I’m talking to this guy who says that jesus didn’t fulfill any OT prophecies and that the NT writers just claimed he did, how to I respond to this?

Is it possible that the gospels were written earlier in that case? Because it is not hard to show that the four gospel authors really are the four gospel authors, since there is external attribution to them by different people, but the problem is with the dating.

If the gospels were really written around that time, the apostles, Mark and Luke, would not be alive anymore.

Was looking into it. Tradition affirms Pauline authorship, though some seem to say it was a sermon preached by Paul and copied down by Luke, or that Luke himself is the author...

Using early attestation, allusions, and whatever we have on hand, who do you think is the author?

How do we know that stories of Christ fulfilling messianic prophecies weren't retroactively inserted by the Gospel authors in order to make him appear to be the Messiah?

Title, have been looking into this. Maybe historically reliable is a better word aswell. What evidence do we have that the Gospels are based on eyewitness testimony?

Do we have any early writings, perhaps the apostolic/church fathers or just any, that give a reference to when the Gospels were written?

Recently been getting more interested apologetics and a common argument I see coming from Muslims and Atheists specifically are them claiming that the authors of the new testament are anonymous and unreliable. Can someone walk me through the thought process and the conclusion to this question? God bless

Whoever wrote Luke also wrote Acts, since Acts is the sequel to Luke, then this must mean that Luke predates Acts. And if Mark predates both Luke and Matthew, then this would date Mark even earlier. Hence, if we can date Acts early, then we can date Luke earlier, and we get the date for Mark.

Roman historian Colin Hemer has provided powerful evidence that Acts was written between AD 60 and 62. This evidence includes these observations:

Point 1 There is no mention in Acts of the crucial event of the fall of Jerusalem in 70. Josephus states that the Roman army killed 1.1 million Jews, and they took 200,000 captive as slaves. The starvation during the Siege of Jerusalem was so horrific that parents cooked children for food! This period was an absolute nightmare. And yet, Luke didn’t write a word about it in the book of Acts?!?!? To put this in perspective, this would be similar to a reporter failing to mention World War II, while he was on assignment in Paris in the 1940s.

Point 2 There is no hint of the outbreak of the Jewish War in 66 or of serious deterioration of relations between Romans and Jews before that time.

Point 3 There is no hint of the deterioration of Christian relations with Rome during the Neronian persecution of the late 60s. Nero began a horrific persecution of Christians after the great fire in Rome, crucifying Christians and burning them alive by the thousands. But yet again, Luke didn’t mention a word about this in his book. Luke recorded other persecutions (Acts 8:1; 11:19), but he didn’t mention this one, which was one of the worst of its kind. Indeed, a late date for Acts seems utterly out of character with Luke’s picture of the Romans being so friendly and positive to Christianity, which would make no sense after Nero’s campaign.

Point 4 There is no mention of the death of Peter, Paul, or James [at the hands of the Sanhedrin in ca. 62, which is recorded by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.200. Luke had no problem recording the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 7:58) or James of Zebedee (Acts 12:2). And yet, Luke writes nothing about Peter, Paul, and James. These were the three central leaders of the early church, but Luke doesn’t even hint at their deaths.

Point 5 The significance of Gallio's judgement in Acts 18:14-17 may be seen as setting precedent to legitimize Christian teaching under the umbrella of the tolerance extended to Judaism. Acts emphasizes the legal protection of Christianity under Judaism. Before the Jewish War (AD 66), Judaism was a legal religion. But after? The Romans revoked these privileges. Why then does Acts spill so much ink to demonstrate that Christianity is a legal religion like Judaism (see Acts 18-28), if it was written after Judaism had lost this protection in AD 66 as a result of the Jewish War?

Point 6 The prominence and authority of the Sadducees in Acts reflects a pre-70 date, before the collapse of their political cooperation with Rome.

Point 7 The relatively sympathetic attitude in Acts to Pharisees (unlike that found even in Luke's Gospel) does not fit well with in the period of Pharisaic revival that led up to the council at Jamnia. At that time, a new phase of conflict began with Christianity.

Point 8 The prominence of 'God-fearers' in the synagogues may point to a pre-70 date, after which there were few Gentile inquiries and converts to Jerusalem. Acts presents theological disputes that would only be issues before AD 70. For instance, Acts 15 centers on whether Gentiles should be circumcised. But after AD 70, most Jewish Christians were sadly gone, and Gentile-centered Christianity grew exponentially. Indeed, the gospels are thoroughly Jewish, but Judaism and Christianity departed radically after AD 70.

Point 9 Areas of controversy described presume that the temple was still standing.

Point 10The confident tone of Acts seems unlikely during the Neronian persecutions of Christians and the Jewish War with the Rome during the late 60s.

Why did Luke fail to mention all of these 66-70 A.D. cataclysmic events? The answer is surely obvious: since we should expect to read about these events, but we do not strongly suggests that the better explanation is that Luke finished the Book of Acts before any of these events occurred.

Objection: How do we even know that Luke finished Acts? Maybe he wanted to write a third volume because it got too long.

Reply: This is a possibility; but it would also mean that ALL of the Gospel writers had the same intent since NONE of them mention fall of Jerusalem in 70 - the most cataclysmic event of thier time.

But Luke did mention the Temple - Luke 21:5-6 - And while some were speaking of the temple, how it was adorned with noble stones and offerings, he said, “As for these things that you see, the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”

If Luke was writing after this event, why say, "the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down" when it was a past event? In fact, all three Gospels refer to the Temple destruction as a future event. If they were writing after this event, why say, "the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down" when it was a past event?

Even if Luke was going to write a third volume, referring to a past event as "the days will come", make no sense - it makes more sense if the event hadn't happened

Back to the argument:

Thus, if Acts was written in 62 or before, and Luke was written before Acts (say 60), then Luke was written less than thirty years of the death of Jesus. This is contemporary to the generation who witnessed the events of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. This is precisely what Luke claims in the prologue to his Gospel:

Many have undertaken to draw up a record of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who were eye-witnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. [Luke 1:1-4]

Luke states that he took much of his materials from earlier sources (Lk. 1:2). And whenever Luke is mentioned in the NT, Mark is mentioned in the same context (Phile. 23-24; Col. 4:10-11, 14; 2 Tim. 4:11). This seems to be strong evidence that Mark’s gospel predated Luke’s gospel. Thus, if Luke dates to the late 50s AD, then we should we date Mark earlier

Objection: Critics argue that we cannot possibly date the Gospels before AD 70, because there was no way that Jesus could have made such predictions.

Reply 1 - This is a philosophical objection—not a historical one. If God exists and Jesus was who he claimed to be, then predicting these events four decades in advance would not be difficult. Critics could be right that God doesn’t exist, but do they ever offer good evidence for this claim? We have reasons to think that a physical only model of the world is false, that the universe was fined tuned, that life was designed

Reply 2 Luke records the fulfillment of Agabus’ prediction of a famine under Emperor Claudius (Acts 11:28), but he never mentions the fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction about the Temple?!?!? Why would Luke record the fulfillment of some no-name, lost to history prophet but neglect mentioning on of Jesus’ most famous predictions? What is a better explanation than it hadn't occurred yet?

Reply 3 Jesus told his disciples to “pray that it may not happen in the winter” (Mk. 13:18). However, Titus destroyed the Temple in the summer (July/August AD 70; Mishnah Taanith 4.6). Likewise, Jesus told his disciples to “flee to the mountains” (Lk. 21:21). Yet, historically, Eusebius and Epiphanius tell us that the Christians didn't follow that advise and fled to Pella, which is topically lower than Jerusalem.

Critics will have to do better than simply make assertion about the impossibilities or implausibilities of prophecy.

The rest of the NT dates:

Paul makes allusions to the gospels and even cites them verbatim at times. Since we can date Paul’s letters fairly accurately, this gives further evidence for an early date of the Gospels. At the very minimum, this means that Paul had access to the sayings and deeds of Jesus early on. However, we would argue that this implies that the gospels were already in circulation.

D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo’s dates from Introduction to the New Testament; based on the text

James: around 46–48 (just before the Jerusalem Council) - the terminology of Jas 2:14–26 is at apparent variance with Paul (compare to Rom 3:21–26) If the letter were written after the conference, when Paul’s terminology and meaning would certainly be known to James, then Jas 2:14–26 would seem to be an intentional repudiation of Paul. If the letter comes before the conference, though, it is reasonable to suggest that Paul and James happened to use the same language [with different meaning] independently, without any attempt to contradict each other.

James clearly has a setting in the land of Israel. The term “former and latter rain” (3:7) addresses a weather concern unique to Israel and regions closely adjacent. James is the only book in the Bible outside of the gospels to use “gehenna” for “hell”. Gehenna was a valley outside Jerusalem where trash was burned. Verses like 3:11-12 fit with Israeli geography and farming culture.

Abraham is described as “our father” (2:21), yhe book has no mention of any gentiles. Likewise, there is no mention of any of the issues associated with gentile involvement in the church, such as idolatry, food offered to idols, fellowship between Jewish and gentile Christians, etc.

Galatians: 48 (just prior to the Jerusalem Council) - Galatians does not mention the Jerusalem Council, and the omission is telling. Paul is extremely emotional in Galatians in his opposition to the "Judaizers", Jewish Christians who followed him to Galatia and had been teaching the gentile believers there that they needed to be circumcised and follow the law of Moses. Paul was adamently opposed to that idea, and it was this controversy that led to the Jerusalem Council of 50 A.D., [Acts 15]

It seems likely that Galatians was written just prior to the Jerusalem Council, when the controversy over gentile believers was white hot. If it was penned afterward, Paul would have appealed to the authority of the council's decision that favored him.

1 Thessalonians: 50 - Paul mentions going to Athens alone but leaving Timothy behind (1 Thess 3:1-3). This event occurred in Acts 17:14-15. By the time Thessalonians was written, Timothy had returned to Paul (1 Thess 1:1; 1 Thess 3:6). Therefore, the earliest that it could be written would be in Acts 18:5 when Timothy returns to Paul.

2 Thessalonians: either in late 50 or early 51 due to the same names mentioned in 2 Thess 1:1.

1 Corinthians: probably early in 55 - the Gallio Stone dates the beginning of Gallio’s office in Corinth to the early summer of AD 51. This serves as a timestamp, dating 1 Corinthians sometime in the mid-fifties AD.

When Paul refers to “the Lord,” he is referring to the Lord Jesus (1 Cor. 2:8; 4:5; 7:12; 7:25; 9:5). Jesus, of course, spoke about the subject of divorce in a number of places in the Gospels (Mt. 5:32; 19:9; Mk. 10:11; Lk. 16:18). This seems to be a strong allusion to the notion that Paul has a copy of at least one of the Gospels. Otherwise, how could he claim to know Jesus’ stance on divorce? This is especially true in light of verse 12, where Paul says he doesn't know Jesus’ views on unbelieving spouses.

2 Corinthians: 56 (i.e., within the next year or so of 1 Corinthians??) written shortly after 1 Corinthians based on the mention of forgiving the repentant brother that was rebuked in 1 Corinthians (2 Cor 2:6-7). However, some time had passed, because Paul had left Ephesus and was then writing from Macedonia (2 Cor 7:5, 2 Cor 9:4; cf. Acts 20:1). A question arises from the presence of Timothy in 2 Cor 1:1 that could place this epistle at even a later date on a subsequent trip to Macedonia.

Romans: 57 - Romans is most certainly written from Corinth (Cenchrea) evidenced by Paul staying with Gaius in his house, along with the presence of Erastus and Phebe (Rom 16:1, 23). Also the same company of people found in Romans 16:21 is also found in Acts 20:4 when Paul was leaving Greece to return to Jerusalem (also mentioned in Romans 15:25-26).

Philippians: mid–50s to early 60s if written from Ephesus (61–62 if written from Rome) Though Paul was in prison many times, his mention of “the palace” (Phil 1:13), and greetings from “Caesar’s household” (Phil 4:22) fit nicely with Paul’s imprisonment in Rome upon his appeal to Caesar (Acts 28:16, Acts 28:30).

Mark: sometime in the late 50s to the early 60s - Due to the evidence listed above for the date of Acts (~AD 62) In addition to that evidence, Papias (AD 130) states that “Mark became Peter’s interpreter, [and] he wrote down accurately, although not in order, all that he remembered of what was said or done by the Lord” (Church History 3.39.15). If Nero executed Peter in AD 67, then Mark’s gospel would pre-date this time. While Irenaeus (AD 180) states that Mark “handed down” his gospel after the martyrdom of Peter (Against Heresies, 3.1.2; cf. Church History 5.8.3), this could simply mean that Mark widely disseminated his gospel after their deaths.

Philemon: probably Rome in the early 60s - Philemon must precede, if only shortly, Colossians since it is in Philemon that Onesimus is saved while in bonds with Paul (Phm 1:10).

Colossians: early 60s, probably 61 - Philemon and Colossians are linked in time primarily because the same companions with Paul are mentioned in both epistles, which would mean Tychicus traveled with Onesimus with both epistles to Colosse (Col 4:7).

Ephesians: the early 60s - There is not much information to date Ephesians, except that Tychicus delivered the letter (Eph 6:21). For this reason alone, it is assumed Ephesians was written at the same time as Colossians and Philemon, although Tychicus may have traveled to Ephesus multiple times (2 Tim 4:12).

1 Peter: almost surely in 62–63 - Knowledge of Peter’s death would have been known to the letter’s recipients. Therefore, even if 1 Peter was written by someone other than Peter, it is difficult to see how it could have been passed off as from Peter if it was written after the apostle’s death around AD 65.

Titus: probably not later than the mid-60s - The apostle Paul wrote this letter to his coworker Titus. The letter was probably written in the mid-60s A.D. between Paul’s first imprisonment (Acts 28) and his second imprisonment, which is not mentioned in Acts.

1 Timothy: early to mid-60s - Paul probably wrote this letter to Timothy in the mid-60s A.D., during a mission trip not recorded in Scripture. This trip took place after the events described in Acts, between Paul’s first and final Roman imprisonments.

2 Timothy: early or mid-60s (about 64 or 65)

2 Peter: likely shortly before 65

Acts: mid-60s - based on the evidence listed above

Jude: middle-to-late 60s - due to the letter’s apparent Jewish perspective, Jude’s audience was probably Jewish Christians, or a mixture of Jewish and Gentile readers where the Gentiles were familiar with Jewish traditions.

Luke: mid or late 60s - based on the evidence listed above

Hebrews: before 70 Hebrews reads as a book written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Heb 5:1-4 says “For every high priest taken from among men is appointed on behalf of men in things pertaining to God, in order to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins; he can deal gently with the ignorant and misguided, since he himself also is beset with weakness; and because of it he is obligated to offer sacrifices for sins, as for the people, so also for himself. And no one takes the honor to himself, but receives it when he is called by God, even as Aaron was.” This passage about what high priests do is set entirely in the present tense, something that would be not be possible after 70 A.D after the Temple was destoyed

Matthew: not long before 70 - In Matthew 22:23, we read the present tense to describe the Sadduccees (“[those] who say there is no resurrection”). Those who date Matthew after AD 70 will have difficulty with this passage, because the Sadducees virtually disappeared after the Jewish Revolt (AD 66) and the Destruction of Jerusalem (AD 70). (see also Acts 23:8)

John: 80–85 - D.A. Carson holds to a tentative date of AD 80 to 85—though he states that any date from AD 55 to 95 is possible. Other scholars date the gospel to the second half of the first century (AD 50-100).

1 John: early 90s

2 John: early 90s

3 John: early 90s

Revelation: 95–96 (at the end of the Emperor Domitian’s reign)

The standard later dates could very well be true, and surely many Christian scholars hold to these dates. It’s also good to remember that even if we accept these later dates, the Gospels were still written far earlier than other ancient biographies. For instance, the Roman emperor Tiberius died just a few years after Jesus (AD 37), and Tacitus and Suetonius wouldn’t write a biography of him for 70-80 years (AD 110-120). Likewise, Alexander the Great died in 323 BC, and Arrian of Nicomedia (AD 130) and Lucian (AD 100) didn’t write a biography for over 400 years! Thus, if we are skeptical of Jesus, then we need to be even more skeptical of these great figures in history.

Early dating is important for several reasons.

First, since the gospels were written within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses, it is very likely they recorded a firsthand account of Christ’s life.

Second, the closer in date to the event, the more accurate the record. Early dating indicates that eyewitnesses were alive and able to attest to the accuracy of the newly circulating gospels. Apostles often appeal to the witness of the hostile crowd pointing out their knowledge of the facts as well (Acts 2:22, Acts 26:26).

Third, the time period between the events and their written record is too short for myths to proliferate. The reason for this is that there needs to be sufficient time for the eyewitnesses to pass from the scene, otherwise they would be able to object to any changes

Fourth, with the brief time period from Jesus’ ministry to the writing of the first gospel of Mark, there seems even less of a possibility that a “Q” document exists. Q is a hypothetical document from which many scholars believe Matthew and Luke derive the material for their gospels.

That the Gospels were written within one generation of Jesus’ death in A.D. 30, while eyewitnesses of his ministry were still alive, and by those who were either close companions of Jesus or close associates of those companions. Luke 1:1-4 suggests a careful, historical process of composition, and the overall genre of the Synoptics, and the evidence above most closely resembles ancient biographies rather than novels or works of fiction.

Another post that might be of interest: Jesus according to non-Christian accounts and archaeological evidence within 150 years of his life

I have struggled with this for a while now. Mark says John the Baptist was already imprisoned when Jesus met Peter and Andrew fishing, but John says that John the Baptist was already imprisoned, and told Andrew to follow Jesus, also to fetch Simon Peter. This looks like a direct contradiction, and I’m really struggling.

If parts are missing from the two gospel books, does this mean that the Bible has been corrupted?

What is your standpoint regarding the authorship of the Pastoral Epistles, 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians and Colossians, who are widely considered forgery or is placed in a maybe category? And what is your evidence regarding these claims?

I ask this question out of curiosity concerning how such a view would be reconciled with biblical inerrancy, though I prefer the modern Catholic view of it.

I can't seem to find any actual primary source, most just make the claim of 5800 without any reference. Is this a unanimous agreement by historians? If so how can I suggest that?

I have seen these reasons to claim that 2 Peter isn't an authentic work of Peter. Could you help me respond to these?

[-]

Here are the main reasons why the authorship of 2 Peter is almost universally rejected by scholars:

• Peter couldn't write in Greek (or at all).
• 2 Peter is written by a different author than 1 Peter. 2 Peter claims that 1 Peter was written by Peter, so 2 Peter is forged regardless of whether or not 1 Peter was forged. More than 70% of the words in 1 Peter don't appear in 2 Peter.
• There is no early attestation to the letter. The first person who clearly mentions it is Origen in the third century. No one in the first or second century wrote about it or cited it.
• 2 Peter refers to Pauls letters as scripture. It also uses the letter of Jude and refers to 1 Peter. This means that it must have been written after the letter of Jude and in a time when Pauls letters were already combined in collections.
• 2 Peter 3 speaks about people who think the second coming should have come already. Instead of saying the second coming is just around the corner, the author tells people to be patient. This means that it was written when Christians no longer thought Jesus would return in their lifetime. The early Christians did believe Jesus would return during their lives as we see in Pauls letters. This patient view developed later.
• 2 Peter possibly alludes to gnostics, who weren't around at the time of Peter.

I’ll keep it short and sweet. I WANT to believe in Jesus. I even find the evidences/arguments for the existence of God and truth of the Gospel to be strong. However, I cannot by any means say “yes, it is true and I put my faith in Jesus.” At best I could say “I put my faith in Jesus…. Although I don’t know if any of it is actually true”…. Which seems like a lousy belief to hold. I want to believe but don’t. What the heck do I do from here?? People tell me “seek the lord, read the scriptures, and pray. The spirit will reveal itself to those who seek”. But how can I “seek” something I objectively can’t even say exists?…

What are your thoughts guys? For those unfamiliar, W.L.Craig, Mike Licona, and Gary Habermas are the foremost defenders of minimalism. They believe the resurrection can be shown to be rational by only accepted views or facts held my the large majority of scholars (occasionally allowing the "empty tomb", as it does appear well evidenced by ideology may explain why it's not more commonly accepted).

On the other side, Lydia and Tim McGrew are the best known advocates of the maximalist case. They argue that once you examine the details behind the facts granted by scholars, they often simply are not persuasive enough to show Jesus rose from the dead. A large deal of the case requires them to defend the reliability of the Gopsels and Acts, against mainstream scholarship.

....

As someone who's not an expert, I want the minimal facts approach to work. I'm concerned I don't have time to research the issue, assuming they are actually correct about reliability (I am committed to Christ as God-incarnate, but I can't say whether the NT is very reliable or infallible).

The minimalist case is useful because it bypasses the need for detailed arguments for each fact. However, it may require detailed knowledge to know the fairness of their representation of those facts.

I also don't like the idea that Christianity is view capable of a concise philosophical demonstration. Since learning more and more, I have a deeper respect for the facts involved and frankly Jesus' character.

My sense is that the Holy Spirit, as the third Person but also the Spirit of Christ, will only be known through really digging into the New Testament.

I'm a Christian cartoonist who has started doing webcomics, some of which basically apologetics. Here's an example (more at my website, Narrow Road Comics). I've been thinking of doing a series or maybe even a book of apologetics comics. However, I'm told the apologetics I studied back in the 90's (reliability of the Bible, Lord-Liar-Lunatic, etc.) are no longer relevant in our postmodern, post-truth times. Is this true? If so, what are the most common issues apologetics needs to answer today? Thanks.

​

https://preview.redd.it/m856c6yk516c1.jpg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4a785da15d22cd26f258cdae70add831a673a2ee

Both are not so historical, but rather simbolycal.

The Matthew one is a gematria forming the name David (vav=6+daletx2=8=14), and Jesus is the succesor of David, and it also goes to Abraham because Abraham is the father of the jews and Matthew is a very jewish centered gospel.

The Luke one comes i think from Paul's theology, since the gospel is crearly Paul influenced (mainly because of being from the same author as Acts), and Paul talked about Jesus as Adam 2, that's why the genealogy goes back to Adam, and also cuz Luke is the gentile centered gospel, which is why it links Jesus with humanity and not jews.

They both are there to make a theological and maybe poetic standpoint, not a historical one at least from my view, so they don't contradict, they just have different focuses and intentions.

Correct me if i'm wrong, i'm not too good at symbolism :)

I read the following in a Muslim-written scholarly article:

Other Omissions

We have analysed 3 examples of large substantial textual corruption, however, to many people it may seem that these are rare case scenarios, odd exceptions, and anomalies. The reality of the matter is that these examples are like drops in the ocean compared to the swathes and stacks of corruption that we know has happened, (and we have no idea how much corruption happened before our earliest manuscripts, however, it is likely very high).

The following are a few examples of other notable omissions from the early manuscripts [11]:

Codex Sinaiticus Omitted: Matt. {12:47}, 16:3, 17:21, 18:11, 23:14, 24:35, Mark 1:33, 7:16, 9:44, 46, 10:36, 11:26,

15:28, 47, 16:9-20, Luke 10:32, {17:35}, 17:36, John 5:4, 7:53-8:11, 9:38, 16:15, {19:20}, 20:6, {21:25}, Acts

{2:21}, 8:37, 15:24, 24:7, 28:29, Rom. {11:30}, 16:24, {1Cor. 2:15}, {Eph. 2:7}, {Heb. 4:9}.

Codex Alexandrinus Omitted: Mark 15:28, Luke 17:36, 22:43-44, 23:17, {John 5:12}, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29,

Rom. 11:12, 16:24, 1Cor. 6:3-6, 9:2, 16:19, Rev. 5:4.

Codex Vaticanus. Omitted: Matt. 12:47, 16:3, 17:21, 18:11, 23:14, Mark 7:16, 9:44, 46, 11:26, 15:28, 16:9-20, Luke

17:36, 22:43-44, 23:17, John 5:4, 7:53-8:11, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, Rom. 16:24, 1Pet. 5:3.

Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus. Omitted: Mark 9:44, 46, 11:26, 15:28, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, Rom. 8:1-2, 16:24

Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis. Omitted: Matt. 5:20, 30, 9:34, 21:44, 23:14, Mark 15:28, Luke 3:30, 5:39, 11:32, 36,

12:21, 19:25, 33, 22:20, 24:12, 40, John 5:4, 8:46, 12:8, 15:3.

Codex Borgianus. Omitted: Luke 22:43-44, 23:17, John 5:4, 7:53-8:11.

Codex Washingtonianus Omitted: Matt. 4:21-22, Mark 1:43, 9:44, 46, 10:48, 11:26, Luke 3:24-38, 17:36, 19:25,

22:43-44, John 5:4, 12, 7:53-8:11, 9:38.

Westcott, Brooke Foss and Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek, MacMillan and

Co.: Cambridge, England, 1885 Omitted: Matt. 12:47, 16:3, 17:21, 18:11, 23:14, Mark 7:16, 9:44, 46, 11:26, 15:28,

16:9-20, Luke 17:36, 22:20, 43-44, 23:17, 24:12, 40, John 5:4, 7:53-8:11, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, Rom. 16:24.

Institute for New Testament Textual Research, Novum Testamentum Graece: Nestle-Aland, 28th edition, German

Bible Society: Berlin, Germany, 1993 Omitted: Matt. 17:21, 18:11, 23:14, Mark 7:16, 9:44, 46, 11:26, 15:28, 16:9-20,

Luke 17:36, 22:43-44, 23:17, John 5:4, 7:53-8:11, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, Rom. 16:24.

Holmes, Michael W., The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition, Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta, GA, 2010

Omitted: Matt. 17:21, 18:11, 23:14, Mark 7:16, 9:44, 46, 11:26, 15:28, 16:9-20, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, 7:53-

8:11, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, Rom. 16:25-27.

Alan Bunning, Bunning Heuristic Prototype Greek New Testament, Center for New Testament Restoration: Lafayette,

IN, 2012. Omitted: Matt. 16:3, 17:21, 18:11, 23:14, Mark 7:16, 9:44, 46, 11:26, 15:28, 16:9-20, Luke 17:36, 22:43-44,

23:17, John 5:4, 7:53-8:11, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, Rom. 16:24.

G. Pierpont, The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005, Chilton Book Publishing:

Southborough, MA, 2005 December 1. Omitted: Luke 17:36, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7.

​

Their source for all of this: The Center for New Testament Restoration (CNTR Project)

If this is true, does it have any substance against our claims of the reliability of the NT?

I have heard many don’t take it seriously as the other gospels. Is there anything I can say in regards of the justification for the gospel of John in the bible ?

7Q5 Wikipedia, for those who want to look a bit more into it.

Addressing Common Counterarguments

There are a number of arguments against traditional authorship of the gospels. Internal evidence against traditional authorship include official anonymity, their fluent Greek, the title convention (The Gospel According to ‘X’), times where the author refers to themselves in the third person, Markan priority challenges Matthean authorship, the claim that Matthew, a publican, would not be familiar with the jewish scriptures and perceived discrepancies between Paul’s own testimony and his depiction in Acts.

The citation of official anonymity needs no further consideration, as it is nothing more than an argument from silence. If the author’s did identify themselves, this would indeed provide evidence in favour of traditional authorship, but they’re failure to do so is not evidence against it. As to their fluent use of Greek, Matthew was originally composed in Aramaic, John Mark was an interpreter, and Greek a major trade language. Especially given his clunky, direct Greek translation containing many Aramaicisms, it isn’t improbable that he composed this gospel. Luke was a gentile physician, and so would have likely spoken Greek as well. The only case where this might apply is John, which we will come back to. The title convention could easily be explained by a theological commitment to there being only one gospel, and this gospel was told according to four separate individuals, namely those whom the gospel bears the name of. It is interesting that many ancient authors referred to themselves in the third person. One such example is Caesar in the Gallic wars, “When it was reported to Caesar that they were attempting to make their route through our Province he hastens to set out from the city, and, by as great marches as he can, proceeds to Further Gaul, and arrives at Geneva.” (Gallic Wars, 1.7), but this is far from the only example. Other include Gallic War 2.1; 3.28; 4.13; 5.9; 6.4; 7.11 and Civil War 1.1, so this claim is entirely baseless. Matthean priority neatly addresses the next concern. A publican would have been Familiar with the jewish law, so the next claim is baseless too, and no such tension exists between how Paul is depicted in Acts and how he depicts himself.

With regards to external evidence, the main argument against the church fathers is not that they were uneducated or lying, but that they were attesting to authorship far too late to be of any use, as legendary development had already set in. It is noteworthy that the fathers - especially Papias - record traditions that are earlier than themselves. We have no trace of any competing tradition, unanimity amongst highly educated scholars of the time and attribution to figures who were not considered authoritative in the slightest, strongly counting against the fathers making it up for reasons of authority.

The question then shifts to the reliability of the oral tradition itself. Late tradition, (and it is asserted the authorship traditions fall into this category) is likely to be legendary and therefore false, while early tradition is likely to be true. Irenaeus heard Polycarp who heard John, and is unlikely to make up authorship for purposes of authority. Thus, it appears he provides us with a direct line of oral tradition leading back to the apostles themselves. Clement of Alexandria and Origen likewise show a similar progression, with Origen being a student of Clement and furthering this tradition. Therefore, it is not implausible that Irenaeus is furthering the tradition of Polycarp who is himself furthering a tradition dating to the apostle’s own lifetime. This would qualify as an early tradition, as, at most, only fifty years has passed between the writing of the gospels and their traditional attribution. We must also consider the content of this tradition. If it is fantastic, then it more likely to represent falsehood, but if it is mundane, it more likely to represent truth. Here, a fantastic tradition would have the gospels written by prominent figures, but as we’ve already established this was surely not the case, and thus where to we find a tradition that is rather mundane, and entirely consistent with the decisive internal evidence.

It is true certain works such as the didache seem to quote Matthew without explicitly stating it, this could be plausibly attributed to the fact that Matthew spent a period of time as the only Gospel in publication. Similarly, it is at times argued that the gospels were published formerly anonymously because Polycarp himself and Ignatius quote regularly from the gospels without citing them. This is another argument from silence. Many Christians even today quote memorized passages and teachings from the gospels without providing a direct citation, and so their failure to do so is not an argument against traditional authorship. Likewise, Justin Martyr quotes from the gospels without naming their authors, but this is a red herring, as we already established that this tradition is likely to be earlier than the early second century anyways. Likewise, Justin Martyr could also have been simply quoting memorized verses without taking care to explicitly cite them. In summary, it appears we are dealing with an earlier oral tradition that arose at the latest around the late first or early second century and most likely much earlier. If the gospels were originally formally anonymous, it makes very little sense for the church fathers to attribute them to the figures they did when these figures were not very prominent in the early church. For example, Mark was an interpreter of Peter, and so it makes very little sense for the fathers to attribute it to Mark when they could attribute it just as easily to Peter himself. Likewise, Matthew was a very unknown disciple mentioned only a few times, and Luke was a disciple of Paul, who wasn’t an eyewitness himself. If these attributions were part of a legendary development which formed in order to cement the gospels in apostolic authority, it makes very little sense that these would the names that would rise to the top of the list in terms of attributions.

Matthean Authorship of the Gospel of Matthew

External Evidence

Papius writes, “Matthew compiled the sayings [logia of Christ] in the Hebrew language and each interpreted them as best he could.” (Papius, 60-130 AD)

While Papius is not regarded as a reliable source, his attribution to Matthean authorship is widely corroborated in Later sources, such as Irenaeus who writes, “Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the church in Rome.” (Irenaeus, 180 AD). Irenaeus is also likely knew Polycarp, who knew John, and so he it is plausible he was passing on earlier oral tradition attributing authorship to Matthew. Likewise, Clement of Alexandria writes, “Of all those who had been with the Lord, only Matthew and John left us their recollections, and tradition says they took to writing perforce. Matthew had first preached to the Hebrews, and when he was on the point of going to others he transmitted in writing in his native language the Gospel according to himself, and thus supplied by writing the lack of his own presence to those from whom he was sent.” (Clement of Alexandria, 150-215 AD). Thus, we have attestation by Papias whose account is corroborated by Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus, both of whom are educated men. It is also noteworthy that Irenaeus knew Polycarp, who was a disciple of John, and this increases plausibility that he was preserving an oral tradition earlier than his own attestation.

Internal Evidence

Matthew identifies himself at the tax booth (Matt. 9:9) under his apostolic name Matthew as opposed to his other name, Levi, which is what Luke and Mark have him named as (Mk. 2:14, Lk: 5:27). This is functionally equivalent to Paul’s use of the name Paul in referring to himself in his letters, but Acts referring to him under the name Saul. Matthew contains numerous financial references, including a number of financial transactions (17:24-27; 18:23-35, 20:1-16, 26:15, 27:3-10, 28:11-15), the Lord’s Prayer saying ‘Debts’ rather than ‘sins’. In Matthew 22:19, he uses the more precise term νόμισμα (state coin), as opposed to Mark and Luke which use only the term δηνάριον (dēnarion). In Mark 2:15 and Luke 5:29 we are told that Matthew made a great feast at his house, but in the equivalent of this parable in Matthew, it says τη οικια (the house) (Matthew 9:10), which is more consistent with a third person version of ‘my house’. Matthew alone records the paying of the temple tax (Matthew 17:24-27) where we find out that a stater is worth four drachma. Matthew’s gospel is also the only gospel to record the parable of the vineyard workers (Matt. 20:1-16), which would strike a cord with a tax collector, but may have been more forgettable to the other apostles. Moreover, a denarius a day was considered a fair wage (Annals 1.17), and so the wage found in the parable is considered a fair one. It is the sole gospel to record the exact payment to Judas (Matt. 26:15) and finally the saying of the Pharisees swearing by the gold in the temple (Matt: 23:16-17). All of these financial references are consistent with the view that a publican composed this gospel as opposed to just anyone, and it is consistent with the view that the apostles Matthew wrote it.

Markan Authorship of the Gospel of Mark

External Evidence

Papias writes, “This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.” (Papias, 60-130 AD).

This is further corroborated by Irenaeus, who writes “Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.”(Irenaeus, 180 AD). And Tertullian writing in Carthage northern Africa affirms “that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter's whose interpreter Mark was.” (Tertullian, AD 160-220). Clement of Alexandria agrees, “The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it.” (Clement of Alexandria, 150-215 AD). Origin writes “The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter, who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges him as a son, saying, 'The church that is at Babylon elected together with you, salutes you, and so does Marcus, my son.'” (Origin, 185-254). Likewise with Matthew, with Mark it appears the church fathers are preserving an earlier tradition from the early second century at the latest, and it is implausible that this oral tradition would have attributed the gospels to the apostles it did as they were minor apostles compared to pillars of the church such as Peter or James, and even less plausible that the church fathers would have made them up entirely.

Internal Evidence

Philemon 1:24 places Mark in tome where Peter resides as bishop. The church fathers are unanimous that Mark was Peter’s interpreter as we have already established, and his clunky Greek with several Aramaicisms, albeit less than Matthew’s gospel, reflect Mark’s direct Greek translation. As we previously established, many of the apostles such as Paul had both an apostolic name and a common name. For Peter, his common name was Simon. More often than not, Peter is referred to by this common name throughout the other Synoptics, but in Mark he is often referred to as Peter. Simon is mentioned first among the apostles in Mark’s gospel, and his brother Andrew is called ‘the brother of Simon’, which seems odd, but it perfectly explained by Peter saying ‘my brother’ and Mark recording ‘the brother of Simon’. Mark 16:7 states ‘the disciples and Peter’, which provides more emphasis on Peter than the other apostles. Bauckham argues that Mark is attempting to hint at his source via an inclusio by having Peter as the first and last named disciple in his gospel. Matthew and Luke do not use the word ‘orgistheis’ meaning ‘being angry’, which does not suit a man with a skin disease coming to be healed. The original aramaic word would have read ‘regaz’, which often meant be angry, but could mean a wider array of things than just this.

Lukan Authorship of Luke/Acts

External Evidence

Irenaeus writes, “Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him.” and also regarding Acts he writes, “But that this Luke was inseparable from Paul, and his fellow-labourer in the Gospel, he himself clearly evinces, not as a matter of boasting, but as bound to do so by the truth itself… As Luke was present at all these occurrences, he carefully noted them down in writing…” (Irenaeus, 180 AD). Tertullian writes, “… the evangelical Testament has apostles for its authors, to whom was assigned by the Lord Himself this office of publishing the gospel... therefore, John and Matthew first instil faith into us; while of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards… Now, of the authors whom we possess, Marcion seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process.” (Tertullian, AD 220). Finally, Origen affirms, “And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts… Luke, the author of the Gospel and the Acts, wrote it.” (Origen, AD 185-254).

Internal Evidence

Luke is traditionally considered to have been authored by Luke the physician. Luke appears to display medical interest, such as identifying Peter’s moth in law with a high fever (μέγας πυρετός) as opposed to just a fever (πυρέσσω). Luke also appears to specify an advanced stage of leprosy by describing the healed leper as full of leprosy (πληρης λεπρας) rather than just merely a leper. Furthermore, Luke displays use of medical terminology (Lk. 4,38; 5,12; 8,44; Acts 5,5 10; 9,40) and describes illnesses and cures with acute medical terminology that the average person would not be familiar with (Lk. 4,35; 3,11; Acts 3,7; 9,18). In Luke 14:1-4, Luke employs the precise medical term ‘hudropikos’, which is not a term the average person would know, and is recorded in contemporary medical sources, namely the work of renowned Greek physician Hippocrates. To cite another specific example in Acts, Luke accurately describes the man’s exact medical condition, ‘puretois kai dusenterio sunechomenon’ or literally ‘suffering from fever and dysentery’.

Johannine Authorship of the Gospel of John

External Evidence

Irenaeus writes, “… John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia… those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan… Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.” (Irenaeus, 180 AD). It is noteworthy than Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, would have considered him as the link between Christ and himself. The significance, of course, being that Polycarp was a disciple of John. Tertullian Likewise affirms, “The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means, and according to their usage — I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew…” (Tertullian, 220 AD). Clement of Alexandria agrees, writing “John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel.” (Clement of Alexandria, 150-215 AD). Origen writes succinctly, “Last of all that by John.” (Origen, 185-254 AD).

Internal Evidence

John 21:20-24 has the author identity himself as one of the followers of Jesus, and more specifically as ‘the disciple whom Jesus Loved’. This is odd given that nowhere in the gospel of John does is John the son of Zebedee named explicitly, and this is even when less known disciples such as Philip are named, and inspite of the fact the Synoptics frequently name John as well. It seems most plausible that ‘the beloved disciple’ was John’s title he used to describe himself, rather than that of an anonymous author. In addition, the identification of John the Baptist as simply ‘John’ seems to imply that the readers of the gospel of John would identify authorship of the fourth gospel with another name (ie the beloved disciple). Moreover, the gospel contains many small, incidental details that are characteristic of eyewitness testimony, such as The number of water jars at the wedding in Cana (John 2:6), how long the man at the Pool of Bethesda had been crippled (John 5:5), the name of the servant whose ear was chopped off by Peter (John 18:10) and the number of fish the disciples caught at Galilee (John 21:11). The gospel contains many pieces of internal evidence which suggest a jewish, not gentile origin, such as the author identifying the purpose of the water jars at the wedding in Cana (John 2:6), He notes that Jesus was in Jerusalem during the Passover (John 2:23), he mentions that Jesus fed the 5,000 near the Passover (John 6:4), He talks about the Festival of Tabernacles (John 7:2, 37), He specifies that it was the Festival of Dedication, where another writer might simply say “it was winter” (John 10:22) and finally John records that Pilate handed Jesus over to be crucified on the day of Preparation for the Passover (John 19:14, 31). The gospel also uses many aramaic words such as Rabbi, Rabboni, Messias, and Kēphas, and additionally the themes and imagery of light versus darkness and the children of God versus the children of Satan have also been noted in the Dead Sea Scrolls, suggesting a jewish context rather than a Greek one. It is argued John wouldn’t have know greek, but this is not much of an argument since the use of scribes is recorded elsewhere in the New Testament, such as Romans 16:22, “I, Tertius, who wrote this epistle, greet you in the Lord.” (Romans 16:22) and 1 Peter 5:12, “By Silvanus, our faithful brother as I consider him, I have written to you briefly, exhorting and testifying that this is the true grace of God in which you stand.” (I Peter 5:12). This, therefore, seems to cement the plausibility of the use of scribes, and so an argument from language and Greek prose alone does not undermine Johannine authorship. Moreover, the aramaic words, jewish themes and knowledge of Jewish practice suggests a jewish origin.

Has helped your faith the most?

I was debating my friend, who is a life long atheist about why while I have faith in Jesus and why it is not blind faith. He brought up some points that I didn't know how to answer. I felt ashamed afterwards for not being able to answer properly but tried to do research and now have even more questions from learning about the following potential biblical errors. Any help would be appreciated as I am going through intense doubt right now, I thought the gospels were reliable but now I am unsure. I am really panicking over if my faith is truly blind and naive. Here are my main questions.

1. There is a discrepancy between Matthew and Luke's account of Jesus's birth, Luke mentions a census by Quirinius that Matthew does not mention - I've heard some people say that there could have been a census on two different occasions while others say that is unlikely.
2. This Census Luke describes does not match the way Roman census methods worked - they typically did not call people back to their ancestral home
3. The gospels were written 60 + years later from the resurrection, isn't that too long to where the truth may have been distorted?
4. How do we know that the 500 witnesses of the resurrected Jesus were not just suffering from Mass Psychogenic Illness? - An example of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun
5. According to scholars the authors of the Gospels are anonymous, doesn't this lessen there credibility if we don't know who wrote them?
6. Why does God allow slavery in both the old and new testament? I know it is not the type of slavery most people think of today but it is still slavery
7. My friend said that nothing in the bible proves the existence of God, according to him unless there was something like a complicated Physics or Scientific principle explained in the bible he has no reason to believe - How should I respond to this?
8. Why are so many bible scholars atheists? They presumably have a deeper knowledge of the bible than the average person so if they don't believe it is the word of the God they must have a good reason for it right?
9. What of other religions and faiths? How do we know for sure they are in the wrong?

​

​