Who Wrote the Gospels?

Buy the summary chart:

Complete series in one video:

Individual episodes:

Recommended Reading:
* Alter, Robert (2011). The Art of Biblical Narrative. Basic Books.
* Baden, Joel (2012). The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis. Yale University Press.
* Coogan, Michael (2001) The Oxford History of the Biblical World. Oxford University Press
* Finkelstein, Israel & Neil Asher Silberman (2001). The Bible Unearthed. Free Press.
* Kugel, James (2007). How to Read the Bible. Free Press.
* Stein, Robert H. (2001). Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation. Baker Academic.

Credits:
Charts & Narration by Matt Baker, PhD
Animation by Syawish Rehman
Audio by Jack Rackam

[anthonykilleen]

“Jewishy”, Never thought I would hear that word lol.

[peterandersson]

As always with the videos dealing with religion, I'm amazed at how well this channel balances western science with the various belief systems. It's respectful to all, catering to both believers and non-believers while still not being watered down. Even for non-believers, the jewish and christian theology influence us all in the western world. Looking forward to future episodes!

[eb]

I'm really not surprised that it's possible an omnipotent entity from Star Trek has such a fundamental role in the development of the Bible. Q just can't leave well enough alone.

[sdastoryteller]

DUDE!!! I'm loving your respect and commitment to clearly talk about Theology! This is beautiful! Thanks for this vid!

[JohnnyLodge]

Matthew for jews
Luke for greeks
Mark for romans
John for philosophers

[MaximusLight]

As a christian who actually likes both knowing the traditional way of viewing the Bible as well as the more critical and historical way I just want to say good job.
I always enjoy taking a critical eye to the history of it just to know how things might have happened. I think you hit the nail on the head about what caused the split between Christian theology and Rabbinical Theology, I'm pretty sure the traditional view is that the Gospels were written expressly because the temple was destroyed and people were forced to adapt to the situation.

[BonJoviBeatlesLedZep]

Funny enough, Religion For Breakfast popped up in my Youtube feed because I'd watched so much UsefulCharts and I became a big fan of his content. I felt sad that y'all had never collaborated. Glad you have now!

[petertocher]

I'm atheist and am thoroughly enjoying your presentations. I keep finding little moments of surprise. Keep it up !

[Nooticus]

As a Jew who has never learnt about the New Testament properly before, this video is exceptional, clear, and informative! Thank you Matt!

[lemputt]

It must be like juggling chainsaws dealing with all this information whilst being cautious of everyone on YouTube's individual theological peccadilloes. Amazing!

[brunog]

Ohhhh so I was familiar with the "doubting Thomas" part of the Bible but it's interesting to know it might have represented a conflict between two Christian Schools

[powerofk]

I'm honestly of the opinion that it doesn't really matter which one was written first, and that all three synoptics may have even been written around the same time. Much of the differences can be attributed to the audiences that they were intended for more than anything. Matthew's Gospel was written for Jews. As such, he portrays Jesus as a second Moses (the core of Matthew's Gospel can be broken into 5 parts of miracle working/narrative followed by long speeches). Mark's Gospel was written for Romans - and was written in a very quick, easy to read format that was popular in Rome. It portrays Jesus primarily as a miracle worker. And Luke's Gospel was written for Greeks - but also emphasized Jesus's care for the outcast, focusing on the universality of the Gospel. John's Gospel is the heresy-killer. And was written as such. The other Gospels are ambiguous as to what is meant by Jesus being the "Son of God". But John's Gospel leaves no doubt - Jesus has existed eternally as the eternal Word, became truly human, and yet always knew that He was also divine. The reason why John's Gospel does not have the same miracles as the synoptics and shows Jesus differently has to do with the fact that the synoptics were written primarily for evangelization - that is, spreading the Christian message itself. But the Gospel of John was used to teach catechumens (that is, people preparing to become Christians) the deeper mysteries of faith and to fight heresies that had cropped up.

[stillyourgoth]

I majored in Religion 20 years ago, and it is nice to see some new theories. I can from Religion for Breakfast, and your channel also does a god job of explaining things. At let me say, your respect for different religions and your giving your own biases, and your understanding of faith and evidence is a wonderful breath of fresh air to me, who also is religious but interested in evidence and what it means. Excellent channel, I am excited to watch more. Good work!

[abrakadabra]

Just a small correction: Griesbach would be pronounced like Greesbach.

Greisbach = Grisbach
Griesbach = Greesbach

Great video though! Keep up the good work!

[BornAgainRN]

Unfortunately this video is mostly speculation filled with “what if” scenarios and based on very little if any true scholarship. The earliest witnesses of the authorship and dating of all four Gospels and the book of Acts comes from the second and early centuries A.D. And why would the Gospel of Matthew which was authored by an apostle and is far more extensive than Mark borrow from this shorter gospel which was not written by an apostle, which excludes specific information like Salome being present at the empty tomb, who is missing from Matthew’s account.

The only reason this video wants to give a more liberal dating of the gospels after 70 A.D. is because of the explicit prophecies about the destruction of the temple, which this video would have to acknowledge is a real prophecy since it was written prior to 70A.D. In reality, the most conservative and reliable scholarship is Matthew being written first around 50 A.D., Mark being written shortly after that, Luke and Acts being written around 60 A.D at the latest. And John being written around 80 to 90 A.D. There is absolutely zero evidence for any sort of Q document or other theoretical writings proposed in this video. And regarding the Gospel of Thomas, when you read it it is clearly gnostic in origin, which means it would’ve been written sometime in the second century A.D., not contemporary with the canonical gospels in the first. It doesn’t even read like a first century canonical gospel at all, which further supports a second century writing.

If you want a really scholarly argument for when the new testament books were written, as well as their authorship, I highly recommend Dr. Michael Kruger‘s book, “Canon Revisited.” It is filled with hundreds of scholarly citations which validate his research, rather than just assuming them based on other sources with absolutely no evidence of them ever existing, beyond the assumptions and opinions of those proposing it.

[danielhooke]

10:42 Are you familiar with the idea that the three Synoptic Gospels represent differing positions on a fundamental issue that challenged the early christian church: do you have to be Jewish to be christian? Mark, wanting to spread the message far and wide, says here is the good news, and no, you don't have to become circumcised to join the club. Matthew, being traditional, responds saying here is the good news, but yes, you do have to be circumcised to join the club. Luke responds to the growing schism by saying, look, can't we all just be friends, here's the good news, but out the corner of his mouth, says you don't have to be circumcised.

[dillondebruv]

I’m Christian, and this is very intriguing. Love that word “Jewishy”!

[PFDarkside]

I love this series. And I’m disturbed by how fast the last month passed.

[vitaminc]

these episodes are very interesting. like listening a mystery case from detective.
PS: Griesbach is supposed to be pronounced like Greezbach since he is german

[farmercraig]

I still think what we learnt from the early church fathers is the best info.
The correct order, Matthew, Mark, Luke/Acts and John.
The correct authors, they never disagreed on the authors, and all manuscripts have the titles on them with the correct author.
There early, why because Luke mentions in his intro that he is using eyewitness sources, and who does he quote from Matthew and Mark. Here’s the kicker, Paul who’s letters are dated in the 50’s quotes from Luke twice ( in Acts the author is a companion to Paul on his journeys), even calling it scripture. So this puts Luke, Mark and Matthew quite early. also The book of Acts doesn’t mention Paul’s death, Peter’s death, James the brother of Jesus’ death as Josephus does and that happened in 62 A.D, but Luke doesn’t record the fall of Jerusalem a huge event. Why not record this event as a fulfilled prophecy as he did on another occasion in Acts. Simply because it hadn’t happened yet.
With John it’s just simply a case of (as Eusebius the church historian makes a point of) he was given the three gospels and gave of their approval. He most likely didn’t want to repeat the same story again so he filled in the missing details. Take for example the sign on the cross of Jesus.
Really the modern scholars probably should give the original history of the New Testament another look, because it’s the true story and most simple explanation for the New Testament.