The Gospels Were Written Early, Not After AD 70 

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.

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.

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

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...

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 :(

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

Thanks for the sub!

@@TestifyApologetics no problem, i do plan on binging all your videos

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?: ru-vid.com/group/PLbVf0T8-zFVinzGCuBDFjPHuICyYM2RmK

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.

Now he should step up his game and take the challenge of combating the uncountable fallacies of the religitards

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.

Thanks for the sub!

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 RU-vid 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? @@user-ov8iz9vz4n

@@user-ov8iz9vz4n 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?

@@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.

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.

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?

@@amt4653 re-read

In Acts why wouldn't Luke finish his story then if he was writing in 85AD?

Well this comment must have been written 50 years after it became a big channel

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!

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.

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?

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

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 ?

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.

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.

John probably wasn't written after the death of Peter.

He mentioned Scriptures which were Creed of Christians already before his conversion in 34AD

There is a gap between something being written and everyone being aware of it. There was no internet. Tradition says Mark's gospel was written in Rome and that he later moved to North Africa. Therefore, I'd say it's unlikely that Paul was aware of it during his travels until he reached near Rome, and more likely that his gospel spread first in the western part of the Empire before reaching Asia. It was not a letter after all, so it was not meant to be sent to anyone. That's why I have some diffuculties believing those theories that say Matthew copied from Mark, Luke copied from Mathew or Mark and even from a Q font that we never found. For God's sake we don't even have a full list of writings of the New Testament until the 4th century because those texts were all spread out in different regions of the Empire, how could Luke in modern day Greece be copying from Mark in Rome and from Matthew in Turkey?

Check out Inspiring Philosophy's series of videos on the flood regarding your question for Noah. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-lLSyiJ9KUCo.html As far as the ending of Mark's gospel, it's not really a big thing. Most scholars think that verses 9-20 were added by a later editor, they're not in our earliest manuscripts. And it doesn't pose a problem regarding the resurrection, I've written a little about it here: isjesusalive.com/a-damning-bible-contradiction-the-women-spread-the-word-of-the-empty-tomb-or-did-they/ Whether Mark called Jesus the Son of God in the earliest manuscripts doesn't matter. The Roman centurion at the cross called him the son of God in Mark 15.39, and Mark is pretty clear about who he thinks Jesus is. I've written at length about it here: isjesusalive.com/18-passages-in-marks-gospel-that-prove-jesus-is-god/

@@TestifyApologetics Ok Thank you very much🤩

Was it that RU-vidr with “trump” in his name? If so, he tried telling me that there was a story in Gilgamesh called “The Gardens of the Edin” but I couldn’t find that anywhere. Anyways, I say we don’t need to look into it, I just have faith in God. Just prove the reliability of the Gospels, Jesus’ divinity through His resurrection.

Maybe they needed 70 years to create this outragous fairy tale.

I go to a non-denominational church, but our beliefs are nearly identical to the Assemblies of God. This channel is more about defending "mere Christianity" than my theological distinctives, so Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, Coptics, Anabaptists should all be able to benefit from the content.

Hey Ruslan big fan, ever since you were doing Kings Dream from the start

Here ya go isjesusalive.com/recommended-books-on-historical-apologetics/

@@TestifyApologetics thank you a lot man, very much appreciated.

Or at least had access to someone who knew Mary's account well.

You don't even need to be a Jew to understand this, but it does help

@@youngknowledgeseeker you may be surprised how many Christians believe otherwise

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.

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.

Also not just the gospels. Luke would have mention it revelations would have too

The Pastorals were written after Paul lol

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?

Did u read isiah ? He spoke about Jesus resurrection before 100 years

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.

😂

Jesus predicts Peter's death in John 21.18-19

@@TestifyApologetics Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, "Follow me!" [John 21:18-19 NIV]

@@CornerTalker John was written in 95 AD.

The old name was fine but I want to focus on eyewitness testimony, including things that happen today like miracles and evidentially compelling religious experiences. Hopefully these will go beyond explainer videos and into a few interviews. Stay tuned.

@@TestifyApologetics, Thanks for the explanation!

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.

Erik Manning

I find that unlikely. It could be for Luke’s Gospel but not Acts as that covers the 60s AD. A more likely one is Matthatias ben Theophilus, who served as the Jewish high priest from 65 to 66 AD.

@@Nameless-pt6oj oh that’s interesting I didn’t know about him. Although it’s surprising that Luke didn’t record James death in 62.

In my opinion you are absolutely correct. Luke was written between 37-41 AD to the then High Priest. Acts was likely written when TA suggests and he addressed him informally because he was long since removed from that position.

You're making the assumption that the writers were from Judea. Biblical scholars claim that the writers were Greek intellectuals.

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.