Fr. Hewko, Apologetics: Scoffers Attack Authenticity of Gospels 5/8/26

本站添加: 2026-05-16

[00:00:03]Let's continue with apologetics and we could cut this class at quarter of to have a little time for the the meditation.

[00:00:17]All right, page 88. We're looking at the internal evidence of the gospels.

[00:00:26]why they are true from proofs from the internal evidence. We were looking at quad evangelium quartum as to the fourth gospel the authenticis authenticity of which is in particular attacked. They don't like St. John's gospel because it's very emphatic about about Christ's what >> divinity >> that he's truly God. Yes. Give two examples from St. John's gospels at three where the divinity is clearly expressed.

[00:00:58]>> In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God.

[00:01:02]>> Yes. Chapter 1 verse one.

[00:01:05]Another one.

[00:01:09]>> Before Abraham was I am.

[00:01:12]>> Chapter eight. Yes.

[00:01:17]>> I and the father. I and the father are one.

[00:01:20]>> Chapter 10. Yes.

[00:01:24]There's three examples.

[00:01:27]That's right.

[00:01:30]Yeah. Very powerful. From the gospel, we see that the author is St. John is Jewish. He's an eyewitness. He's an apostle. His name is John and other things. Okay. Jewish.

[00:01:43]as from the language with many Hebraisms, concept of the Messiah and knowledge of Jewish customs, yet showing a better use of the Greek idiom from a longer familiarity with the synoptics.

[00:01:55]Two, he's an eyewitness as from the vivid description of persons and places.

[00:02:02]John 1:28 describes who?

[00:02:06]John 3:23 describes who?

[00:02:10]And John 4 describes who?

[00:02:13]>> John 1:28. These things were done in Bethania beyond the Jordan where John was baptizing.

[00:02:20]>> Yeah. So he's given a place, an actual place beyond the ri beyond the Jordan, the river. So he's familiar with the river, right?

[00:02:33]John 3:23.

[00:02:35]And John also was baptizing in Enon near Salem because there was much water there and they came and were baptized.

[00:02:44]>> Yes. So he's familiar with the rivers.

[00:02:47]What are the two rivers?

[00:02:49]>> Uh the two rivers were in Enom En near Salem.

[00:03:01]Okay. So, he's familiar with towns and rivers and places, right? And John John 4:6, what is he?

[00:03:10]>> Now, Jacob's well was there. Jesus, therefore, being wary with his journey, sat thus on the well. It was about the sixth hour.

[00:03:19]>> Yes. So, he's it's Jacob's well. Well, he he's familiar with that.

[00:03:27]And that's where he meets the Samaritan woman, right?

[00:03:31]So he describes the Samaritan woman. He was there to see her, right? And she converts the whole town. He sees John the Baptist.

[00:03:42]All right. St. John is an apostle who knows the minutest details of the life of Christ.

[00:03:49]His thoughts and prayers, talks with who?

[00:03:55]woman.

[00:03:57]>> Yes. American woman. He left out an A.

[00:04:02]Yes. So he describes a lot of these details.

[00:04:08]Um and then the discourse of the last supper, he puts it all down. Number four, Michael >> is John Dipulus.

[00:04:31]which means >> the disciple whom Jesus loved.

[00:04:38]>> Yes.

[00:04:40]>> Read on Michael >> who leaned on the breast of the Lord who out of modesty does not name himself as my other writer.

[00:04:50]>> Yes. So he calls himself the disciple whom Jesus loved.

[00:04:55]He calls him himself a disciple. He doesn't say, you know, me, John, who Jesus loved best. He puts himself in the third person out of humility. You see that?

[00:05:08]>> Yes. He does the same thing when he mentions that he beat Peter to the tomb.

[00:05:14]>> How does he say it?

[00:05:15]>> When they were running, he says, "And he says, "And that other disciple did outrun Peter."

[00:05:21]>> Yeah. He was younger.

[00:05:24]And who else puts himself in a bad light to show his humility, his genuine humility?

[00:05:31]>> Matthew >> calling himself the >> tax collector. The publican.

[00:05:37]>> Yeah. The publican or tax collector. He calls himself. Yeah. The tax collector or Levi out of humility.

[00:05:47]All right. Five. Anthony.

[00:05:50]Diversity from the synoptics proves nothing against the authent authenticity as >> 1 2 3 1.

[00:05:58]>> He wanted to supply things lacking in the synoptics to more clearly assert the divinity of Christ and to this end collects the miracles and words of our Lord in an orderly way yet does not contradict the synoptics.

[00:06:12]Two, the sublimity of John and liveless and clearness of expression fits in well with what is known of his character. and with end he had in view.

[00:06:23]And three, the diversity itself shows the genuiness as who would dare go against the synoptics with a new gospel unless it was one who was known as an apostle.

[00:06:37]>> Okay.

[00:06:39]Any anyone have anything to add here?

[00:06:49]Page 89 C. The time of composition is investigated here as authenticity needs that a work originate in the period of of history assigned to it.

[00:07:02]So does it fit the time period it claims to be? Internal evidence. Anthony, >> internal evidence confirms the witness of external evidence that that the synoptics were written by a man who knew Jerusalem, Galilee, and Palestine before Titus conquered the Jews in >> and that was >> in the war >> in the war that lasted from 65 to 70 AD.

[00:07:29]After this time, the whole political, social, and religious environment is changed, and no one could accurately reconstruct it without having experienced it. that the apostles did experience it before the fall of Ju Jerusalem is corroborated by Felo the Jew, Flavius, Josephus, the Talmet and the Septuagent.

[00:07:49]>> Yes, very very good point here. Right.

[00:07:52]The whole political, social and religious environment changed after the year 70.

[00:07:59]So someone who knows it in such detail like St. John and Matthew, Mark, and Luke. They go in the details, right? The Garden of Olives and and the Kedron Creek. Yes.

[00:08:13]>> I was just going to say, I think it's in the Gospel of Mark where Christ is talking about the destruction of the temple. He says, "Pray that your flight come not in the winter, but the the destruction of the temple was in the summer." So why if if it if it was written after the destruction, why would St. Mark have have Jesus saying pray that your your flight not come during the winter when he already knew that it was summer. So it had been beforehand >> before the winter of that year >> before the the temple was destru um ruined.

[00:08:48]>> Does that make sense?

[00:08:48]>> So it was destroyed in the winter of 17.

[00:08:50]>> No, it was actually destroyed in the summer. But Mark has Christ writing don't or pray that your flight not be in the winter after the destruction. But if Mark if it was written after the fact, why would Mark put Christ saying pray that your flight not be in the winter?

[00:09:07]Like in other words, pray that the the temple isn't destroyed in the winter when if Mark wrote it after the destruction because we know that the destruction happened in the summer.

[00:09:17]>> So it wouldn't make sense for Mark to say pray that it doesn't happen in the winter, >> right? Right?

[00:09:21]>> When if he's writing after it, he would have known it was in the summer. Why put that?

[00:09:25]>> All right.

[00:09:26]>> Does that make sense? I don't know if I'm saying that clearly.

[00:09:31]>> Yes.

[00:09:33]>> Yeah. Good point.

[00:09:36]Very good point.

[00:09:38]So the whole political, social and religious environment changed. So they have an inside angle which proves they were the real authors. Right.

[00:09:49]Go on.

[00:09:51]The evidence can only allow that the dates of the gospels be those assigned to them by immemorial Christian tradition.

[00:09:59]The rationalist critics moreover have been forced from the last century to assign dates to the gospels much closer to the traditional ones.

[00:10:07]>> So the critic Strauss 1835, Bower 1847, Rean 1877 and Hack and then the Catholic Church.

[00:10:18]So Strauss date assigned for composition by Strauss on St. Matthew's gospel Mark and Luke he says what >> not before the year 150 for any gospel >> yeah not before the year 150 that's a long time after right Bower said Matthew was >> what year >> 130 to 134 >> St. Mark >> 15 >> St. Luke >> Rean says St. Matthew was >> the year 84.

[00:10:53]>> Mark 76 >> St. Luke >> Har I think he's a Protestant Harneck says St. Matthew's what year?

[00:11:04]>> St. Mark >> 55 >> St. Luke >> 67.

[00:11:08]>> But the Catholic Church dates St. Matthew's Gospel somewhere between >> 40 and 50 AD.

[00:11:15]>> Yes. 40 and 50 AD. That's very early, right? St. Mark's Gospel somewhere between >> 45 and 60 AD.

[00:11:23]>> And then St. Luke 605.

[00:11:27]>> Yeah. So those are all early, right?

[00:11:29]Anything have anybody have something to add on this?

[00:11:32]>> Yeah. So the the Catholic Church dating has to be right. And just a little a little um point that uh St. Paul even atheists agree that he was martyed early 60s right father that's when he was he's considered to be martyed was early 60s I think 62 AD right Paul >> yes >> but St. Paul in Timothy quotes the gospel of Luke. He says in he says this is uh 1 Timothy 5:1 18 for the scripture for the scripture said say it says thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadth out the corn and this part's from Luke the labor is worthy of his reward. That that it's the exact in the Greek it's the in the exact phrase that Luke mentions it.

[00:12:21]So he's call he's already calling the gospel of Luke scripture and if and which would mean that Luke has to be either 60 or or before >> before the martyrdom of St. Paul >> before they m because he's already calling he's already quoting Luke and calling it scripture.

[00:12:36]>> Yeah, good point. Yes.

[00:12:39]>> 67 AD that's when the saints Peter and Paul got martyed.

[00:12:43]>> Right. So here it says the Catholic Church dates Luke 60 to 65 which makes sense.

[00:12:48]>> Okay.

[00:12:51]Yeah. So the Catholic Church in her tradition again is always right.

[00:12:57]As to the gospel of St. John, tradition assigns it to a date of about the year 100. While the rationalists refuse to admit it as the work of St. John the Apostle, but of some other John the Elder.

[00:13:14]So the modernists attack the authors.

[00:13:18]B. The integrity of the gospels are are they whole and complete.

[00:13:24]Gabriel, a document is called integral or complete when it comes down to us in substantially the same form in which it was first written. The integrity of the gospels has been welldefended by those who have made it their subject to restore as far as possible the original text. This is the subject of lower criticism or textual criticism. Such criticism is a positive scientific and objective study which examines colleagues and compares the evidence of manuscripts as opposed to the so-called higher criticism which is subject which is subjective.

[00:14:05]in the realm of conjecture based on a based on a priori based on a priori judgments in particular that Christ is not divine and the denial of a supernatural order.

[00:14:21]The higher critics hold that the text of the gospels has underwent substantial change until the 4th century sorry until the 4th century definition of the canon of sacred scripture.

[00:14:41]>> The problem and objective is that there are no originals or autographed copies of the sacred scriptures in existence since they were written on papyrus.

[00:14:52]>> Papyrus.

[00:14:53]>> Papyrus.

[00:14:53]>> What's papyrus?

[00:14:57]>> It is what is it? Animal skin.

[00:15:00]>> Papyrus is a plant leaf.

[00:15:02]>> A plant leaf. So it's corruptible papyrus. It's a plant leaf. Go on.

[00:15:11]>> A material that disintegrated quickly with use and humidity. Not until the 4th century was a more durable writing material found made out of calf skin sheepkin called parchment or venom.

[00:15:26]Secondly, all the copies and translations of the sacred scriptures were done by hand copists which allows many mistakes. Therefore, textual integrity of the gospels cannot be found.

[00:15:38]So one firstly as to the lack of originals this is not an exceptional difficult difficulty since there are not originals for any other major work such as Aristotle, Plato, Caesar, Tachitus etc. In fact there are less than 300 manuscript copies of profane literature or secular literature and all dating well after the time of their composition.

[00:16:07]For most for most the closest manuscript is a thousand years after the original composition.

[00:16:14]>> Okay, everybody follow this?

[00:16:16]>> Yes. Yes.

[00:16:17]>> So, how would you put this in a nutshell?

[00:16:23]uh basically that the New Testament is in a category of itself apart from the other ancient writers because the closest manuscript to to when the gospels were actually written are way way way closer than all the ancients all the other ancient writings >> a thousand years to the closest manuscript for the works of Plato Aristotle Caesar and Tatio but nobody questions those >> and and the fact that combined there's less than 300 manuscripts where when you the New Testament, there's over 24,000 Greek and non- Greek.

[00:16:54]>> Yes.

[00:16:58]Over 24,000 manuscripts.

[00:17:00]>> Greek and non-Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. I actually think that the numbers higher now.

[00:17:06]>> Yeah. For the New Testament and Old Testament.

[00:17:13]>> Variant readings number two, Michael.

[00:17:19]There are 4,288 Greek >> manuscripts >> manuscripts of the New Testament throughout which are to be found 200,000 variations. And the more manuscripts that are found, the more variations can be expected. Most of these variations concern spelling, omission of lines, grammatical forms, word order, synonyms.

[00:17:43]Moreover, many of the manuscripts are copies of copies and so can be ignored.

[00:17:49]While certain manuscripts such as the uh ania anals unicles unicles >> unios or unios or un yeah in unios >> unios of which there are 210 and the >> papyrie >> papyrie fragments of which there are 97 are more important by sound methods of criticism 7,000 of the 8,000 verses of the New Testament have been definitively established. The variants that remain are only accidental as of the natural descript >> the nature described. 200 of them affect the meaning of the text and of these only 15 are of any importance. None of these variants add or or detract from a single dogma of the church.

[00:18:47]Yes, that's from the father Stein Mueller in his book companion to secret scripture volume 1 page 182. So who can summarize this? It basically brings out what?

[00:19:00]It basically brings out that um there are a lot of in all the manuscripts there are a lot of variant readings but when you look at it as a whole you can get back to the original even though there's like there may be mistakes that like the the monks maybe when they transcribed a certain manuscript there are there are errors in the the the line of transmitting manuscripts but when you have because we have an abundance of manuscripts over 4,000 over 4,000 Greek manuscripts you can get back to the original inspire thought out where the errors actually are.

[00:19:33]>> Yes.

[00:19:35]Yes. So, that's a powerful evidence of >> the uh the authenticity of the gospels.

[00:19:44]>> Yes.

[00:19:45]>> Also, father, I I do have a point to make.

[00:19:47]>> Please, >> cuz this used to trouble me. Um, >> so basically, and this is why I would suggest anybody to just stick with the Dewey Reigns English translation. Yeah.

[00:19:56]because all the other English Catholic quote unquote Catholic Bibles now you'll see little footnotes on the bottom like of the page and it'll say the earliest and best manuscripts like will omit this verse, right? So, if you go to if you have like a New American Bible, it'll there's there's 12 verses in the Gospels that they just took out and it says at the bottom the best and earliest manuscripts don't have like like for example at the end of the Gospel of Mark uh chapter 16, they'll say n verses 9- 20 of Mark 16 are not in the best and earliest manuscripts. So, when I saw that I was like, well, how can how can I know did someone add the ending? But if you look at the external evidence, Ignatius who's writing early second century, he he quotes the end of Mark, right? But now with these new modern textual crit critics, what they do is they take two main manuscripts that are from the late 4th century called Kod Codex Saticus and Codex Vaticanus. And they were they were they're the earliest full manuscripts we have of the New Testament. The only problem is there's a there's a ton of errors in them. Like there's a ton of errors, but just because they're the old like quoteunquote oldest ones, modern criticism says they're the best ones because they're the oldest. But that's not true, >> right?

[00:21:19]>> So anybody that sees that at the bottom, the best and earliest, they're talking about those two manuscripts that they found uh late 4th century, but >> there's there's so many errors in those two in those two manuscripts.

[00:21:33]So, you can't go by that >> because they're starting to do that with with new English Catholic translations.

[00:21:38]They're starting to take verses out.

[00:21:40]>> Yeah. Yeah. Good point. Yes.

[00:21:44]You got to watch those modernists.

[00:21:46]They're slippery.

[00:21:48]Slippery.

[00:21:50]All right. In all the books of the New Testament, Michael, in all the books of the New Testament, the substance has been saved by the providence of God. The variations do not affect the essential meanings and we can say that our New Testament is essentially substantially the same as the originals. Yes. And that's he's talking about of course the Der Catholic version.

[00:22:19]See the veracity or credibility of the gospels. So are they true? Are they believable?

[00:22:26]Anthony, >> a historical document is credible if the person who records the facts does so from a certain knowledge, either personal or gathered from a good source, and that he does so without deliberately uttering a lie and without a desire to warp the truth for his own personal interests.

[00:22:44]>> One external evidence, >> Jewish sources.

[00:22:50]One, Flavius Josephus, born 37 AD and died 94 AD. Though a Jew, he favored the cause and the arms of the Romans in his work the antiquities of the Jews speaks of John the Baptist saying quote some of the Jews that the destruction of Herod's army came from God as a punishment of what he did against John that was called the Baptist for Herod slew him who was a good man and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue and so to come to baptism. End quote.

[00:23:24]That's book 13 chapter 5 of Josephus.

[00:23:27]Second proof >> talking about St. James. Quote, he uh Anias the Anias the high priest assembled the Sanhedrin of judges and brought before them the brother of Jesus who was called Christ whose name was James. He delivered them to be stoned.

[00:23:45]End quote.

[00:23:47]>> Book two chapter nine. And then third, >> uh, Jesus. Quote, "Now there was about this time Jesus a wise man, if it be law be if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many Jews and many Gentiles. He was in brackets the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and 10,000 other wonderful things concerning him.

[00:24:27]And the tribe of Christians so named after him, are not extinct at this day."

[00:24:32]End quote.

[00:24:34]Very good. Book 8, chapter 3. just finish this part.

[00:24:43]>> Whether this last passage is genuine is somewhat disputed on the authority of origin who says that Josephus denied that Christ was the Messiah. However, on other evidence, it stands as authentic as any other part of his works.

[00:24:55]>> Okay. So, next time we'll look at the Talmud as a actual a proof of that Christ and the gospels are true.

[00:25:06]So, Dominique.