The Gospels Were Written Early, Not After AD 70
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 ธ.ค. 2024
- #bible #gospels #apologetics
Most scholars say that the Gospel of Mark dates from AD 66-70, Matthew and Luke around 85-90, and John 90-100. Skeptics like Bart Ehrman imply that they’re too late to be reliable, as a decades-long time gap leaves plenty of room for myths and legends to creep in.
When it comes to history, chronological closeness matters. But where exactly are critics coming up with these later dates?
In this video, I look at one bad reason biblical critics date the gospels late and one underrated reason that some critics give the Gospels an early date, including skeptical scholars.
For more on the dating of the Gospels, visit my blog: isjesusalive.c...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Sources: Adolf Harnack, The Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels, www.google.com... (FREE)
Brant Pitre, The Case for Jesus, amzn.to/2u0mGsB
Help support me: Or support me on Patreon / isjesusalive . You can also do a one-time donation at paypal.me/isjesusalive
Ehrman photo credit: Dan Sears, CC BY 4.0
Outro music:
Equinox by Purrple Cat | purrplecat.com
Music promoted by www.free-stock...
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
creativecommon...
Correction: Paul was executed approximately 64 AD, not 62. That's when James the brother of Jesus died and I think that might've been part of what was stuck in my head. Luke would've ended Acts around 62 while Paul was awaiting his trial.
Thank you for this post
Can you make a video about Pauls epistles, especially disputed ones. And it would be amazing if you could discuss when Paul wrote them. Do you think that Paul was executed some short time after acts or that he was set free and travelled around before being put to jail again?
I've written at length about Paul's epistles and I think they are all genuinely his. I don't cover when he wrote them but I'd love to study that out and will probably eventually do a video on the topic. isjesusalive.com/is-bart-ehrman-right-when-he-says-half-of-pauls-letters-are-forgeries/
@@TestifyApologetics, Do you even think Hebrews was written by Paul? Apparently people attribute Hebrews to Paul.
@@generalkenobi6792 I think God only knows who wrote Hebrews. Lol.
Imagine a historian saying a book about WW2, written in 1970, cannot be trusted simply because it was written nearly 30 years after the events. What a horrible argument! Dr. Bart isn’t half as logical as people think, but he is very crafty and a brilliant debater. All said and done, great video! The books definitely were not written before 70AD, the second coming of our Lord.
Good point. We don't treat Elie Wiesel's memoirs as suspect because they were written decades later.
@@TestifyApologetics, I guess the objection to that is there not making any supernatural claims.
If the book was written anonymously, had an agenda and had little to no confirming evidence for any of the events it described, yes there would be people who doubted the things said within, and I wouldn't criticize them for it.
But they're not anonymous... Who Wrote the Gospels?: th-cam.com/play/PLbVf0T8-zFVinzGCuBDFjPHuICyYM2RmK.html
Even if the gospels were written 35AD, it still wouldn't be a reliable source to justify the claim that Jesus was God, Rose from the dead, or performed miracles. The sad truth is that even if we throw out Bart Ehrman and the idea of Late gospels. You're still at square one. There's plenty of holy texts that are based in real places and real times, but that doesn't mean what's in them are real. Take the book of the dead as a good example. Take the greek Gods and their myths as another example.
There's no justification that Jesus Resurrected, was God, or performed miracles. If you have evidence feel free to enlighten me.
The “late dates” still seem pretty early to me. Ehrman-types making a mountain out of a molehill. I’d be concerned if they were clearly written hundreds of years later, not 30-70 years. I’m not even Christian, btw
But you study it?
@theguy3517 you might be surprised many non-Christians study Christianity. We're just genuinely interested in comparative mythology.
@@theguy3517 Yes; sorry, I forgot to reply to you earlier. I am interested in history, philosophy, theology, etc.
what's even more interesting is the late dating isn't really evidence based. It's driven by supernatural denialism, they come up with "evidence" for it, but it's usually circumstantial and boils down to why didn't the author say this or that.
@@thadofalltrades I mean the just odd thing is they try to date them after some of the gospel writers died. How would early Christians present accounts of Jesus written decades after they died? Imagine if someone said Albert Einstein wrote a new theory on quantum particles in 2024... readers would be able to recognize it right away and record their rational for discrediting the false authorship centuries after.
Great video!!
I am totally screen shotting this. This means a lot coming from one of my favorite channels!
@@TestifyApologetics and now he mentioned you in his community tab 😄👌🏻
5 months and still no new videos from Red Pen Logic :(
Stumbled across your channel, no regrets in doing so as you explain everything clearly and concisely. Not to mention your research is thorough. Great video.
Thanks for the sub!
@@TestifyApologetics no problem, i do plan on binging all your videos
This is Creme of the crop scholarship. May God bless your ministry. I applaud your work and await further content.
Thanks that's super kind of you. If it's good it's grace, and me standing on the shoulders of smarter men that I've linked in the description. I just want to introduce people to where they can find the answer in more details.
@@TestifyApologetics with respect can you give dates for each gospels separately.
Like
Mark's gospel --to ----AD
Matthew's gospel --to ----AD
Luke's gospel --to ----AD
John's gospel --to ----AD
@Brian-Ahavah why make this a discussion of comparison when it's not? Both are equally important and it's quite obvious why they are.
I'd love to see some extra biblical sources corroborating Paul's existence. .something from that time period not Clement in the 2nd century .. I'll wait
@anupfg no they can't they also are ignoring an the evidence showing the gospels borrowed heavily from homeric poems
One small correction: Paul was martyred around 68 AD, AFTER the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD, which Nero blamed on the Christians. Early tradition says that Peter and Paul were killed the same day, shortly before the death of Nero in 68 AD.
Yes that's correct I said 62, it is approximately 64 or so. Good catch.
Crestoi weren't Christians. They were judaizers committing crimes against humanity. Goodfellas skilled in ieudish lightning, among other crimes.
@@TestifyApologetics was it Paul or Saul. That whole shift is so interesting...
Inspiring Philosophy sent me here and I subbed ThX 🙏
Even if they were written after 70 AD, by ancient document standards this is still genuin LoL. Theres a hell of a lot of documents dated much later for other events in history that are still counted as valid.
The biographies we have today of Alexander the Great were written centuries after he died, and that’s just fine, but the Gospels being written as late as 65 years after his life is somehow unreliable.
69 boi!
@@HangrySaturn 69.
@@JustUsCrazyBoyz should I ruin it 😏
those dont claim supernatural events
In the past week, i had been thinking hard about the dating of the gospels only to come across this video. You have satisfied my curiosity. Mob love from Kenya
This is possibly the most important video on TH-cam I have seen. Nailed it. Early dating needs to make a comeback
As a nonbeliever I'm fine with early dating as well. Anyone with eyes could've predicted the destruction of the Temple. Tensions between the Jews and Romans was reaching a boiling point. The Zealots and Sicarii were constantly attacking Roman outposts. It was only a matter of time before Rome sent Vespasian to end the rebellion.
"This is possibly the most important video on TH-cam I have seen. Nailed it. Early dating needs to make a comeback"
----------Why? Does proving early dates for the gospels create any problems for those who reject Jesus?
say another way? @@Tom-j4v7f
@@Tom-j4v7f It can, Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple, basically nailed the timing. But it also went further than that, it would be the end of Israel in the "physical", Jesus was bringing the Spiritual Kingdom, which is exactly what happened. Old Testament Israel never fully recovered, no new temple, but many believed in Jesus, and also the "nations" or gentiles were offered the gift of salvation, which was also prophesied in the Old T.
@@flamingswordapologetics Tom It can, Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple, basically nailed the timing.
Why should it matter to a modern-day person that Jesus was able to predict the future?
Totally agree. The anti-supernatural question begging isn't a reason to believe late dating.
We should bring it into courtrooms as well. "My honor, have you considered the possibility that a ghost stabbed the victim and put the knife in the accused's hand?"
@@BurnBird1 You've just provided a classic "straw man" argument.
@@andyontheinternet5777 is it too much to ask for apologists to know a single fallacy? You throw the word around, yet have no clue what it actually means.
@@BurnBird1 Now you've given us the classic "appeal to ridicule" argument.
@@andyontheinternet5777
It was actually reductio ad absurdum, which is a totally valid way to deliver an argument.
Testify does a great service by combating the constant falsehoods and fallacies of the secularists
Now he should step up his game and take the challenge of combating the uncountable fallacies of the religitards
I'm so happy to learn something about the holy gospels.
I don't think I could live without all the excellent information.
(Matthew 17:29)
Thanks for this video! I don’t like it when people say the Gospels are late because the scholars say so.
@@vejeke, Yeah. There is actually no plausible reason to date the Gospels that late.
@@vejeke, Maybe. I don’t know.
And then you have to ask yourself - why were they written in Greek? Is there any reference to any of the disciples being literate scholars? Are you not assuming that all these basically illiterate people were able to write a book in verses and chapters? Did they even know that these things existed?
@@petergaskin1811 Another issue that, but Luke was a a doctor so a professional more educated than most, and came from Greek-speaking area that is now western Turkey. Mark was spoken of as penning Peter's revelation, that is, one could find literate people amongst the larger set of disciples, Matthew may or may not have been of the 12, there seems a clue in his gospel suggesting that, and if a Galilee tax collector would be needing to interact with the Romans who used Greek and Roman and Aramaic depending on who one dealt with., otherwise he'd be someone with the skill. However some church fathers claim his gospel was originally in Aramaic (the French academics have been doing work on the Aramaic due to their connections with Lebanon and Syria, not yet fully considered in anglosphere academe). John does claim to be one of the core disciples, and did according to traditions move to Ephesus, Greek-speaking, for many years. That said there were many Greek-speaking Jews who would help one in Egypt and now-Turkey as well.
@@petergaskin1811 Greek was the universal language, meaning there would've been no doubt they were written in that. Plus, it was very common for them to be illiterate, which meant hiring scribes to write for them was very easy.
I spent a year living in another country, imagine saying that i cannot reliably tell you what was my life like those 20 years ago simply because it was in the past
Good point. even alexandre the great was written 400years later but no one reject it.
I mean its impossible to forget in details a story about a men who walked on the water, cure the sick, converted souls an raised on the 3rd day.
Its not something that you forget.
We have storys about veterans today talking about world war 2 that happened 79 years ago but fully remember in details the special events from it.
Even if it was not all the things they at least told us what was going on the second world war, they dont need to say everything like what was the colour of the dress he used in 1930 for example, he just need to say the essential things.
Just like john says the things he written was sufficient to beliebe jesus is the son of God and no book in the world will contain everything about his life .
Thank you so much for your work brother. I pray this video reaches many people!
Dang... this is really good. So much vital information wrapped in a tight 6min package. Excellent work
This is a very well made video (which just happens to be one of my favorite subjects). I'll be on Acts17Apologetics tomorrow to talk about underrated TH-cam channels. You'll be featured. I plan to use the first half of this video as a good example of your work.
Really? Wow, awesome. Thank you! Is this going to be live?
@@TestifyApologetics Yes, livestream at 8pm ET (no link publicly announced yet)
Nice! I will be in the chat.
@@TestifyApologetics Incidentally, I would also be interested in collaborating directly if you are interested.
Sure! Feel free to find my contact info on my about page her or on my blog, or if you're on Twitter give me a follow and DM me.
Just "found" your channel on July 4th! I will be a frequent visitor. God Bless!
Thanks for the sub!
Great breakdown!
Hey Ruslan big fan, ever since you were doing Kings Dream from the start
Notice also that Luke spends the last 8 or so chapters of his book on 4-5 years of history, after covering the first 25 or so years of the Church in the first 20. He spends so much more time on the events at the end probably because they had just happened and were more fresh in everyone's minds.
How would modern people who completely ignore the bible be affected if we assume Acts is 100% inerrant? Does the inerrancy of Acts justify concluding that God demands of modern unbelievers the same things he demanded of 1st century unbelievers?
Really good stuff! Thanks for this. The passage from 2 Kings was helpful as a foundation
This is going to be a big channel someday.
Well this comment must have been written 50 years after it became a big channel
Excellent video!!!!!! You just earned a new subscriber. Another reason--out of many others-- the book of Acts of The Apostles describes the church's actions within a context of continuity and permanence of the people and places presented in the book. In other words, although the events described belong to a very recent past, the apostles as well as the Temple and the City of Jerusalem are still in existence in the mind of the writer and his audience at the time the book was written and read.
Another great one my friend, thanks!
Amen. Thank you for your work.
God bless you.
Good points, well made. I think we have fragments which guarentee all of the Gospels were in their current form by the mid 2nd Century. We have smaller bits from much earlier, some from the 1st Century. I think we can't concretely date from before these physical examples, but we can't certainly rule out that these were written, in whole or in part, within the first decade or two of the Church. Some of Jesus' sayings or sermons may have been written during His ministry for all we know.
I UTTERLY and COMPLETELY reject any dates post Temple destruction (70AD) Matthew, Mark, and Luke ALL have the prophecy of the destruction of the temple made by Yeshua. We as Gentiles have almost no conceptual understanding of just what a SYSMIC event that was. All of Jewish Culture and Life REVOLVED around the Temple. I can see no reasonable explination as to why they would fail to mention its fulfilment as a fact that can not be disuputed.
The fact that they all contain the same prophecy is less impressive when you factor in the fact that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, so since it's present in Mark, it's not surprising it's also present in Matthew and Luke.
@@BurnBird1 Marcan priority is also pure speculation made by scholars. Not an concrete fact.
The only real reasons why it exists is because most Scholars assert that because Mark was shorter and written in a more crass manner. As well as the lack of explicit divine statements toward Jesus. Along with Matthew containing most of the events in Mark (~90%). That it's concluded that Matthew was written as a correction and an updated version of Mark. Which already doesn't make sense, because if one was a correction, it would simply undermine the former. Christian communities would simply decry it, and that would be it.
It also doesn't explain that while the majority of Mark is contained in Matthew, Mark only makes up less than 50% of Matthew. What other sources did Matthew use then? The fictitious and purely hypothetical source Q that we're not even sure exists? At what point in any other field of history, do scholars have to make up a purely hypothetical document/ tradition that they can't even prove exists?
Traditionally and historically up until the the 17th century, it was generally agreed on that Matthew wrote his Gospel first, then Mark, then Luke. Mark instead used Matthew as a basis as Mark was a weaker writer in comparison, and mainly focuses on the points concerning Peter. Hence why it's shorter. Luke makes it known that he uses other sources so that's not an issue.
I have no reason to believe any scholars 1700+ years removed would know the chronology better without archeological evidence, any more than people that were only 100, 200, perhaps 300 years removed. Less assumptions and hypotheticals are involved as well. It's a simpler conclusion.
@@Cklert I'm sure you must be really smart!
Wow , how do you have other arguements about the authenticity of the New Testament and the gospels , your points are very logical and make sense , can you recommend any source to know and learn these arguements from ?
Luke also copies sections of Josephus, which wasn't written until 94 CE.
All 4 were written by educated Greek speakers, who were not eyewitnesses, and do not claim to be, who were from outside Palestine and only had a sketchy knowledge of of the geography and laws of the region.
Luke doesn't copy Josephus. The people who say that include spots where Luke directly contradicts Josephus in a lot of details. Worst copy job ever.
@@TestifyApologetics Not just Luke, he copies chunks of Mark, Matthew, Marcion, Joshua and Greek mythology.
Overall, great presentation, though. Are you familiar with the "Defense Brief" theory? It holds that Luke and Acts were written to Theophilus, who was Paul's legal advocate in Rome as he awaited his first trial before Nero. Since Theophilus was a Roman official, he would not have known much about Christianity, and Luke drew up his two books to inform Paul's defender exactly what he was on trial for. That was the scenario I used when I wrote my novel THEOPHILUS: A TALE OF ANCIENT ROME.
I'm not but now I'm intrigued. Got any materials you recommend?
Yeah, any material to recommend?
@@TestifyApologetics I first saw it mentioned in the Introduction to Acts in my Ryrie Study Bible, and we also had a roundtable discussion of it in a seminary extension class I once taught. But I'm not sure who first put the theory forward. But if you look at the language in Luke's introduction, the theory certainly seems to fit.
This is the first I have read that someone thought that they knew who Theophilus was. The theory does fit the known facts.
@@markhorton3994 Might I invite you to check out my book THEOPHILUS: A TALE OF ANCIENT ROME? It is a historical novel, but it takes that idea and fleshes it out. Plus it's a rollicking good tale!
Way to go! Congrats on 1k subscribers!
Great Video! I am a firm believer that these were written early. So few sources lay it out this well. I believe Matthew is the first New Testament book written. What do you think about that?
I have no problem with Mattean priority. It is what Augustine believed, and there are some modern scholars who believe it too.
@@TestifyApologetics wouldn't that mean that Mark is an almost verbatim copy of Matthew, except it leaves out portions?
@@thadofalltrades I think Markan priority makes more sense. In that case we Matthew and Luke adding in birth narratives, extra teaching and resurrection stories while streamlining Mark's narration. Going the other way makes less sense to me.
@@markrutledge5855 I agree
Congrats on 1k subs!
This is excellent. Although I have never heard skeptics phrase it like that. What I usually hear is that the earliesr manuscripts we have date to 70AD or later and they just assume that's when they were written. A plainly unreliable assumption but I hear people defend this notion with surprising (and worrying) frequency.
Yeah, I don't think we can date the gospels from manuscripts, we have to look more at internal and external evidence.
@@TestifyApologetics Yep, what a manuscript tells me is the latest possible date. Unless you can prove without a shadow of a doubt that was the first one you can only treat it as a latest date. This supports, rather than disrupts, an earlier date interpretation.
@@TestifyApologetics Also, this might be my new favorite channel. Just saying.
The earliest manuscripts we have don't begin to appear until the second century, I'm pretty sure a fragment of John is the earliest thing we have, generally dated 125-150~ AD from memory.
@@Thundawich yes, but people quote john from before these dates.
Good information. I had no idea that some liberal scholars call for earlier dating of the gospels
I think if someone is called liberal or conservative before "scholar" then it's doubtful to even call him a scholar at all. A true scholar should look at the facts and come to the most logical conclusion without any bias like being "liberal" or "conservative" which means different things based on the context anyway.
@@MrSeedi76 Everyone has biases and presuppositions and is impossible to remove them when looking at evidence. Some actually try to question if a position is confirmation bias or not though.
Pushing the time later based on this prediction is ridiculous. At the time of Jesus, the actions of the Zealots annoying the Romans were clear and obvious. The ruthlessness of the Romans was clear and obvious. An atheist who is an honest researcher could not rule out a non-supernatural prediction.
I'm not an expert but I'd have to say that it would make sense that there could have been bits and pieces written down of what Jesus said and did, during or immediately after Jesus' life on earth. And eventually were collected and harmonized into books. 🤷🏼♂️
2 Timothy 4:11-13 mentions Paul getting the boys together along with scrolls and parchments. This was most likely to make moves for compiling the gospel records along with Paul's letters. This falls in line with the early dating of the gospels.
@Tukituna 2 Timothy, along with the other pastoral epistles (1 Timothy and Titus) are widely regarded by scholars as forgeries. There is very strong evidence in support of this view. I can provide the evidence if you'd like. Or you can look it up yourself.
Luke had information in his gospel that only Mary (and Joseph, long deceased when Luke wrote) would have known. Luke, therefore, MUST have interviewed Mary.
Or at least had access to someone who knew Mary's account well.
I'm sceptical of early dating
18 years is minimum.
However 70 is a bit too late I think.
Kids shouldn't be dating, but also one should be young enough to be able to get married and have children.
😂
Well done. I really enjoyed this video. It seems like some other people are correcting you on the date of Paul's martyrdom so maybe you want to get feedback before you upload a video. I am not a history buff so I defer to everyone else who is. In terms of presentation, I have a note for you. 1. You have a lot of material for 6'15"; 2. If you read your script 10% slower, it would be slightly easier to hear all your points and your video would only be 38" longer. I'm looking forward to the next one.
Thanks. Yeah I got it, 64. Pinned a comment on the error. I'm used to blogging where once I hit publish I can go back and edit. Rookie mistake. The weird thing is I know it is 64, James is 62 and it just got mixed up in my head I guess. Just will need to slow down.
@@TestifyApologetics You have an interesting point regarding the Acts; but it leads to other problems. Since we know that Luke used Mark as a source, and that the traditionnal view of the early church was that Mark wrote his gospel after the death of Peter (prior to it, there was no point), this bring us back to 68 at least for Luke. And if Mark wrote his gospel before the death of Peter, wouldn't Peter correct Mark regarding the chronological errors that John, so Papias, spot in Mark's gospel?
The apostles who were Aramaic speakers and mostly illiterate, were sent out to spread the Word...that does not leave a lot of time to learn scholarly Greek, write gospels, and get martyred. They may have had converts who said, "Hey, this is pretty good. You should write it down. Do you mind if I take notes?" Later on, the converts in Rome, Ephesus, Damascus, Alexandria, and elsewhere started comparing notes of what the different apostles said (and the new guy, Paul) and voila...a Bible.
More like the NT but okay
You're mostly right. They were illiterate in fact, but probably spoke koine (Common) Greek as well as Aramaic too (idk about Hebrew tho). It was the lingua franca in the Roman empire, then the jews spoke it too including jesus and the apostles spoke it too.
You are making an assumption about their literacy. Most Jewish boys learned to read and write Hebrew at the synagogue school. They also probably knew some koine Greek and possibly some Latin. Both the Jews and the Romans highly valued learning.
@@donnameahl4516 Yes, it is a total simplification of what happened, without taking into account the crucial details. Like Peter having Mark as a companion, Paul having Luke, both being extremely literate. And not all the apostles wrote, some, like Peter, were written by a companion. Or in Peter's letters, the person who wrote was someone specialized in this who also accompanied him. And besides, they all probably spoke Greek, and even then, it wasn't school Greek but common Greek, which when they went to spread the gospel in Rome etc. it would have been quite easy for them to have learned if they did not speak or know how to write it, anyway, they had their companions to help.
@@donnameahl4516 and it's sufficient time to learn Common Greek (which they probably already knew) or/and learn how to write it, and to preach and write and then get martyred, which most of them did not even write, but people wrote in behalf of them
Great stuff, keep it up!
Excellent quick presentation.
Yes! John AT Robertson's work, "Redating the New Testament" wrote that the gospels didn't mention the destruction as fait accompli.
Also not just the gospels. Luke would have mention it revelations would have too
When you are blinded to the Truth you are in danger of the Wrath of God in Jesus Authority. Psalm2:11,12. AMEN.
So ... Jesus wasn't Lord, because the gospels were written decades later, because we start by assuming that Jesus wasn't Lord so couldn't prophesy. Circular reasoning at its finest.
Causality, you know, through the laws of nature is immutable. Anything that claims to supersede the laws of nature is not true.. I seek to inform my mind and reasoning with the truth in the laws of nature so I can think and live from a basis of true knowledge.
It's not just the literary construction of fulfilled prophecy but also the instances in the Jesus story that violate natural law. Walking on water, multiplying food, resurrections, water to wine ... and so on. These all call for beliefs that contradict obvious sensible truth, thus the texts proclaiming the good news of salvation, well, the same pages associate Jesus with debasement from sensible natural reality.
For the above reasons, the Jesus story is not true. One has to let go of sensible reality to accept many aspects of it., this causes some fundamental debasements from truth.
Observation of the nature of reality shows much about Jesus in the gospels is impossible, including prophecy. I am quite happy to continue reasoning from the basis of the truth of reality. Because it is true, reasoning from it is truth based and it excludes unnatural bs from the ground of factual reality.
If the bible was true then reasoning from it would be a form of truth based circular reasoning but because it has much that is false and it has been fashioned to deceive, using it results in circular reasoning from a dark source. Be careful that the light within you is not darkness otherwise how deep the darkness.
Any source of truth used to inform and judge things, is a source of circular reasoning. If it is true then it is good circular reasoning, but if not then ... one is in a circle of dark reinforcing itself while rejecting light.
Belief in bible prophecy is dark circular reasoning, very dark, very deceptive, written to deceive and solidify a false paradigm in the mind, binding one to lies.
sincerely
d
it's not that it's assumed he's not in some sense connected to God. instead, it's not assumed that he is. you have to demonstrate that he is.
The obvious counterpoint you can foresee from a late-dater is that these details are just someone writing later and pretending to be someone writing earlier, so leaving out information to be "in character"
@@amt4653 re-read
In Acts why wouldn't Luke finish his story then if he was writing in 85AD?
Good work, the entire New T would have been written much differently had the temple already fell, but not even a hint. Lots of other good information you gave as well.
Awesome man!❤️
One question: if the Gospels were written early (and I believe there’s good evidence for it), why didn’t Paul mention them? Yeah, he mentioned Luke, but why not the other three? And this can go for the other Apostles’ epistles too. Thanks.
And if John was written after Peter’s death, why’d they mention his martyrdom and the other Gospels mentioned Jerusalem’s destruction if it was before? Thanks.
John probably wasn't written after the death of Peter.
He mentioned Scriptures which were Creed of Christians already before his conversion in 34AD
He’s not just telling us when they were dated, which he’s right no scholar critic or apologetic disagree on that
But his issue is that we don’t have a full copy of mark until year like 300
94% of the surviving New Testament manuscripts comes from the year 899AD
I am a christian and i believe that the Gospels were written early. However, how is the point that St. Luke is silent about certain events in Acts not an argument from silence, which is a fallacy that you have criticized? Thanks for the video anyway, it is well-produced and infomative.
In a nutshell, the argument arises from our other information about Luke's usual practice in the book of Acts. It's based on knowledge we do have based on Luke's prior writings so it isn't an argument from silence as I've criticized in the past.
I'd recommend reading Harnack's book linked in the description, chapter 4 in particular. It is free and it goes into more detail.
@@TestifyApologetics ok, thanks for your response. I will try to examine what the book you recommended has to say.
I don’t think it is a argument from silence as Jerusalem plays a big part in the documents of the New Testament. Also the fall of Jerusalem was such a huge event, as firstly it involved the Roman army, and secondly the destruction of the temple. Josephus called it the “greatest” war of all time. The Jews lost their way of life.
Thank you 🙏💖🙏💖
Excellent argument!
Great video. You accidentally said unreliable rather than reliable at the end there but other than that perfect
Awesome video!
Even tho i'm an atheist, i find it extremely interesting ,learning about the bible and the history, I tend to accept what Bart Erhman says on the matter as he's an expert in the field but i'm also mindful that i could be making an appeal to authority.
Erhman, wrote two books on the new testament that were published in the same year one was a book written for the masses, the other for academia, the one for academia contradicted his book written for the masses, because the latter would not be subject to the rigorous academic scrutiny of the former. I would seriously question anything he produces unless it is subject to the rigour of academic scrutiny.
Hey chief I just wanted to ask if you could recommend any books I should get about this stuff❤️🤝
Here ya go isjesusalive.com/recommended-books-on-historical-apologetics/
@@TestifyApologetics thank you a lot man, very much appreciated.
Have you been to seminary or had other formal training? You have a great talent for breaking down scholarship.
If the only reason the gospel is not reliable should be that Jesus could not prophecy the down fall of the temple, then there is no reason. he meant his body and he did factually built it up in 3 days as he prophesied. There is no argument about the reliablilty of the gospel or the old testament. 🙏🏼
Did u read isiah ? He spoke about Jesus resurrection before 100 years
Luckily by Faith we do Not have to rely on what man supposes to be real about the Word of GOD. AMEN.
I love how time and again, conservative Bible scholars are proven right over and over.
Interesting. Also what many critics of christian faith forget is that the congregation and its continuity existed before the gospels. so there was not that "vacuum so to speak between"as some critics think or claim.
And there were many different variants and different far more than the various dominations that exist today. So what is your point?
@@johnnastrom9400 That there is more than the bible. Also there were so to speak both center and pheriphery. They who were both in "center of events" and center geographically" didn´t differ that much.
And then this. Would you really question whether people who's history has been preserved through writing would not care to write down what special things happened as soon as humanly possible?
Maybe they needed 70 years to create this outragous fairy tale.
The references to the destruction of the temple isn’t the only reason scholars think they were written after 70ad. They also cite the lack of citations of them by early church fathers. Also some scholars argue Luke uses Josephus as a reference for historical context of God gospel which means like Luke was written well after 90ad.
Best video on the subject that I have seen so far. Thx
The gospels happened around 70 not because of the prophecy, but because there was no reason to have them before then.
The destruction of Jerusalem made the Christian’s scatter all over the empire, so they needed the testimonies written down and sent to the churches that got spread apart.
I never understood the “late dates” argument. I think of how 9-11 took place 22 years ago. If somebody writes something on it, are we really going to say “that’s 22 years AFTER the fact. Why wait?” No, we still think of it as relevant. Let’s go bigger. World War II happened in the 1940s, and if someone wrote on it, we’d still love to hear of it. We wouldn’t talk about how it’s almost 100 years too late, so we can’t trust the information. It just isn’t a logical way of thinking.
What if Acts was written to support Paul at his trial? It explains why he was at riots but not the cause of them. It ends with him in a hired house but not thought dangerous enough to need prison. It makes centurions look good which might go down well with roman judges or even the emperor.
Yes. It make more sense that the gospels are early. 👍🏻
Except they don't want to tell you that some of them are based on Marcion's gospel like Lk1 predating Lk2.
Even still, the Gospels written in the 1st Century are more reliable than the ‘Lost Gospels’ all written 2nd century and later.
Woohoo ! God bless you 🙏🏽
Very well done 👌
I think Mark could have been written in the late 40s/early 50s when the family of Annas still had considerable influence on the attitude of Jewish authorities towards followers of Jesus. The sons of Annas, or in the case of Caiaphas his son-in-law, all held the position of High Priest until about the mid-40s. Assuming their influence lasted a few years beyond the official ending of their role, I think it was during this period when Mark wrote his Gospel. This would explain why Mark does not name the specific High Priest, Caiaphas, who sent Jesus (the acclaimed Jewish Messiah) to his death. If he had, this could have stirred up unnecessary persecution by the Jews against Christians who likely would have been aware of the gospel writing being disseminated. John, for example, was happy to name Caiaphas because he wrote long after that family had any real influence, and so no need for protective anonymity.
Do a podcast with Bart Ehrman about this and then I will believe what you said.. I believe Bart wholeheartedly.. if he agrees with you, then I would agree with you.
Ehrman said it, I believe it, that settles it
This guy and inspiring philosophy go against historical and even biblical pre-Christian narratives that don't line up and all the snowflakes Christians say "great scholarship" lol so confessional works by a guy called "testify" , he sure had no biases walking into all this
Back in 1976, the late extremely liberal Anglican J.A.T. Robinson in his book _Redating the New Testament_ had the guts to ask the question, "If the Gospels are late composition, why does NO New Testament book refer to the destruction of the Temple in the past tense, even as fulfilled prophecy?" Robinson was at best tut-tutted, usually ignored, but his question has never seriously been addressed, let alone refuted.
Extreme begging the question. and utterly ignores why not say "See, Jesus was so right in his prophecy!" Also, while there was SOME thought among believers Jesus return was imminent, the Olivet Discourse (Matthew) is actually divided into TWO sections, their first regarding the Destruction of the Temple, with LOTS of signs, and within a generation, and the second part of Jesus' Second coming in Public glory, which would be in the indefinite future with very little signs.. But NO mention by any NT writer, whatsoever of the Temple's destruction? Seriously... @@StudentDad-mc3pu
The Jewish Revolt and the destruction of Jerusalem rocked the Roman world, not just Jews and Christians, and part of that upset was the end of not just Temple Judaism, but also the end of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. To not have ANY mention is past tense of that disaster, saying "everyone already knew , is at best strained, but more like a desperate explain away. Occam's razor time, the simplest, most direct explanation is the Revolt hadn't occurred yet. .Even Hebrews is written in the context the Sacrifices were still going on in the Temple, which stopped by 68, @@StudentDad-mc3pu
"Written afterwards" is simply a bias-driven assertion that doesn't fit the evidence. Pretty much every scholar admits Luke wrote Acts as well as the Gospel, and Acts after the Gospel. Acts ENDS with Paul arrival in Rome. Allowing for a few years house arrest, and possibly even his Mission to Spain. we can say Acts ends circa 60-61. with not the slightest hint of Paul's martyrdom--the Fire of Rome and Nero scapegoating Christians hadn't happened. The simplest, most direct explanation, is Luke-Acts was composed prior to the Fire in 64.
Even John's Gospel if we allow for a Church Father statement it was "published" during the reign of Domitian, its composition described contemporaneously a Judea that had ceased to exist 30 years prior. John never breaks that narrative perspective @@StudentDad-mc3pu
@@StudentDad-mc3pu How much after? Call it "from silence" if you wish, but as Sherlock Holmes pointed out, the fact the dog did not bark, is the critical evidence the dog's owner committed the crime, as the dog barks at everyone but it's owner. Silence in some circumstances, is good, even compelling evidence.
Paging William of Occam, the simplest, most direct explanation is the Temple's destruction as fulfilled prophecy isn't done in any NT book is because it hadn't happened.
There's one "fulfilled prophecy" in Luke even most believing scholars admit is strained and tenuous. If Luke was willing to do that lapse, why did he miss the slam dunk of the Temple?
Excellent videos. I was going to mention the date of Paul's execution but by reading a few comments I can see it's already been mentioned :)
This type of dating malfeasance, also happens when dating the Old Testament.
For instance, there are prophecies concerning the rise & fall of Alexander the Great's conquest.
This leads many people to date some books in the 2nd century BC.
Whilst many biblical scholars & archaeologists, date the last books to around the 4th century BC.
I believe Luke's work is incomplete. Acts ends,.at best like a cliff hanger with Paul arriving in Rome.
Just my personal opinion
Instead of the gospels been written earlier they look like they were written later than the conventional 70 to 90 CE. There is little or no discussion about the gospels until the second century. There is no gospel text found and verified it was from the first century. Paul was not discussed in the community until after Marcion's gospel which was written around 130 CE - why? There was no mention in any historical documents from the 1st century about Christian persecution from the 1st century and no historical evidence for Paul or any of the so called apostles being executed for their faith. In fact there is no corroboration in the 1st century of the gospel stories from any reliable sources.
So not only is the evidence not there for all the gospels being written in the first century CE, there is no reliable evidence from the first century that could verify the gospel stories as historical.
you're arguing from silence
@@TestifyApologetics which is valid when you'd expect there not to be silence
Another reason to trust the Gospels authenticity is that they have a positive view of Rome and the Roman army, which would not be the case if they were written after the persecution of Christians began or after the destruction of Judea.
You're making the assumption that the writers were from Judea. Biblical scholars claim that the writers were Greek intellectuals.
Whoo Hoo!! Over 1000 subs!
To me an obvious hint is the tone of the wording in these gospels. Experiencing/knowng of the destruction of the temple, the thousands of killed and the atrocities commited would have spilled into the texts, making them dark violent and pessimistic, probably anti-roman. Yet we have wisdom, hope, miracles and salvation.
Also, Paul qoutes the gospel of Luke, 1 Timothy 5:18 c.f Luke 10:7 meaning it was already in existence. and it can't be oral tradition because he calls it "scripture" meaning it was written down and widely known.
The Pastorals were written after Paul lol
There are also verse Copies like the Our father in 2.Kor and 1or2nd Tim
Great content, I’ll be taking a lot away from this.
I've studied a bit of post-Enlightenment Lutheran history. Harnack was a ruthless scholar when it came to historicity, being a Church historian. If he thought Acts and the Gospels had an early date, it wasn't due to religious ideology.
Also, while Harnack was very skeptical of miracles in general, he didn't deny the possibility that the miraculous could happen through mechanisms that could later be revealed by science, such as faith healing. He is arguing against a kind of naive supernaturalism.
The Jews read from the Tanahk every week, not a protestant TED talk, but a legit reading every week. Jesus reads all of Isaiah at the beginning of his ministry. Why would we then believe that the Jews who believed Jesus would switch to relying on oral retellings for 30 to 40 years? Isn't it more probable that these people would have had it written down early to disseminate to the different assemblies to be read weekly?
Ok man, when Irenaeus wrote his monumental 'Against Heresies' to fight back against the stranger groups of christians which (partly thanks to his work) later became widely regarded as heretics by most christians, Irenaeus thoroughly discusses their gospels and theology and tries to show why they are completley false.
In history, Irenaeus' view won out and for many years his work was the only information we had on these gospels, yet when we discovered them and scholars studied their contents, they found that it was exactly as Irenaeus described it.
I think there's a lesson in there somewhere about being honest and trying to earnestly engage with the arguments brought up by the opposing side if you want to convince anyone instead of beating up a strawman. I think the same applies here, if you want these videos to be persuasive to anyone but commited christians who have been made to think critical scholarship is a ploy made up by atheists or naive atheists who simply don't know any better, then I'd suggest no longer being so disingenous. As it stands, a whole lot of your videos can be simply handwaved away by anyone who has done just a little research just by how obviously skewed the information is presented (and is left out, of course.)
Ancient history sources might come from much later than when the events happened for most secular history because we don't have all the sources. The New Testament on the other hand was written VERY close to when the events happened. Nobody is denying certain things that happened in the Roman Empire yet many of those stories are from sources 100 or even 200 years of it happening.
I have to admit the Acts argument makes sense. Jesus stating that the temple will be destroyed is a minor occurrence historically, while the trial of Paul is documented. Basing the dating on a single statement is flimsy compared to not mentioning the end of a trial that results in death of a companion.
We have copies of manuscripts of gospel of mark from the 50s and the others as early as 65. This late dating is just that.
Regarding the late dating as to the fall of the temple, Jesus foretelling that isn’t even necessarily because of something supernatural. The situation in Palestine was so tense by the 30s AD it wouldn’t be all that far fetched to imagine the outbreak of war and destruction within the lifetime of his disciples.
And if by some miracle the tensions died and no temple-destruction ever happened, we can be sure the gospel authors would have excluded Jesus' false prediction. How hard is it to remain silent about a false prophecy and just let it become lost to history (the way Paul after his conversion never mentioned any of his specific sins, which thus became permanently lost to history)? If we could go back in time and live with Jesus at all times between his birth and his death, is there a chance we'd come away with a viewpoint slightly inconsistent with a viewpoint based on the selective written idealistic memorials of his life?
Interesting. I never knew how they came to a 70ad date
Only reason is because Jesus predicted the fall of the temple in 70 ad and they don't want to admit that
"Le Christ hébreu" by Hebrew and Ancient Greek scholar Claude Tresmontant contains almost 500 pages of examples of "bad Greek" from the New Testament, which becomes good Hebrew when translated back into Hebrew. He is convinced that the gospels were originally written in Hebrew, very soon after the crucifixion, but that no copy in Hebrew has been found owing to the almost total destruction of the Holy Land by the Romans. The Greek translations were made later. As I am not a scholar of Hebrew or Greek I cannot judge, but I see the linguistic argument as being strong.
According to Origen, Phlegon did mention Jesus having a "knowledge of future events" in his 13th or 14th book Chronicles. We do not have Phlegon's writings anymore, but if Origen is right that Phlegon acknowledged Jesus' foreknowledge, then what future events did Jesus know about besides the destruction of Jerusalem? This is compatible with the Gospel accounts being before the destruction of Jerusalem.
Source: Against Census book 2 chapter 14.
It's completely ludicrous that simple fishermen had such a grasp on the law and prophets that they would include hundreds of fulfillments of different messianic prophecies in the story of Christ. Which tells me that it's a real story they witnessed.
You know what else is ludicrous?
Believing that “simple fisherman” from Judea would be able to read and write in their own language, let alone read and write in the sophisticated Greek of the Gospels.
And what else is ludicrous? That 3 of these “simple fisherman” who somehow can read and write in Greek just happened to use the same word for word phrases/passages many times over. Odd, isn’t it?
@@colejames423 almost like they knew each other and communicated, right? And they weren't the ones writing, there were scribes who knew how to write who wrote for them. Even Paul had someone writing for him.
@@colejames423 Matthew was a tax collector, so likely literate. Also, Jesus is divine according to scriptures, so if you go by the Bible’s own standard, he could have just specifically chosen people who would have known how to write down what they saw.
whats the painting of jesus at 2 13 i want to save it to my phone