Notes

" That doesn’t mean the quotes are incorrect. "

Absolutely. It only means that our earliest evidence is from the 4th century because all of our second century evidence was lost.

"By what logic? Again, no historian argues that means there were not original works they were quoting. "

My point was not that the works did not exist. It was that the works were lost. So that we do not have any second century evidence, our earliest evidence is in the fourth century with Papias. We do not know what they claimed. We do not have them. You are literally going on evidence that we do not have and was lost.

>The argument is we have unanimous attestation from different authors in multiple regions. Plus, most secular works have far less attestation, in many later works. Do you apply this skepticism to those works as well? I gave examples in the video.

Well, it is not multiple attestation. It is only 2 Christians and they are confirming one another in the third century, 100 + years away from the originals. The reason we do not need attestation for most works is that they identify their authors. And that their attestation is contemporary like Pliny The Younger and Tacitus. And

Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War (1:1), which states at the beginning: “Thucydides, an Athenian, wrote the history of the war between the Peloponnesians and the Athenians, as they fought against each other.” The historians Herodotus (1:1), Dionysius of Halicarnassus (1.8.4), and Josephus (BJ 1.3) all likewise include their names in prologues. Sometimes an author’s name can also appear later in the text. In his Life of Otho (10.1), for example, the biographer Suetonius Tranquillus refers to “my father, Suetonius Laetus,” which thus identifies his own family name.


> I know and I refuted this in the video

That's not true. You did not address their anonymity besides a quick passing reference that a lot of other historical records at the time were anonymous. That's a Tu Quoque Fallacy.


> According to the Muratorian fragment, there were others with John when he wrote his Gospel, so seeing “we” would be expected.

Um..... The muratorian fragment is an 8th century manuscript.

>Perhaps you should check the source on this because I cannot find it:

https://books.google.ca/books?id=brxgNsxJKkUC&pg=PR17&lpg=PR17&dq=Epiphanius,+Panarion&source=bl&ots=lzrZ5tmyl7&sig=XQmRokQfyaPm4OzeRk8YafrYPPc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjGjf-jqt3aAhWhzIMKHWCoBCc4ChDoAQhSMAg#v=onepage&q&f=false (Page 27, 3.6)

>- I addressed this in part 7: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bAEjhcQryQ

1) So your argument is that they used scribes? Well then besides the fact that there is no evidence for this, that would still mean that the traditional ascription is false because it was not the disciples who wrote the documents and it was the scribes who did. Moreover, how do you know that the scribes were reliable?

2) You straw-manned my argument. It was not about amanuensis. It was about that the traditional ascription was contested before it was even written down.

> Logia means scripture.

That's not true. It means sayings. (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/logia). You are being dishonest.

>- Argument from silence

Not saying that he did not believe. I am saying that he did not give us any evidence about it.

>Look at the context. Eusebius was talking about his eschatology views, not his witnesses to gospel authors.

Eusebius says that he was a man of very little intelligence "as one can see from his discourses." He does not say "he was a man of very little understanding of eschatology". You are making the text say something it is not.

>The difference is I gave arguments along with this, like how they liked to mention events that had already happened, like the betraying of Judas and the Famine from Acts.

That's great. You are still committing the argument from silence by saying that they do not mention the de

And as I just realize, You committed an argument from silence with Acts too.

You claim that Acts does not mention the execution of Paul so it did not happen by the time of writing (yet another argument from silence).

Here are better explanations:

1) So much time has passed that nobody cares that Paul died (esp. true if Acts is late 1st/early 2nd century, as Tyson/Pervo argue).

2) Acts is not Paul's biography, but about how the gospel (preaching, that is) reached Rome. This is the solution I favor, as do a good number of NT scholars.

3) Everyone knows that Paul has died; there's no reason to state it.

4) Nobody knows what happened to Paul, outside of the fact that he's no longer alive.


And the most obvious point is that you are assuming that Paul was martyred which we have no evidence for. We have no evidence that any disciples ever died for their faiths. Acts 12 records that Herod killed James but it does not say why he was killed.

As you can see from my name, I am a Muslim. Feel free to ask anything.

So in conclusion:

Your argument for authorship:

1) For two of the testimonies, You are speculating on lost evidence that we do not have. The earliest this evidence is is in the 4th century with Eusebius. Before that, we have nothing since all the writings were lost.

2) One of them was not even talking about our gospels and you did not rebut that one except for being dishonest about what logion meant.

3) The testimonies you have are Irenaeus and Tertullian who are 2 christians who get a consensus in the third century.

4) Those two testimonies were contested by at least 3 Christians before them. (Algoti, Martyr and Marcion)

Your argument for early dating:

Well you did not even address that one because we both know that it is a fallacy called an argument from silence. Scroll up for examples