.
I always enjoy taking a critical eye to the history of it just to know how things might have happened. I think you hit the nail on the head about what caused the split between Christian theology and Rabbinical Theology, I'm pretty sure the traditional view is that the Gospels were written expressly because the temple was destroyed and people were forced to adapt to the situation.
Already know👀
The synoptics and Acts where most likely written prior to the destruction of the temple
@@austinapologetics2023 Where are any of the original documents? When did Christians first realize they were missing? Who was the last person known to have handled them? How and why were they disposed? What year? What century? Why does no one have a clue?
Every cathedral in medieval Europe had a torture chamber because that’s where faith comes from.
@@charlesbrowne9590 we don't know where the original documents are because we don't know where the original documents to any ancient text are. The idea that we don't have the originals may seem convincing on the surface but if it is used against the New Testament then it can be used against everything ever written from that time period and beyond.
The reason the synoptics and Acts most likely predate the destruction of Jerusalem is because Acts concludes with Paul still alive despite spending a quarter of the book building up to his impending trial. Paul died prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and considering the synoptics predate Acts and Acts predates Paul's death and Paul's death predates the destruction of Jerusalem then it seems logical that these four books predate this event. There are other lines of evidence but this is just one.
@@austinapologetics2023 We have the Dead Sea Scrolls. We have the Nag Hamadi library. The oldest extant NT dates from the fourth century, which means it has survived sixteen centuries. We do not have originals from Homer or the original Koran. Homer is not a problem because no one claims divine authorship for it.
Is God’s forgiveness a license to sin?
I'm atheist and am thoroughly enjoying your presentations. I keep finding little moments of surprise. Keep it up !
Matt, your erudition on this subject is a treasure.
I'm really not surprised that it's possible an omnipotent entity from Star Trek has such a fundamental role in the development of the Bible. Q just can't leave well enough alone.
Yup that makes sense 🤔🖖
But of course Trek documents Q's future work. In the present he mostly creates gadgets for James Bond.
I highly doubt that the Q source existed, but it stands for Quelle, the german word for "source". In the end it is all made up fairy tales anyway so let's go with Q from Star Trek, would be a more interesting plot twist.
@@williamwatson4354 He also creates right wing conspiracy theories. Q gets around.
And now he is misleading republicans on Facebook
I majored in Religion 20 years ago, and it is nice to see some new theories. I can from Religion for Breakfast, and your channel also does a god job of explaining things. At let me say, your respect for different religions and your giving your own biases, and your understanding of faith and evidence is a wonderful breath of fresh air to me, who also is religious but interested in evidence and what it means. Excellent channel, I am excited to watch more. Good work!
Interestingly the historical critical academic view on the bible texts gave me more trust into what Jesus really meant with a kingdom of god that is to come but is actually within us.
Scientific work in the texts aren’t against faith at all. It shows that faith isn’t anything that relies on accuracy but on personally beeing hit by the content it says about mankind and what you can’t see. Even as an atheist it can be valuable to think about concepts of loving of enemies for instance.
People claim often they can only believe in what can be seen or measured. They say they believe in the “common sense”. Isn’t “common sense” also just a concept what nobody is able to show (besides making brains 🧠 pictures with MR or Computer Tomography)? What is “Love” sung by every artist if not only a valuable concept?
Just taking a wild guess, but I'll bet your teachers neglected to mention how the Bible was hijacked and corrupted
by the Roman Emperor Constantine and his Council of Bishops to align with their violent, hedonistic lifestyle of flesh-eating and replacing reincarnation with eternal damnation after just one life.
Or how the "Apostle" Paul in the New Testament was an infiltrator and referred to as The Deceiver and a liar by the Nazarenes. Thomas Jefferson even said "Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus."
_“... your channel also does a god job of explaining things...”_
I see what you did there.
@@TheJulietteCharlie😂no
your videos have consistently brought the human aspect back to religion, and that has greatly increased my respect for it as a human tradition subject to human flaws
I’m Christian, and this is very intriguing. Love that word “Jewishy”!
I was surprised when my American religions textbook used the word "Judaisms," the plural of "Judaism." Like, "there are many different Judaisms in America." I still haven't seen that anywhere else.
EDIT: It was written by Neusner, who I guess is a real fan of that term, because he wrote two more books about it.
Which also implies some things are more "Jewishy" than others- "Jewishier", and that something could be the most "Jewishy"- "Jewishiest"! Gotta love the English language!
It seems like the word meaning "Jewishy" would just be "Jewish," wouldn't it? Or maybe "Jewishish" XD
@@fluffysheap wasn't there a comedian who used that as a joke about how noncommittal Jewish people are, ie. "are you a Jew?" "well... I'm Jew-ish..."
Thank you, President Grover Cleveland
The very first thing I appreciate about these videos is the solid critical thinking. Kudos to you!
Matthew for jews
Luke for greeks
Mark for romans
John for philosophers
It must be like juggling chainsaws dealing with all this information whilst being cautious of everyone on TH-cam's individual theological peccadilloes. Amazing!
I'm honestly of the opinion that it doesn't really matter which one was written first, and that all three synoptics may have even been written around the same time. Much of the differences can be attributed to the audiences that they were intended for more than anything. Matthew's Gospel was written for Jews. As such, he portrays Jesus as a second Moses (the core of Matthew's Gospel can be broken into 5 parts of miracle working/narrative followed by long speeches). Mark's Gospel was written for Romans - and was written in a very quick, easy to read format that was popular in Rome. It portrays Jesus primarily as a miracle worker. And Luke's Gospel was written for Greeks - but also emphasized Jesus's care for the outcast, focusing on the universality of the Gospel. John's Gospel is the heresy-killer. And was written as such. The other Gospels are ambiguous as to what is meant by Jesus being the "Son of God". But John's Gospel leaves no doubt - Jesus has existed eternally as the eternal Word, became truly human, and yet always knew that He was also divine. The reason why John's Gospel does not have the same miracles as the synoptics and shows Jesus differently has to do with the fact that the synoptics were written primarily for evangelization - that is, spreading the Christian message itself. But the Gospel of John was used to teach catechumens (that is, people preparing to become Christians) the deeper mysteries of faith and to fight heresies that had cropped up.
they are all nonsense...hope this helps
@@paulrichards6894 that's a very non-scholarly way of thinking.
@@Carlos-ln8fd all the stories about jesus in marks gospel can be found in the OT...that's just the most massive coincidence of all time or he just had the OT in front of him when he constructed his narrative...whats more likely...take your time...shouldn't take you long
@@paulrichards6894 no? i mean- there are things later christians projected on to the new testament, but jews see nothing related to Jesus in the OT. In the scholarly view its most likely that later christians projected these prophecies onto the new testament. Almost all scholars agree that while we cant know much about his life, he was a man, probably a gallalian jew in historical palestine, and he was probably crusified.
@@paulrichards6894 so your saying the Old Testament was correct in its prophecies?
Why are events (Jesus’ crucifixion, empty tomb, three hours of darkness, his miracles) and over 30 figures found in secular sources ?
This is seriously fascinating, thanks for all the work you put in to make this and the other videos in this series, it is a topic I've been interested in for a long time but it is hard to parse through and understand the complexity and you do such a great job of presenting it ! Would LOVE to see a video in the future on the canonization process of the Bible, if that info is even out there.
I love this series. And I’m disturbed by how fast the last month passed.
If you live a long time, as I hope you do, you’ll find they all do that…
Definitely. When the first one came out, I was thinking “December is so long from now. I can’t wait for the last episode” and what feels like days later it’s now September…
I love hearing about the bible, so heartwarming, so caring and loving.. So love it to learn the bible.. Thanks for the Info Matt!
If I recall correctly, the traditional order of the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) predates the theory that they must have been written in that order. I think the early church fathers assumed they were written in that order because they had always been arranged in that order, not the other way around.
10:42 Are you familiar with the idea that the three Synoptic Gospels represent differing positions on a fundamental issue that challenged the early christian church: do you have to be Jewish to be christian? Mark, wanting to spread the message far and wide, says here is the good news, and no, you don't have to become circumcised to join the club. Matthew, being traditional, responds saying here is the good news, but yes, you do have to be circumcised to join the club. Luke responds to the growing schism by saying, look, can't we all just be friends, here's the good news, but out the corner of his mouth, says you don't have to be circumcised.
When I was studying the NT, I learned a similar version of this idea, but in the case of Luke it was directly aimed at the persecutors of Christians, humanizing them and making it clear that they were not a threat to the order of society.
I doubt it. It's more likely that Matthew was intended for a Jewish audience, and Luke was intended for a Gentile audience. (And Mark wasn't intended for anyone in particular).
The question had been settled by the time Luke was written, and probably by the time Mark and Matthew were written. The Council of Jerusalem which addressed the issue was probably in 48, and Paul's letters on the topic were in the 50s, and hardly anyone thinks the Gospels were written that early.
they in turn went to Peter and Apostles, who decided no on circumcision, voila the the first Council
It isn't just about the authors giving a message to their groups. It is also about how the authors were influenced by the groups they were in.
@@fluffysheap Mathew for the Jews
Mark for the Romans
Luke for the Greeks
John for Everyone
If I remember correctly
Such a clear and engaging overview-- as usual! Thank you so much for mentioning the apocryphal gospels and multiple early Christianities. While it would be nice to see you present a fuller exposition of New Testament Apocrypha, I know you have a lot of other subjects to cover and completely understand why you wouldn't get too deep into that niche topic.
Thank you for this video, especially for the discussion of theological versus strictly historical writing. I've been trying to figure out how to balance faith with a more historical/archaeological understanding of events, and this really clarified things for me!
In a rather funny way, his videos have brought me close to religion than any preacher could.
We've got John this week, next time we'll get Paul. Waiting for George and Ringo!
Ringo is actually Richard, or Dick.
I suspect the Gospel of George would be a bit somber. But, I would love a Gospel of Ringo! I imagine the Gospel of Ringo to be like the story of Jesus meets the movie "Yellow Submarine".
The religion videos from UsefulCharts and and Religion for Breakfast have instantly become videos that I click instantly upon seeing and watch several times. I never could have seen that coming.
I am now non religious but, as almost every Italian, I was raised as a catholic which makes this video so interesting for me! Thank you! Looking forward to the next one :)
@IIOO
He’s just another door to door salesman trying to sell an encyclopaedia set.
This series is such a a blessing for me that I'm passing it on to others...it's short, sweet and to the point...may God keep blessing you 🙏✌️😁
Ohhhh so I was familiar with the "doubting Thomas" part of the Bible but it's interesting to know it might have represented a conflict between two Christian Schools
There are subtle references to different communities throughout early Christian literature, but no one ever clearly wrote down what sort of arguments were being had. It's really interesting!
I know it was probably a lot less fun at the time, but I love the idea of a bunch of really pissy scholars shading each other's views by rewriting each other's favourite disciples as wankers in their own theology. It makes me think of Team Edward vs Team Jacob - heresies as a fandom war.
It reminds me a lot of someone's passive-aggressive diatribe where they're "finally addressing all the concerns", and even though you don't know who exactly they're pissed at or for what reason, their weird need to EMPHASIZE certain otherwise minor details over and over gives you a pretty good sense of where the points of contention are
@@z-beeblebrox the conflict between the various factions of Christianity was very aggressive, not passive aggressive, which is why most of the original diversity of the religion was wiped out and the alternative scriptures were found by chance rather than being present in Europe's ancient libraries.
The Thomas faction was so unwelcome that it was driven to India, being the only native form of Christianity in India before colonialism.
@@sentientflower7891 yeah I should clarify, this comes from what I remember of scripture and *not* my impression of how they behaved irl
I appreciate the use of graphics SO SO MUCH. Visuals help me understand so much more. As opposed to words and concepts that float around without a framework to imagine them on
I’m a secular non-believer, but I love this stuff. Thanks for the great series
I can't thank you enough for making these videos! I was raised in a Biblical literalist family and a church but I have since stepped away and no longer believe in god at all. One of the hardest parts of this transition has been trying to reconcile all of the traditional church interpretations of the Bible with actual history. I didn't even know how to start deconstructing that part of my old faith until the first video in this series came up in my recommendations. These videos have given me so much peace.
When I was taught about the history of Christianity there was the Bible (which was 100% true history), then a brief mention of Constantine converting, then Martin Luther, and then Billy Graham. The hundreds of years between these men were just glossed over. Without this sort of history and scholarship, it is impossible to understand the real evolution of the Christian faith.
Thank you again for all of the work you put into these videos! I, for one, am a better and stronger person because of them!
But nothing in the New Testament has been proven untrue, as in people, events, places. It’s been proven a very trustworthy historical work.
@@farmercraig6080 The census of Quirinius took place a decade after Herod died, and did not require anyone to travel.
@@MWSin1 The census which Luke wrote about is one example of a time when Luke was thought to have entirely missed the boat in events he portrayed as surrounding the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:1-3) Critics argued that there was no census, that Quirinius was not governor of Syria at that time and that everyone did not have to return to his ancestral home.
First of all, archaeological discoveries show that the Romans had a regular enrolment of taxpayers and also held census every 14 years. This procedure was indeed begun under Augustus. A Papyrus found in Egypt gives directions for the conducting of a census. It read: "Because of the approaching census it is necessary that all those residing for any cause away from their homes should at once prepare to return to their own governments in order that they may complete the family registration of enrolment…"
Second, we find evidence that Quirinius was governor of Syria around 7 BC. This assumption is based on an inscription found in Antioch ascribing Quirinius this post. As a result of this finding, it is now supposed that he was governor twice - once in 7 BC and the other time in 6 AD, that date Josephus ascribed.
Specially since both Josephus and Luke mention the census in 6 A.D, but Luke says of the census at Jesus’ birth was the first census that took place while governor (Luke 2:2), so Luke acknowledges the other census of Quirinius in 6 A.D (Acts 5:37).
@@farmercraig6080 I've never heard any of that before. Quirinius was, as far as everything I've ever read, serving as legate in Galatia until about 1 BCE, then Gaius Julius' tutor until 4 CE, and then Governor of Syria from 6 CE to oversee the integration of Judea, which wasn't even made a part of Syria or taxed by Rome until Herod the Great's son Herod Archelaus was deposed.
@@MWSin1 In his book, Was Christ Born At Bethlehem, Sir William Ramsay noted, “The only certain dates in the life of Quirinius are his consulship in B.C. 12, his second government of Syria beginning in A.D. 6, and his prosecution of his former wife, Domitia Lepida in A.D. 20 and his death and public funeral in A.D. 21."
In the years since he penned those words, no significant discovery has been made that positively dates other events in Quirinius’s life. The only other major event that is know is his role in Syria leading the war against the Homonadenses sometime between 12 BC and 6 AD. Beyond various theories, we cannot even say with certainty the exact year this took place. The fact is, that much of what is known about Quirinius’s life around the time of Christ’s birth is unknown.
In addition, historical sources indicate that Quirinius was favored by Augustus, and was in active service of the emperor in the vicinity of Syria previous to and during the time period that Jesus was born. It is reasonable to conclude that Quirinius could have been appointed by Caesar to instigate a census-enrollment during that time frame, and his competent execution of such could have earned for him a repeat appointment for the A.D. 6/7 census
The videos are wonderfully made! Such a warm, friendly style to break down complex information! Keep up the great work!
I love it when you introduce your topic and end it. You are objective not biased.
Thanks for your work.
Teaching without preaching. Excellent 👏
This is another excellent vido of the series “who wrote the Bible”, and will be waiting fir the rest of them. They are very well described and developed. I’ve read many books about the subject, and this video is a great summary of what scholars thing about this subject.
Now, people can believe what they want. The problem is that religion has been mingled with politics and we have even a “Supreme Court” using religion as a matter if law, as well as many corrupt politicians using also religion to manipulate their congregations into voting for candidates who actually do thing in detriment if the same voter who helped elected him. That is a real shame and a source of all kind of problems.
Politics and religion should never be mixed.
I agree that the two shouldn't mix but it seems to be a nessasary evil if a religion wants to survive long term. I just watched a video about Manichaeism, which is a religion that was wiped out. It basically failed where other religions like Christianity, Buddhism ect. had succeeded; Manichaeism had tried to become a national religion but it never happened and was persecuted into oblivion.
My explanation is rough and misses a few things, I'm sure but I just am reflecting that a religion might not survive if it is not adopted by a country.
Very informative! Being Jewish I tend to not think about the New Testament and it’s development at all, so I learned so much with this video!
I don’t know if this fits within the scope of your channel, but I was wondering if you would consider creating a video on the spread of Christianity and how it became so popular. (This could possibly be followed up with a video on how Islam also spread and became so popular).
❤️ Best
Christianity: politics
Islam: commerce
Just a small correction: Griesbach would be pronounced like Greesbach.
Greisbach = Grisbach
Griesbach = Greesbach
Great video though! Keep up the good work!
Klugscheißer 😜
I appreciate you speaking about how Jesus cried out to the Father while on the Cross. It's overlooked by many but I view it as an extremely important part of the narrative that emphasizes the humanity of Jesus. I am not a fan of John as his theological points stray from this... but still wanted to just thank you for mentioning it.
So either John took some creative liberties to make Jesus more godlike and powerful, or the other three took liberties to make Jesus more human and relatable.
@Fateh Mammadli That's Psalms 22:1
The fact that he mentions psaml 22 shows humanity to you? Is that the case each time Jesus quotes from the OT or just this one bc it's fits your view?
@Fateh Mammadli he's quoting psamls 22, in ancient times it was Jewish custom to only cite the 1st verse to quote the entire thing. Since chapters and verses were added later to help ppl in a more written culture, it was easier to do it that way.
@@raphchelly3413 Tell me, was Jesus quoting Psalms in Matthew 26:39 when he said, "O My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless not as I will, but as you will". This verse clearly shows Jesus struggling to accept his fate, revealing an aspect of his human nature. What you assert as being "my view" is substantiated by many verses in the gospels, such as the one I just quoted. The view of Jesus being human is also widely accepted in mainstream Christian theology. Why you are rejecting this, I am not sure.
This is a fascinating series. I thought I knew a fair bit about the Gospels, but this vid is adding so much more.
Thank you for a clear and fair and sympathetic analysis of a subject that people can take very personally.
As a Catholic Christian, I am really enjoying this series and feel that the history offers insights into the origin and roots of my faith.
This series is so interesting. I just watched episodes 1 - 5 back to back. It is time for a brain rest. I wish my Dad was still alive to watch your videos, although I think I hear the muffled rumblings of him turning over in his rest. He took the more literal side of the teachings, which is fine.
these episodes are very interesting. like listening a mystery case from detective.
PS: Griesbach is supposed to be pronounced like Greezbach since he is german
yes or just like the english word "grease"
Speaking as a Giesbrecht, I concur.
I was 5 years old when my Grandma Mildred died. I never knew my Grama Mildred. I have memories of my Grandmother Mildred.
I don’t know what your plans are after this series, but I would love to see videos on later Christiogical controversies and the ecumenical councils
Seriously you are amazing putting all of this information together. Thank you!
Five years ago I was on the verge of throwing out all my religious books. Luckily I did not, mostly because I wanted to be able to refute religious people but I kept them nonetheless. I am grateful for all your hard work to make the development of scripture visible. I don't know what to do with spirituality in this stage but I hope it gets built up again to a point that I'm comfortable with. Maybe I get some understanding (back) of what the principle of a god might entail.
I would actually dive more into open philosophy like deistic approaches or debates about deities in a more generalized way instead of biased cultural ideas already poisoned with very specific traditions. The religious texts can be interesting, but more from an anthropological perspective. It is clearly menmade. And by men made I mean Males owning females as property most of the time.
Just gonna say, Religion For Breakfast is an EXCELLENT channel. was a fan of that before I found this series.
This is a fun flick. Thanks for your use of "probably" and "possibly" throughout. This narrative (as do the Weisse's and Holtzmann's two-source hypothesis and Griesback's easily refuted Matthean priority voodoo) completely ignores the gospel development proposed by the 1st and 2nd century patristic writers (i.e., Papias' "Fragments" which ARE extant, Irenaeus, the Muratorion Canon, etc.). Shouldn't those closest to the original events be more credible and authoritative than those appearing 1800+ years after the events? Great vid; it should make viewers think about what they are watching.
Great video! I especially appreciated the distinction between how we view fiction and non-fiction and the way stories are told in the Old and New Testaments. Really makes sense.
Damn you realise a video right as I'm going to bed. Gonna save this in watch later
In ACTS it ends with Paul still alive Tradition dates his death to 64 AD during a time of persecution, also not mentioned. If Acts was written after 70 AD, then Paul's death would have been big news and would have been referenced. Thus, it is more likely that Acts-Luke was composed before the Temple destruction. This also pushes the rest of the NT material further back in time.
I'm a Christian, a United Methodist, and I found this presentation very helpful. I will probably watch it again to internalize the information. I only found out recently that the people the Gospels were named after weren't the people who wrote them. That shook my faith but I settled down again and focused on the Good News itself. Your explanations gave me options of what to choose to believe. I love the Gospel of John because I really want to get to know Jesus better, even though I've been a Christian a long time. I want to read the Bible regularly. 😊
Hey. A great resource that looks at challenging things with compelling evidence for the validity of our faith is mike winger. I had my faith shaken before by things presented biasly from secular perspective as if there were no other sides and I’ve come out even stronger in my faith. Now I love learning about my faith and even things that at one point could have been scary because one my faith is so strong in Jesus and two there truly are answers.
At 3:40 is a blatant lie. The attributions have been with the texts from the very start of Christianity. The names we have are the names of the people who wrote them, as surely as we can know the name of anyone who wrote an ancient text.
@@coreygossman6243 What’s your source on that?
Papias, Clement, Iranaeus, Melito, Eusebius for historical sources. Muratorian fragment, Codex Sianaiticus, Codex Sinaiticus, Ethiopian codices for archaeological sources. Can you produce a complete manuscript of any gospel that is introduced as anonymous? Is there anyone in the first or second century who questions the authorship as given by tradition?
@@billyb7465 See reply
You are a total inspiration... thanks for all your hard work.
The congealment of the New Testament is, I think, one of the most interesting Biblical topics.
Favorite channel. Favorite series.
Lessgoooo I love this series
At the Council of Nicaea 325CE, all, except a handful of people agreed on the doctrines and there was full consensus on the canon.
Also, 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is *much older than the Gospels* and it shows that under Christians was a unanimous agreement on the fundamental doctrines of Jesus' resurrection.
The text is stylistically written like a poem to help memorization, which is why Paul uses a different tense than he would usually.
Love this series. It caters to both my love for science and my love for the biblical/ post biblical narrative.
Hi, I can't track down the video where you had shared a list of books. But only one of those was on audible - "The Lost Art of Scripture". I'm in LOVE with this book! That thing was PACKED with amazing info! Thank you so much for suggesting it. I now have to get it in physical form and probably a few more highlighters too, lol. The way she 'translates' history of scripture into left and right brain hemispheres and paints this exquisitely beautiful picture of a world of people discovering universal truths at different times by different means from different circumstances. Giving reverence to each.
This is a bit of a deep dive, but there’s a scholar
called Bart D Ehrman who has specialised in the differences between the gospels textual variants worthwhile for any listeners who are interested. Extremely fascinating.
I'm glad you bring up Hellenistic Jews. I've had numerous people argue with me that John Mark wrote the gospel of Mark even though it was authored in Greek and John Mark probably didn't know Greek.
In Brian C Muraresku's book, The Immortality Key, he points out similarities between the book of John and stories associated with Dionysus in Greece. In particular the story of turning water into wine.
He makes the argument that the book of John, which stands out from the synoptic gospels, does so in the spirit of reframing the Gospel narrative into one that Greeks would directly understand through their understanding of Dionysus.
I'm curious if this theory has any standing in theological society?
People are always trying to undercut Christianity by saying that it just copied various pieces from Greek, Roman or other religions. But it isn't true (with the obvious exception of Judaism).
It is probably true that some Romans thought that Christianity was just a Dionysus cult (cult in this sense not having today's negative connotation), but they also thought that they might be cannibals, because the Eucharist is the "body of Christ." Well, according to Catholics that's even true! But Christians were obviously never either cannibals or a cult of Dionysus.
The Gospel most concerned with presenting the story to Greeks and Romans was Luke, not John. Luke reads like a biography and doesn't assume knowledge of Jewish culture and geography like Matthew. Mark reads like lecture notes, as if the reader is expected to already know the outline of the story. John also assumes the reader knows the story, but instead focuses on explaining salvation, the Trinity (sort of) and why Jesus isn't just a wandering preacher. It's important, but it's clearly not intended for any particular audience other than Christians in general.
The audience intended for John is likely Christians who identified as Jewish and were part of their local synagogues. John references the removal of Christians from synagogues. However, undoubtedly there is at least a modicum of influence. The cultures of the Mediterranean, especially during the Roman Empire, influenced each other due to to interconnectedness of the region.
Muraresku effort to draw connection to early Christianity in the book is quiet a stretch honestly.
I recommend Nathan Nadeau article "Eleusinian Mysteries, Eucharistic Myths: Problems for B Muraresku's Immortality Key", 2021.
Former Episcopal Deacon here, so all of this is great to see especially on this platform. I am exploring Christianity without religion. God is God it may not matter two hoots what I believe but it does matter what I do. Do to others as you would have them do to you. That is teaching I try to remember. The other one I like is..."you know what?, I could be wrong."
I love studying the New Testament and especially the Gospels, Acts and Epistles. Maybe you can cover the other New Testament Apocrypha, like Judas and 1 and 2 Clement?
This is the best material I have come across.
I still think what we learnt from the early church fathers is the best info.
The correct order, Matthew, Mark, Luke/Acts and John.
The correct authors, they never disagreed on the authors, and all manuscripts have the titles on them with the correct author.
There early, why because Luke mentions in his intro that he is using eyewitness sources, and who does he quote from Matthew and Mark. Here’s the kicker, Paul who’s letters are dated in the 50’s quotes from Luke twice ( in Acts the author is a companion to Paul on his journeys), even calling it scripture. So this puts Luke, Mark and Matthew quite early. also The book of Acts doesn’t mention Paul’s death, Peter’s death, James the brother of Jesus’ death as Josephus does and that happened in 62 A.D, but Luke doesn’t record the fall of Jerusalem a huge event. Why not record this event as a fulfilled prophecy as he did on another occasion in Acts. Simply because it hadn’t happened yet.
With John it’s just simply a case of (as Eusebius the church historian makes a point of) he was given the three gospels and gave of their approval. He most likely didn’t want to repeat the same story again so he filled in the missing details. Take for example the sign on the cross of Jesus.
Really the modern scholars probably should give the original history of the New Testament another look, because it’s the true story and most simple explanation for the New Testament.
I think some main issues are:
- the incredibly abrupt ending of Acts
- the many signs of eyewitness testimony and other signs of authenticity
And scholars assuming naturalism when they say that the second temple being destroyed wasnt actually prophesied.
thanks for commenting this, i got to the part where he dated them and was like hold on this isnt right 😂 appreciate you putting in the effort for what’s true, god bless
@@bensicilia9539 yessir, no problem bro. Lotta good content like this on YT that goes into more detail. Lydia McGrew, Testify, and InspiringPhilosophy are my favs
Polycarp and St Ignatius also quote the gospels, both of them being disciples of John.
@@mikeprew hey that’s cool you follow testify. I follow him, he’s got some great content.
And thankyou , Your charts are a wonderful way of presenting information.
"the god of the bible may not be the god of the bible" never heard that idea summed up so succinctly, I love it
Gute Analyse und Übersicht. Danke
This is fantastic! His logic despite his faith is so impressive
For some reason the way that you described John’s depiction of the crucifixion is really funny to me
Great video! I'm sure you have a lot of video ideas, but I think it would be cool to take a look at the chronological ministry of Yeshua. I know the common narrative is that there was a three and a half year ministry, but I believe there is prophetic precedent set in Daniel 9:24-27* the ministry of Yeshua was 70 weeks+. It would be interesting to see you do a layout of the two positions and see which one makes the most sense biblically, prophetically, and realistically.
*You do have to do some gymnastics to make it fit perfectly, but if you think about most of the book of Daniel, the time frames are not clearly laid out. I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say that 3 time periods mentioned (7 weeks, 62 weeks and 1 week) aren't listed in the correct chronological ordered during the prophecy.
+This theory does hinge on a mis-interpretation early on in the copying of the bible. This occurred at John 6:4. The verse today mentions Passover which, in context to the rest of John 6, makes no sense. It is believed that one of the earlier manuscripts of John said something a long the lines of "the high feast of the Jews was nigh." with no mention of Passover, this was an interpretation by a non Jewish scribe. If this interpretation is removed and replace with either the feast of Trumpets or Tabernacles you have a nice 62 weeks ministry from the baptism of Yeshua to his entry into Jerusalem (on the 1st day) before Passover. Next you have the week where the anointed one makes a strong covenant (the hebrew letter Tav had the proto-hebrew symbol of crossed sticks or a cross, and represented a sign or covenant) . On the 3rd day, Wednesday instead of the common Friday, Yeshua was crucified and rose 3 days and nights later at the beginning of the 1st day [exactly 1 week]. Now we can go back to the first time period of 7 weeks mentioned in the prophecy of Daniel, this is the period between the resurrection and Pentecost, where the holy spirit was given to the Apostles. This make the Ministry from the Baptism to the Coming of the Spirit exactly 70 weeks.
Excellent as always. Received some great Teaching with some things that I thought or knew. The Q Source is a new teaching. Although I have read/heard that the Authors were not the authors, I liked your description of the different Communities that developed out of their ministries. The best and most simple explanation of the hypothesis and different theologies or communities: Thomasine, Johannine, Edionite, Docetist, Arian and Marcionist are great. I've studied much on Marcion from Rome. Viewed the collaborate on Gospels. On to # 6. Thanks, and God Bless. "Shalom".
Great video!! This different beliefs of early christianity is really interesting, please consider making more videos about that :)
you should watch acts 17 apologetics and pfander films and dcci ministries and Christian prince and cira international and shamounian and soco films on TH-cam and watch all the channels on TH-cam Santos 😀😀😀
I like the way you present these videos, you have and objective perspective, i went to an inter-denominational bible college in the late 1990's, they presented the classes this way, and you remind me of that
This is good information!
It's important to know, whether you believe in a god or not.
You have to understand what you are looking at, in order to make an informed decision.
I don't understand why we haven't found anything of Q or the other possible references since we have books that have survived a lot longer.
I think you did a great job of being non-biased in your presentation, and appreciate that you did so.
I, myself, have been an atheist for 40+ years now, but I still look for a deeper understanding when new evidence may arise.
I was aware of this information from multiple other sources, but your charts and timelines help put it in easier way to understand.
Thank you!
Unless Monks took the time to copy and recopy a book it has not come down to us (except for a small handful we find buried in the desert that manages to survive by phenomenal luck (or divine intervention if your belief system tilts that way). The fact that Papias does not make the cut is pretty surprising but it is also important to recognize that natural disasters, wars and famine could effect the monks as well and if their temple got burned down any copies they might have made went with it.
@@JeremyMacDonald1973
I can see that. I know the Romans destroyed as many of the other books as they could find, but you would think that someone, somewhere saved them. Hell, for all we know, the Catholic church has them all, but won't share because it would make them look worse than they are.
It doesn't matter to my life, one way or the other, but I like to understand things as best as I can.
@@perplexedpapa History is usually more complicated. The Romans (the early Christians were Romans themselves) didn't necessarily destroy books voluntarily. A general rule of thumb when it comes to Antiquity is that of all the books that were written, we know of only c. 10% of them that they existed. And of only 10% of those we have actually some extant text, often just single sentences or a few words cited elsewhere. And that includes non-Christian books as well. The actual numbers are probably off by quite a bit, but as a general guideline to how much we have lost, it's useful to keep in mind.
The survival of texts from Antiquity is more often than not purely luck-based. That a book was written by someone famous, or about something important, does not mean it should have survived.
No, the Catholic Church doesn't have them, either, unfortunately.
@@varana
That you know of. 😆
Just came upon your channel after searching for the audio Bible, loving your contents.
Honestly, 70 years past someone's death to know them seems like a bit of a stretch. It would mean 80+ year old person. Their memories from when they were 10 would be unreliable at best.
Centenarians are known to have existed in the Roman empire, so if even one of them met Jesus when they were ~20-30, seems fairly plausible.
@@grantexploit5903 No one reliable ever wrote of Jesus during his supposed “life”, while many other claimed messiahs were during this same time period.
@@grantexploit5903 So what you are saying is you favor possibility over probability.
You favor the lest likely over the most likely.
As a result, you are arguing for a predetermined outcome, instead of following all the information and going wherever the information takes you.
Magic and miracles are the least likely reason for any outcome, in the case of Jesus, the outcome is story.
In this case, there is only one religious story that is true, Jesus, and all others are false gods.
There are too many mental gymnastics going on to argue Jesus is historical.
The Gospels are anonymous, non-eyewitness, topological and allegorical literature, and the writers of the Gospels sure do know all about the astronomy of the Galactic Alignment that we call December 21st, 2012, or Dec. 25th in the Julian Calendar.
The earliest mentions we have of Jewish are going back to the 40's so it's more a matter of 5-10 years that 40.
Add to that the fact that we are now in a written culture but at that time they were in an oral culture, their memories would've been better that ours when you can check anything from the internet or books very easily.
John was known for living to a very old age, he's referred as John the Elder in the writings of the Church fathers.
@@ivermectin7928 yes no one wrote during his life because at the time oral transmission through an unbroken chain of witnesses would've been more authoritative than a book. When the apostles got old and close to death it made sense for them to write it down since after their death ppl would not be able to go back and check with them the oral tradition they heard.
You having 21th century expectations for the 1st century is ridiculous.
And you mention other "Messiah" but when are the 1st mentions of their life we have?
As someone who isn't religious at all, I find this very fascinating. Hope that more texts will be find in the future that will shed light to the synoptic problem.
I thought it was a major coincidence that both you and Andrew released a video about the same topic at the same time
What a great and informative video! Thank you!
Interesting as always and glad, you mentioned the non-canon gospels, people tend to forget it was choice which they took. Wish we could know why they decided how they did.
Well, we know some of the reasons given by the first person to call them by those names (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) and decide that there had to be four of them.
_"It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, ... "_
- Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 11, Section 8)
Those grossly ignorant and superstitious people believed that the Phoenix Bird (that mythological animal in Harry Potter) was a real animal.
It was most likely a matter of Darwinian selection. Those gospels that; (i) were understood to be written by disciples or other intimates of Jesus; and (ii) expressed a theological tone consistent with the then-developing theology of the early church; were more favored and copied and read more often that other gospels. Copying a gospel was an expensive and time-consuming task, not something undertaken lightly. So, the more popular texts, gradually, over the decades, assumed a kind of de facto prominence and hence, ultimately ended up in the Canon. But, the idea that gospels or their authors were "competing" for a place in the Christian Bible, is nonsense. The Christian Bible did not exist until hundreds of years after the gospels, canonical and non-canonical, were written. There was nothing for the authors to "compete" for.
Because the apostles confirmed the gospels that were true and those that weren’t, and then the majority of non-canon gospels surfaced after their deaths.
@@enriquepenanieto4398 Who told you those things? You seem to be unaware that the four gospels are anonymous and that the first complete list of the 27 books that now appear in the New Testament was in the year 367.
@@enriquepenanieto4398 ahm no, the church council decided on it
I studied Theology, this video help me to understand and conveyed the concept clear. Thank you so much.
I really enjoy this series! What is your favorite book of the Bible? What is your favorite TV or cinematic adaptation of any part of the Bible?
My favorite book is probably Ezekiel or Isaiah based purely on how insane the imagery is, and my favorite adaptations are The Prince of Egypt and Jesus Christ Superstar
My favorite book is Joshua. I like to read about the conquest of Canaan.
2 Samuel. David’s family drama is wild.
I like Matthew, specifically 5-7. The Sermon on the Mount is full of great sayings
The Gospel of John for me. It really speaks to my soul.
Fantastic. This series has been brilliant and a great collaboration with Religion for Breakfast. Both channels are fascinating.
You and religion for breakfast have done a great job .
Im moslim and all this is new data for me but in a way its makes sens and confirms the islamic narrative about Jesus, early Christianity and Judaism... Good job
Judge: Bring on the eyewitnesses!
Lawyer: Ehm well I've got a guy who claims he knew a guy who claimed he knew a guy who claimed he knew a guy who once told him this interesting story about a guy he claimed he knew
Judge: That's good enough for me!
I heard it from a friend of a friend who's cousin had a dream about it
@@SusRing my friend's friend's cousin's dreams are way more believable though 😋 and we all come in peace with nuclear weapons aimed at your children's hospitals
Please consider publishing more books of your charts. I am unable to hang charts so the book was a wonderful way for me to enjoy them.
A number of scholars are now turning to the idea that Luke references both the War of the Jews as well as Antiquities of the Jews and are now dating Luke/Acts at around early second century and John a bit after that.
Matt Baker is wrong here about the oldest editions of the Gospel of Mark, since Irenaeus in 168 A.D. quoted directly from Mark 16:19, 100 years before the record of Mark mentioned in the video.
Mark (and the other gospels) speak about the exorcism of the pigs - Jesus casting out demons and sending them into pigs, which ran over a cliff into the sea Genezareth. The Gospels use different names for the place where this occurred: Matthew 8: 28 ... the country of the Gadarenes. Mark 5: 1 .the country of the Ger’asenes. (als Luke 8: 26 )
Interesting is now that the roman legion of that occupation symbol a pig was actually at Genezareth sea located a bit moved from the main control city matching the jewish war as task location. This let some scholars now conclude the author of mark must have been informed by the movements of the "pig legion" position, which is during the Jewish war.
@@Angelmou So around 65 A.D.?
I love your series on who wrote the Bible and the historical context behinde it's creation, really shows the wider perspective
It's like I wait every month for the next edition to this series lol
Absolutely fascinating and gives me lots to think about. Well done.
For me, the Gospel is split between Matthew for the plot and John for the themes.
*Matthew* is the quintessential Jesus story, well balanced between theology and events, includes plenty but well paced and focused.
*Luke* is to Matthew what Chronicles is to Kings; same story, but it reads like a bullet summary of events with little thematic threads or pacing to tie it all together; all events but no narrative.
*Mark* is the stubby TV edit of Matthew.
And then there's *John,* which is laser focused on highlighting the spiritual journey and context of Jesus without paying much regard to the specific events or timelines. Little plot, all theme and character. John is very much a character study and commentary to add depth to the basic events we've already heard. Rather than going over the birth and all that, he instead begins with the beginning of time and what God wanted for us, and then immediately jumps to John the Baptist being a precursor to Jesus' movement, skipping the birth story because Jesus' baptism is where he actually joins the story.
My guess is Mark is the serviceable original, Luke is the mega-extended version with all the bonus material, Matthew is the more methodical remake that ties it all together but remembers to tell a story, and then John is the one made years later by an auteur who ignores history and audience expectation and is like "this story isn't about you, it's about God." and does its own thing.
John is pagan nonsense that got added to sell out to people who couldn’t get over the concept of one god, so they sold out and created a semi polytheistic Hellenize demigod Jesus that acts like a myth character The local Gentiles would’ve been familiar with from their Olympus theology.
What an AWESOME channel you have. Immediately subscribed.
Dear TH-cam algorithm pls keep showing me informative videos and channels. ❤
can you make a video about the stories that weren´t included in the bible but were considered during the creation of the modern version? Or lost texts like Q and Papias?
Solution 1 makes the most sense to me, nice and clean.
It is also not true
As a Shia Muslim this was a bit interesting
Knew they weren't written by the named authors ("probably") but didn't know they were then more likely attached to communities associated with those people. Actually brings back some of the 'legitimacy' the more basic understanding loses. Love it :)
people who lived in the 30s would have been dead by the 70s
the average lifespan for people then was about 40......and if they were a witness for the events why did they wait 40 years to write about it
some say its as low as 35..few saw 50 and even less 60