Did the Gospels Copy Each Other?
Vložit
- čas přidán 18. 05. 2024
- Watch UsefulCharts here!: • Who Wrote the Gospels?
Special thanks to Duke University PhD candidate Ian Mills for co-writing this episode. Find their podcast, New Testament Review, here: / @newtestamentreview9931
00:00 Intro: What are the Synoptics?
2:55 Traditional composition of the Gospels
3:34 Evidence of Verbatim Agreement
5:45 Evidence of Markan Priority
12:34 Double Tradition Question
14:50 Conclusion
Join our Patreon community!: / religionforbreakfast
One-time donations here!: www.paypal.me/religionforbrea...
Check out my favorite religious studies books by following this affiliate link to my Amazon page: www.amazon.com/shop/religionf...
![The Resurrection in its Cultural Context [feat. Dr. Bart Ehrman]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/k2Z37xdpGpI/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Resurrection in its Cultural Context [feat. Dr. Bart Ehrman]](/img/tr.png)
Watch UsefulCharts here!: czcams.com/video/Z6PrrnhAKFQ/video.html
I am just wondering if Mark's "story" is the shortest then; given the fact others added to it in this theory ?
Synoptic , that’s a really nice way of saying two of the three might have been plagiarists
@@Ruzland Yes, Mark is the shortest of the gospels, if that's what you meant.
@@asdfasfasdfful "Plagiarism" in its modern understanding meant nothing to an ancient author. Roman and Greek historiography, for instance, is full of re-writing of earlier material (often without referring to any sources, or even telling the reader that the author is copying from someone else).
So yes, today we would call that practice "plagiarism". In Antiquity, it was one of the established methods of writing history.
@@varana Thank you.
whoever makes your thumbnails deserves all the kudos. top tier religious studies memes
Could it be that his editor is just a slob like one of us?
@@Morfeusm are you saying he could be a stranger on a bus?
Chasing fame without the fuss ?
Thumbnail was 👌🏻🤌🏻
@@barbarathanks5483 Trying to make his way home?
What I heard elsewhere is that another argument for Markian priority is that Mark sometimes quotes the Old Testament incorrectly where Matthew, or Matthew and Luke, do so correctly. It is a strange redaction to take a correct quote and change it, but a perfectly natural one to take an incorrect quote and correct it.
Mark also makes the mistake of calling Herod Antipas II "King" when he was only a Tetrach. Matthew and Luke correct that.... except for a few cases of fatigue lol
Not quite sure this is correct. Although Luke is generally thought to be the only Gentile writer, he quotes the OT more accurately than Matthew or Mark. Matthew, for example, seems to make up “He will be called a Nazorean” or is making a very bad reading of Isaiah.
There are some academics that argue Mark is referencing non canonical sources, pointing towards a loose or open OT canon at this time.
@@randomperson2078 I remember reading that this might have been willful misreading of the OT.
Matthew fudges his Old Testament genealogies to get the magic numbers he wants, and is apparently working from a Greek version of Isaiah to get the “virgin shall conceive” language…
I am not doubting that Mark came first but I don’t think Matthew’s Old Testament “accuracy” is a great argument for anything.
Biblical Studies is so enthralling I feel like a detective!
Me too! Great comment!
i just watch OSP Trope Talk: Detectives, and now I'm imagining a mistery where the detective is investigating matthew, mark and lulk to see whitch of them is the plageist/s.
J Warner Wallace agrees
Watch Cold Case Christianity, if you think this channel is cool.
@@lukasmakarios4998 cold case is nonesense for believers
College professor: I will be checking for plagiarism.
Gospel authors: sweating nervously.
John: whistling casually.
College professors' idea of plagiarism is odd. If you forget to source something, it's plagiarism? I suppose they're trying to do students a favor by kicking them out of the nightmare that is college, but it's just odd that forgetting a footnote can completely change whether something is plagiarized (it's the same material regardless).
@ghenulo a citation is not plagiarism because it's a citation, a direct quote or clearly drawing from something. Your own words are supposed to be just that, your own.
heh yup
Concordance - This is an example of us inserting our ethical standards on ancient people. Those writing the gospels would be thinking like scribes. To them copying was the faithful recording of the sources. More important to record accurately, even verbatim, unless language changes would make verbatim misleading.
I am an atheist that is strangely obsessed with understanding religion - I guess I want to understand most people - and your channel is my favorite YT channel when it comes to understanding religions.
Thanks
Like he's said before, religion is embedded in nearly all aspects of culture. There's certainly nothing strange about wanting to understand the world around you, and it is a super interesting and far-reaching subject, coming from a fellow non-religious person.
Then search for Jews for Judaism. Rabbe sokoluv
@O.P.
I'm in the exact same situation!
I also recommend the CZcams channels Mythvision and Fishers of Evidence.
Same here
I am also an Atheist but what some theologian students with which I had many discussions called a "searcher".
I love this channel as it gives me insight on so many things and I never feel the content is "preachy" at all.
"Hey, can I copy your homework, Mark?"
"Sure, just change it a bit so the teacher won't notice."
"So, there was this Virgin who gave birth..."
@@manuscrit5884 "Abraham was the father of Isaac, was the father of Jacob..."
Absolutely great work, gentlemen. A+.
Thanks for making these. I really appreciate that typically esoteric ideas can be made digestible for less informed people like me, all for free online. What a time to be alive
For fathers day we were asked to write fond memories of our father before he died , Many of my siblings wrote of the exact memory of events happening at the lake as we were all there as a family , it was put in a book and not only my father but all the siblings received a copy . Though the exact event happened in from of us all each wrote their view the same but each had a different take and remembered different parts to write about. Some left out parts and some had more detail. None of us had to copy each other. It was nice to hear everyone's version as they were all accurate but recounted what part had made the biggest impression on them after thirty years.
I think this is a common experience and it is a very important one. We can be so stuck in notions of "the inspiration of the scriptures" (i.e., of the writings), that we do not recognise the spill over of unreasonable and unrealistic expectations that do not match the actual incarnation experiences`` of individual witnesses (contrast theories and dogmas). It does not surprise me that the writers (or compilers, whatever they may be) of any testimonies or records vary according to their experience of the events or of the records. In so many theologically technical discussions of "holy books" the stress usually falls on "the letter" and many commentators are concerned to reconcile words according to factors of "time & space" and linguistic (language) verifiability. I don't say we should not do such work, but ultimately, what matters is that it all comes down to that which seems to be a scary prospect to formal church institutions and factions, namely, the actual work of the Holy Spirit in both the witnesses, in their individual reporting (or selecting of passages) and in the affirmation of the Gospel in the subjective experience of "the end user", the reading/listening recipients of the various testimonies. It's a very "scribe-ish" thing to reduce the Word (the eternal living Person) to the "letter", and Christian students of the various testimonies to Jesus ought to know that this is the very specific and primary problem that all the Gospels expose, vis-a-vis, that experts of the letter (a la Nicodemus) don't refer to dependence upon the Spirit in their analyses, nor do they seem to know how to recommend or lead their audiences to or through the Spirit to the living Word (contrast "the letter" i.e., word based reports, - e.g., 2Cor36 "He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant-not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." i.e., "rightly dividing" does not mean "sharpening the methodologies of death. The reduction of revelation of the New covenant to "right letters" is the very same error that entrapped the Scribes and the Pharisees in their use of the OT "texts".) You might find a real Noah's ark, an Ark of the old covenant, a certified original of all 66 books, but without the Spirit of God, to whom even The Word Himself testified, without "seeing" what is granted "from above", such evidences and material coherences will do not more than consolidate cultures and the will of the flesh to conform to them; those cultures being religious in appearance may do more damage than good, sans the Spirit. I have looked in to a number of attempts at reconciling matters that do not require reconciliation at the level of the actual "Testimony to Jesus" (that testimony being a spiritual work) and I have come to the conclusion that much of the argumentation (apologetics and rationalisation) is a concession (sell-out) to materialistic perceptions of the eternal, to secularistic assumptions regarding the nature of truth and to material-rationalistic approaches to "belief" of the merely intellectual kind; these are so far removed from the notions of proclamation, declaration, the wisdom of God, (contrast the foolishness of "the wisdom of the world" which seems to me to be the foundation of most attempts at apologetics). Too much published material, including sermons, are, in my opinion, not proclamations (bold simple statements of God's Truth [which is of a different nature to that of the rationalist "Christian" apologete]). This reminds my of insights such as "form of religion which denies the power of that religion". I do not deny a place for literary and material historical criticism, but it ought to happen , and be specifically and deliberately expressed and represented, in the context of the actual power of the Spirit. This proclamation WILL seem foolish to the world; that's a given; we need not be ashamed of it. Sadly, many streams of apologetics have developed rationalisations that avoid the Spirit (that pension the Spirit of, consign and confine the Spirit to the years of the original apostles ["We'll handle it from here, thank you!"]), in order to avoid their apparent lack of power other than various kinds of "Christian rationalism" that poorly mimmic the Divine authority of the Spirit's testimony to the incarnate individual. Ultimately, the Word that is actually the Word needs no justification and when that is not known in experience, apologetics is used in place of the foolishness of the proclamation (sheer (mere/simple) declaration) of the Gospel. "... we speak a message of wisdom- but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we speak of the mysterious and hidden wisdom of God..." i.e., we ought to do so, i.e., we should not apologise or reduce that wisdom to mere literary coherence; the reconciliation and coherence is in our union with God through the Living and Life Giving Spirit.
@@JohnCahillChapel I'm sorry but I don't have the patience to read that
@@felixfourcolor neither do I! All the best.
You're right that there would probably be a lot of similarities! But there's no way any three people would use the exact same wording 70% of the time, or anywhere near that.
Luke comes right out and tells us that he wasn't there but he's giving an account of people (eyewitnesses) who were there. I think "experts" want to get mileage on a fact that everybody knows already. So what if these writers consulted different sources? I don't think any of them were trying to replace the other accounts - just giving more information that they had had.
I think a video focused on the double tradition question would be interesting - specifically the pros and cons of each theory and why the two source theory seems to be more popular that the other (if I'm understanding that correctly). This was a great video. Always learn a lot when I'm here. :)
I think I’d really enjoy a deeper dive into the merits and pitfalls of those ideas, too. I’d only ever heard of the Q idea, but after hearing it, the second idea kinda sounds more reasonable at first glance.
@@bariumselenided5152 Yes, I'm more in the Farrer camp. It seems reasonable that "Mark", "Matthew", "Luke" had copies of Septuagint and several Pauline epistles available when writing. It also seems obvious that authors of "Matthew" and "Luke" in addition had "Mark". The conjecture that "Luke" author had copies of "Mark", "Matthew", Septuagint, etc seems reasonable. The Q conjecture requires the existence of yet another document that we have no other evidence for.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farrer_hypothesis
Yeah, seeing the response to this video, I think we definitely need a video examining the two theories. Two-Source still has the slight edge in academia (it was what I was taught in grad school), but Farrer is making up ground among the new generation of Synoptics scholars.
@@ReligionForBreakfast FH is the new truth :)
@@ReligionForBreakfast The problem with Luke using Mark is why Luke chose to make his birth narrative and post resurrection narratives so different fron Matthew. Luke follows Mark closely most of the time, so why does he change from Matthew so much? With just a little effort Luke could have made his birth narrative mesh with Matthew better. That a source Q could be totally lost is not surprising. Until recently we had no idea the Gospel of Thomas existed.
Has anyone given thought that maybe Luke and Matthew had a different version of Mark than one we now have? Then the need for Q would vanish.
I was always taught in catholic school that Mark was first and probably lived within the lifespan of Jesus. Personally, Matthew was always my favorite of the gospels.
Because Church traditions and contemporary scholarship tend to treat one another as irreconcilable enemies, having a foot in both worlds points me to an obvious candidate for Q. Several early Church Fathers reference a book called Λογίων Κυριακῶν Ἐξήγησις, “Explanations of the Sayings of the Lord.” It was well-known and well-circulated in the early Church, and contained no doubt many sayings of Jesus now lost to us. It’s a reasonable explanation without all the unnecessary Tradition-bashing mysterious romanticism prominent in discussions of Q.
(Schleiermacher connected the two, as well. Though he seemed to more use the “Sayings” book as proof that there were other sources, rather than say it IS the mysterious source)
Do they give any quotes from Logíōn Kyríkôn Exḗgēsis?
@@tompatterson1548 Scattered quotes among Fathers here and there. Nothing near enough to start a reconstruction, though. If my hypothesis is correct, though, a lot would be contained in the canonical gospels, as well as other writings like Thomas.
I am of the opinion that there was also a "Logia" (or sayings) document before the composition of the Gospels, but I think our existing Gospels probably contain all, if not most of those sayings. One incident not preserved in the original Gospels was the story of the adulterer, which was added into John (and some manuscripts of Matthew).
The works in the "Gnostic" camp, such as the list of saying in Thomas, are unreliable IMHO. The quality of Greek in the Gnostic works are relatively bad and they get the geography and the names of 1st century Judea very much wrong. It's pretty clear that most were not even Jewish, since they get Jewish through and theology wrong pretty often. Furthermore, the vast majority of Gnostic works were written in the 2nd century or later and by folks who were outside of the manuscript tradition.
Most early Christian manuscripts were custonianed by the early Churches so given that the Gnostics were outside of this tradition, they wouldn't even have access to the earlier sources, if these earlier sources still existed in the 2nd or 3rd centuries.
"The gospels or Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John ........ now we don't know who wrote these".
The thumbnail was very funny. Also because it contrasts with the serious content.
Even funnier was him vainly attempting to merge Matthew and Luke at the 10 minute mark.
@@insertnamehere3106 How is he being vain?? Given your channel subscription list, it seems you're just childishly butthurt that he's a scholar presenting a viewpoint that goes against your traditionalist and fundamentalist viewpoint.
@@rc7625 I don't know what just happened. I was being serious. I thought it was funny watching him smash two books together. I wasn't buthurt about anything. Sorry if that didn't come out in the comment.
@@insertnamehere3106 OK. I apologize for overreacting and being rude.
Thank you for that.
So many cool collaborations these days. Love UsefulCharts for his very useful Timeline of World History poster :)
UsefulCharts got onto my feed for his "the cult I grew up in" video then I fell down the rabbit hole of religious studies content on CZcams, which led me to this channel. Now it's come full circle!
Old days had cool collaborations as well! Just look at the one between Mark, Matthew and Luke
Fascinating! Our church is going through the book of Mark right now, and this adds another level of study. Thank you for this!
Know 'Genetically Modified Sceptic'?
The Atheist-CZcamsr so nice and unbiased and non-arrogant that he has lots of Christian Fans now?
That warm guy?
Or Forrest Valkai, the Bio-Teacher who's also on Tiktok?
@@loturzelrestaurant I know GMS - He talks a bit too proudly of his own ability at times, but otherwise he's nice to watch.
And I don't go on Tik Tok so I wouldn't know the last one ;D
@@loturzelrestaurant "unbiased and non arrogant" 😂😂😂😂😂 Yeah right.
I love that your not bias with any side we need facts thanks I appreciate it
@@Chrysostomus_17 show me one thing he is bias by
Teach me i dont mind but dont just say a thing and run
He's definitely biased towards contemporary secular scholarship considering that is his field of expertise and is the only perspective that he represents in this video. The only time he talks of church tradition is describing the contemporary theories as 'controversial' without speaking at all of the evidence for the traditional theories. But everyone has their biases, and this channel is supposed to be a secular scholarly view on religion, it's not trying to be this great arbiter of truth representing all sides. I really like RfB's content, but it's important to not take every youtuber's word as (pardon the pun) gospel, without taking the time to research from other sources.
@@Chrysostomus_17 On a personal level, I agree with you. But I also feel like it's important to not fall too heavily into a dogmatic mindset, and to try and analyze topics from all possible perspectives, even ones you don't personally agree with. I always say "you must first understand an idea before you can reject it." Indeed it was that mantra that lead me to start reading scripture from an unbiased perspective and led to my conversion to Christianity from atheism. Aristotle said it better though "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it." We can entertain and investigate other possible theories of how the gospels came about without falling into the trap that secular scholars do where they say "this is the closest thing we have to a logical explanation for the gospels that completely excludes the supernatural so lets just say it is fact."
@@Chrysostomus_17 I understand your point, and I share your zeal to guard the faith. I have seen how theologians, seminaries and even the magisterium have at one point or another, or even yet still, been corrupted by modernity and secular relativism. This is a serious issue like you say, a grave one. But this is also a complicated issue that is much better discussed than tackled. Indeed, how do we maintain the separation between man-made text and scripture, without falling into the traps of history that have led our fellow christians of the past (and present) astray, where we have chosen to try and force salvation on others, even at the cost of not treating them as Jesus would permit, to love even our enemies and treat them as we would ourselves. The Lord (and any true christian imo) wishes that none should perish in the end, but grace is a gift that must be freely chosen. Otherwise free will, and the purpose of creation at all, is rendered null and void. I don't have the answers, but trying to balance spreading the gospel and routing heresy with the 2nd greatest commandment (love one another) is a problem that cannot be solved with sweeping general statements, you know?
@@Chrysostomus_17 Yes, on paper I 100% agree with you. I just believe that we ought to be wary of the Machiavellian logic trap. As Christians, we believe that the ends do not and cannot justify the means. I cannot remember the exact verses that speak on this but you'll know the ones I'm thinking of, that sin only brings forth greater sin, and committing sin with the intention of bringing about a greater good will never work out in the end. We must work and fight as hard as we can but we must never subvert God's will and take morality into our own hands, lest we be those of little faith. We must fight by God's rules, not theirs. I'm not saying you're advocating for any of that, but there are many Christians out there who do, who advocate for censorship, intimidation, even violence to bring about a spiritual renewal, when we should be using reason, understanding and compassion (not compromise). Trust in the Lord and do his will, by his will. If that makes sense. I'd love to talk more about this stuff with you, you seem like a decent bloke (also judging by your subs you like a lot of similar stuff to me so respect lol).
"Put yourself in the mind of Mark"
*Puts on a paper name tag*
Absolutely genius
Grew up knowing the phrase "Synoptic Gospels", never for the life of me would have guessed what it actually meant. I'm glad you chose your profession, you're a wonderful addition to our species.
"Editorial fatigue"-love that phrase!
Know 'Genetically Modified Sceptic'?
The Atheist-CZcamsr so nice and unbiased and non-arrogant that he has lots of Christian Fans now?
Or Forrest Valkai, the Bio-Teacher who's also on Tiktok?
interesting, it is.
Seriously, considering the date of the oldest copies that we have, all three must have been based on older documents -- and, by that time, there must have been multiple versions of the story. So Mark, as well as Mathew and Luke, were trying to combine those sources into a version that they considered more likely, or more complete, or more useful for its intended purpose...
I suspect you're right. Mark probably had documents in front of him too that are long since lost.
This is where I fall as well. If all three seem similar and many textual critics believe in the "Q" document. The stories would be told in the same way in multiple places. And the gospels were employed to compile the sayings, stories, and sermons in one place. I wonder if they were from different churches or believer groups?
This seems unlikely, there are good reasons for not dating the Gospels themselves after the year 80, and Luke explicitly states that his work is the result of interviewing witnesses.
@@randomperson2078 Gospel of Luke was likely written by a companion of Paul or someone who knew said companion and not a disciple of Jesus.
There's parts of Mark that make it look like there's an older version that's very cohesive as a narrative, and then things like the apocalyptic pericope were added in later on (perhaps to make them fit with the synoptics, being written around this later period). Otherwise, Mark doesn't appear to be using any sources, and the older portions don't appear to be written as if they're based on sources at all, but instead as a story.
Something that I'd like to add on the topic of Markan Priority and Jesus' birth story.
About the bit where you illustrated it's unlikely Mark would drop the birth story if he was copying off of Luke:
What also supports this idea is that the birth story serves an important purpose in the context of telling the story of Jesus as the Messiah. In the book of Micah it is prophesized that the Jewish Messiah would come from Bethlehem. But Jesus (of Nazareth), evidently, was not famous for being a citizen of Bethlehem.
So if you were to imagine the situation a 1st Century writer would find themselves in, one of the first criticisms that your fellow Jews would be able to levy at you and your beliefs is that Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem like the Prophet Micah said. Therefor, Jesus can't be the prophesized Messiah.
Therefor it seems quite logical that later authors would add birth stories to their gospels because the birth stories provide an explanation as to how Jesus was born in Bethlehem, despite being the son of a carpenter in Nazareth. It'd seem quite unlikely however that Mark would drop the birth story, given how easy of a criticism the Bethlehem argument is to make, and it'd leave his gospel quite incomplete as a story of Jesus the Messiah.
It does make me wonder about the Farrer Hypothesis, as well. If Luke had access to Matthew, how did we get such weird differences in the birth narratives? They don't actually agree on very much.
- In both stories: born of Mary a virgin, born in Bethlehem, grew up in Nazareth
- Only in Matthew: Joseph's vision, the house in Bethlehem (where they apparently lived), the magi, Herod, the flight to Egypt, later moving to Nazareth
- Only in Luke: Mary's vision, visit to cousin Elizabeth, the census, the journey from Nazareth, the inn, the stable, the shepherds, returning to Nazareth
I can see Luke inventing all those additional details, but I'm not as clear on why would he omit Matthew's account of, e.g., the flight to Egypt. But, who knows. Maybe Luke had a good reason to frame the story without Herod and the magi.
Since the names on the books were later added in the 2nd and 3rd century... The person(s) that wrote each is in question even for literalists.
Since Peter's letters are close to the style of "Mark's" Gospel... It is more likely to be Peter's account through his scribe or secretary...maybe a Mark.
It is the simplest and most pragmatic. It starts when Jesus meets The Baptist, and Peter's fishing boat. It ends with Peter checking the women's account of finding the empty tomb. There are several passages where Jesus is getting frustrated thst the apostles just can't seem to understand what he's getting at. That, to me, makes it come off as first hand accounts.
Luke and Matthew tie the birth stories to predictions from the prophets and Daniel. The crucifixion/resurrection to Ezekiel's prophesy of the reed that bends but won't break... And it being finally revealed that God is man's only savior and always was.
John is very much the work of someone in the Essene tradition. Highly metaphoric, very fate based, highly transcendental.
Thank you so much for consistently outputting high quality, easy to digest scholarly content. I am always excited to see your videos in my subscription box
Dude, I cant emphasise this enough, but your channel is fantastic. So many people discard theology as a "useless" subject, but your work proves it isn't. Your videos are so concise and brilliant. They explain the deepest concepts and debates within theology so well. Keep making content man, it rules.
It is kind of useless, but it is very interesting
@@thegameranch5935 It's not at all, it's necessary to understand history.
@@daboos6353 if you want to be a historian, sure.
For most people its useless
@@thegameranch5935 Seems you and theology have something in common
@@thegameranch5935 It informs anthropology and culture as well...sure it's not gonna make you the next big influencer or be the crux of a get-rich-quick scheme (unless you want to form a cult I guess...)
Greater understanding of Humanity is important for everyday living imo
Excellent and easy to understand. Discussions on Source Q can be confusing, but you broke it down beautifully, here.
Excellent work as usual!
Can't wait for you to upload the video about the arguments for the two schools of thought about the double tradition!
Thank you for your work!
I would love to see a video on John now. I feel pretty confident about the history of Markan Primacy now, but don't know how to situate John.
Thanks for the info, it was really neat.
I might be misremembering, but I read that, in light of new evidence, some scholars think that John is partially based on the Q-source.
We definitely need a video on John! It's a weird one. It moves Jesus throwing the money lenders out of the Temple to the START of John, rather than at the end of the story like in the Synoptics.
Traditionally John is just last in line. His gospel differs substantially because it seeks to answer questions the other gospels don’t. You can think of it as a spiritual telling of the story vs a ‘historical’ telling.
It’s prettty simple. John read the Synoptics, took some ‘shrooms, had an awesome dream, and then wrote his own version. Sooooo…fanfiction?
There was probably an old version of John that was indeed independent of the synoptics, but when it was incorporated in they edited/interpolated things to match.
Nice! I was wanting a video about this! Thank you!
In Finland, there has been done lot of good research and studies that the synoptic gospels copy the gospel of Mark but not in the modern sense of copying. A more specific term is "redaction" which is unfortunately an unfamiliar word to most people and media. "Redaction" is a form of editing in which multiple text sources are combined and slightly converted into a single text. Often this is a way to gather writings on the same theme together and create a definitive and cohesive work. However, it is easier and simpler to use the word “copying” because people are familiar with it and it isn't as unfamiliar and alien as what the word “redaction” is to most. But the word “copying” gives people the impression that the Gospel writers, the authors, have stuffed the Gospel of Mark in to the office's printer and print direct copies of it.
A very good, but neglected, point.
You are truly the best CZcamsr making this kind of content that I have ever seen. Thank you so much for what you do, you have no idea how much you have helped me in the last couple of years! And as long as I’m gassing you up: the production value and professionalism in your videos has skyrocketed in the last year or so!!
this is one of his best videos ever! and he was super respectful when going over the reasons they would copy one another even though there are obviously darker ways to view the topic.
Maybe Yashua lead this disciples through the holy spirit to re tell these events because of their great significance. I love this kind study but a lot of these questions to me are interesting but unimportant in the big picture. At times I felt that he`gave me a feeling that he was talking about a work of fiction. I don't know this man's background so I can't judge . I have ADHD and i read the Bible everyday and sometimes I do feel that maybe I did not pick up where I left off. So I am sure they did read Mark's Gospel and did incorporate it within there own. I love to learn more about Jesus it brings my walk with the lord to an almost extentstal experience. When i was trying to explain this which i don't think I did very well I felt an overwhelming feeling of love , joy and peace. I felt the presence of the Holy spirit ... So God Bless you.
Fabulous video and a perfect collaboration with UsefulCharts. Both channels are brilliant.
One of the most informative and well explained bible studies I've come across. Thanks for your obvious research and hard work on these videos.
What are your thoughts on the idea that the gospels are different and yet all accepted within scriptural canon because they're aimed at different audiences? I've heard it said that Matthew was aimed at Jews, as it includes the most old testament references. Mark was aimed at non-Jewish Romans, which is why it focuses more on Jesus' great miracles and omits OT references, Jesus' theologically significant birth, and Jesus' genealogy connecting him to OT figures. Luke was aimed at other non-Jewish citizens in the Roman Empire (like Greeks, who were more familiar with Jewish customs than people living in Rome), and perhaps meant for the lower classes due to Jesus' heavier association with lepers, tax collectors, and prostitutes in this gospel. And John was meant for a general audience.
I remember that was also a reason why the authors of the gospel wrotte them, they wanted to focus their written to certain audiences they were familiar too.
This is a very good short explanation of the problem, which has been known and debated for centuries. I'm not a believer but I've always found this fascinating. Like a detective novel almost, a real whodunnit. I do think the Q hypothesis is plausible but I have no way to prove it either.
Now here's a thought experiment: imagine that the original Q gospel was found intact somewhere, say in an archaeological site, and it was confirmed (after many years of study and debate) to be the authentic missing source. Would it actually be accepted and even canonised as part of the New Testament? Could this still happen after almost 2 millennia? What would it mean to current Christian theology? Especially if it turns out to contain stuff that Matthew and Luke left out and that perhaps contradicted some of the assumptions that people have come to accept as truth about Jesus?
As for canonisation - yep, that would partly be possible. One major issue is the fragmentation of modern Christianity. The Roman Catholic Church, for instance, could probably declare this text to be canonical (another question is if they would), by a general council of the Church. That doesn't mean anything for all the other groups, though. Each church and community would need to decide that for themselves. (Probably leading to a few dozen more schisms in Orthodoxy alone, not to mention the multitude of Protestant groups of various affiliation.)
varana312 the other denominations would probably be like, "oh the source was found? Ok that means the ones we believe are right." Just like that, without canonising, only treating it as an archaeological finding.
It would really depend on what was in the (hypothetical) document. It would probably just reinforce what's already there, so it wouldn't change much outside of scholarship. But if it contained something important and new that didn't cause serious conflicts, you'd probably see Bibles being printed with the new book as an appendix at first, and potentially added to the Canon, probably between Acts and Romans.
All Protestants use Martin Luther's Canon, which is already cut down from the original Catholic Bible. Coptics have a little more, and Ethiopians add much more (which turned out to be good, because there are texts that probably would have been lost otherwise). Every denomination and sect would have to decide for themselves, but I think you'd see most Western churches, at least, come to the same conclusion eventually.
they would likely deny it as its own source instead saying its just an older version of one of the books we already have
I remember reading about an early, possibly Victorian "science fiction" story about an archaeological discovery that threw doubt on the whole New Testament story. Immediately people go out and fornicate in the streets, shops are looted, cities are burned down ...
Whereas in fact, the nearest the Victorians got to that was the discovery of the Epic of Gilgamesh and the conclusion that it was the true source of the story of Noah's Flood. It was front page news, and the translator (George Smith) got funding to dig up more tablets in the Near East, where he fell ill and died.
Normally, this type of scholarship can be boring for the average layperson, such as myself, but your presentation and articulation make it rather interesting. This is one of my favorite channels. Thanks, RFB!
I hope there's going to be a new video soon elaborating on the two-source hypothesis. I would love to also hear about the material unique to Matthew and Luke (especially Luke) that has no parallel in the other gospels. Great video as always!
It baffles me how good your content is. Keep It up!
This is the best video so far I have ever seen on this topic ...........kudos. absolutely keep more coming
Viced Rhino has much more nice dissection of Religion though!
maybe my favorite video you’ve made! the logical reasoning you described for how scholars hypothesize writing order was fascinating, thank you
The video is fantastic at communication and understanding of the questions others could pose. A credit to your field and what individuals could do for education.
One of my favorite theories comes from Dr. Gerd Theissen: Matthew the Apostle was the author of the now lost Q Source. The Gospel according to Matthew is not written by Matthew the Apostle, rather it was either mistaken for the Q source by Papias of Hierapolis (he was the first to declare the Gospel to be written by Matthew, with no source), or was just written by some random person.
I am of this opinion as well. Papias says that Matthew wrote a "logia," which is it's most direct translation doesn't mean an organized narrative, but a list of sayings or "oracles." Papias says Matthew wrote the logias in Hebrew, but that probably means Aramaic. Papias also says that others took the logia that Matthew wrote down and "interpreted them the best they could," which also points to a list of sayings vs. a structured narrative story. I believe that Matthew's immediate disciples composed the Gospel of Matthew taking these sayings and Mark and named the Gospel in honor of Matthew.
Imagine historians 2000 years in the future discovering you just needed a day off and couldn’t find an editor.
Vary good, more details than Berean Bible courses that I took back in the 90s, thanks Andrew!
Awesome to see this collaboration!
I binge watch your channel, now that I found it. All the books I bought through the years, and you make everything so clear and easily understood. All the best, Maggie
I love the thought of Mr. Bean writing a gospel.
What if Matthew and Mark just studied the wrong topic like Mr. Bean did?
I mean, Mr. Bean's account of the nativity would be much more interesting, considering the Daleks and the T Rex...
"The gospel as recorded by Johnathan English OBE"
Thou shall not lick a doorknob on monday
An excellent presentation by Religion for Breakfast. This is a very concise and clear layout of the case for Markan Priority. Thank you for this episode.
Fascinating video for a topic which always interested me, presented in a great manner, as always. Thank you.
Mark also has a lot of commentary on the destruction of the temple, suggesting it was written at least in the late 60's or 70 CE. I view the gospels are social commentary for their time, not as literal historical accounts. Although that doesn't mean everything in it is fictional
Agreed, the content of Mark (and not just Luke / Matt's use of Mark) indicate Mark was first.
Given the fraught socio-political environment of relationship between the Jews in Jerusalem and Rome around Jesus' day (with mounting revolutionary zeal looking back to the Maccabean revolt), and the degree to which Jesus' ministry in all the gospels *and* Paul's letters (which almost certainly pre-date the destruction of the temple) focus on the motif of Jesus' body and Church as contrary to and "replacing" the temple, so to speak, I don't think it's necessary to assume a psot-70 A.D. authorship of the gospels.
In fact, the accounts in Mark and Matthew about the coming destruction of the temple seem to almost conflate its destruction with the "Day of the Lord", or return of Christ, which doesn't seem like the way the gospel authors *would* have written about the temple's destruction *if* they had historical hindsight. Surely they would have done more work to separate the two events if one had already happened, but they still awaited the other.
Therefore, I think the reference to the destruction of the temple alone is not enough to assume such late authorship for the gospels.
"70 CE" -- it's 70 AD!
The Christian tradition I grew up in taught that Luke was a careful researcher and historian, seeking out and synthesizing primary sources himself. Now I think I understand why I've never heard him mentioned outside the church in discussions of early historians.
Also, as an editor, editorial fatigue is absolutely putting me on blast--
Great explanation of philology method in a simple and easy to understand way!!
The quality of this Chanel is out of this world ! Keep up the good work
Thank you for boiling all of this down into one video. It helps me be able to share this and help Laymen understand that us, Non-Believers, understand the Bible better than they realize.
Some non-believers may understand the Bible in ways a doctor understands anatomy better because they review a lot of cadavers, but they don't understand what the person was saying while they were alive very well at all.
Great video! Did Ian Collab on the script?
EDIT : Read the description... Cool! I could literally hear Ian's voice in the NT review podcasts word for word when you were talking about Mark as the middle term!
Yeah he was the researcher/writer!
I really like that I'm able to watch your videos because you're such a knowledgeable person! So, thank you for posting them!
Very interesting and well done. Great use of time. Thank you!
Thanks for explaining this subject so clearly. [As always!]
CZcamsr 'Viced Rhino' has much more nice dissection of Religion though!
His channel is dedicated to talk about it without Bias and
really exmaine it with Logic.
An excellent, brief summary . By way of contrast, you will also find some excellent arguments given by those who favour Mathean priority.
I read something yesterday about Shem Tov's Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. I have no idea what the academic consensus is on this so I'd love to see RFB do a video on it!
This is really fascinating! Thank you so much for sharing!
I'm fascinated with the chronological order of the New Testament lately because to me it's perhaps the most important factor in how to approach and interpret all of the texts. So this video ties in so well. Hopefully there will be more of this in the future. Thank you
Imagine how different Christianity would be if the books were simply arranged in a different order.
@@LordJagd Or if some books weren't even in the New Testament while others were. Not that I care that much either way. I take them all with a grain of salt. And only if I even find them credible in the first place
@@LilSirAxolotl Which would you add and which would you remove? I love this idea for the chronology of ALL OT/NT texts.
I guess John was just built different 😩
Bultmann would agree with you
John wasn't a plagerist!
this is very well explanied, i have heard this and read this many time and attempted to expalin it myself. this is the best i have seen in a while. what about the translations, i feel like they were translating not copying
Amazing video! Recommend any books about the synoptic problem?
Oh my god, please make a video about what you said about what are the intentions of the author of the gospel of luke and Matthew based on what they add/removed from Mark.
This is such a great video. It's so thorough and well done.
Fantastic video. Great presentation! I was shocked when I first learned about this information, but it makes sense to me. Thank you.
It's been held that the Book of Mark was probably written first and that Matthew and Luke both copied from it. As for why Matthew and Luke use so much of Mark's text, I think the answer simple: Both authors translated the Book of Mark, but elaborated upon it. Matthew dating somewhat earlier than Luke, it's likely that Matthew translates and expands upon Mark, and Luke, coming later, translated and gave his own treatment on Matthew.
Could you do a video on the historicity of John the Baptist?
I recently became a patron but was totally looking at the comment section and would not have noticed my title as producer of this video if my friend didn't shout it out in confusion hahaha. Great video!
Thanks so much! You’re in an elite Patreon tier!
As usual a great video Andrew. Also loved the video cover. 🤣🤣
Mark is definitely based on an Aramaic source. His greek is not exactly stellar and contain a lot of aramaisms. Matthew likely had similar Aramaic sources as well. One scenario is that proto-Matthew was written in parallel with Mark.
That might suggest that whoever wrote Mark had Aramaic as their mother tongue; it's no proof that he used a previous source in Aramaic. Revelation has a much worse Greek, being even ungrammatical on occasion, but no one has suggested that it was based on a non-Greek source
I like the theory that the Gospel of the Hebrews was the Aramaic Proto-Matthew to which the Church Fathers were referring when they claimed that the Gospel of Matthew came first, and that the author of Mark was familiar with this source but may have been working from memory rather than having a physical copy of the manuscript with him on his journey. What we now call Matthew was a later gospel written by someone with access to the authentic Matthew but a strong bias against the "Judaizing" groups that preferred using only that gospel. He would have used other gospels to "correct" his translation of Matthew, adding sections like the Nativity to undermine the competing doctrine of Adoptionism.
I read that a lot but actual philologists and linguists agree that Mark is well-written, but using a put-on colloquial style. Sort of like how Mark Twain was a brilliant man but wrote in a folksy sort of way. Mark is otherwise using a lot of familiar Greek tropes and narrative devices, such as chiastic structure. The Aramaic phrases seem inserted to set-the-scene. Other than the "son of man made for the sabbath" reverse-translation thing, are there any remnants of Aramaisms? Otherwise, everything seems fully Greek.
I love the phrase "Markan Priority" sounds like a punk band filled with well informed atheists lol
My own conclusions were derived well before the internet so I did not really know any of these theories. So here is an independent analysis not based in academic study or much history. This is all from the feel of the words really but it seems to agree with most of what you are relating. The two bible I read regularly were the King James and Lamsa bibles. Humorously, I met and listened to George Lamsa speak several times in my youth, so I actually have an autographed bible. :)
Mark can be read out loud in an hour and a half, and it is dramatic and it builds to a crescendo of confusion where you feel the last days struggle. It feels like the story a beloved lecturer would give on special occasions and when he traveled from church to church.
From this, I suspected that the book of Mark was one of the apostles stories told over and over as the apostles ministry. His close followers heard this story over and over and after the original apostle passed away, his followers told the same tale from memory. After a few of these followers passed away, an effort to write it all down was made. I never questioned if the original tale was from Mark the Apostle but perhaps I should.
Then, I thought, the church that produced Matthew, took the text of Mark and added stories they had heard and remembered. They wanted their founding apostles tales added.
My reasoning for this theory was that Mark is mostly free from obvious dogma, and the splitting hairs about the meaning of it all. You can't derive much of the Nicene Creed from Mark. Matthew brings in a bit more church doctrine. That marks it as a later story.
Luke feels like it had both of these sources and didn't quite want to get in an argument and respected a lot of Matthew but they wanted a bit more of their churches spin on things added to their elders memories of the stories they heard. Luke has a lot more doctrine so I suspected it came later than the other two.
John also has a strong feeling of church doctrine woven in, so I have always suspected it came last.
I am now temped to read Mark again just to see if I can get a feel for who is telling the story.
I would highly recommend on looking up Chris Keith and Social Memory Theory when it comes to the development of the New Testament. Very interesting research.
Fascinating video! The Bible is one of the most important books both in terms of mythology and literature, so it's instructive to drill down into how it was compiled.
I would add that evidence for the Farrer-Goulder-Goodacre hypothesis also offers many cases editorial fatigue as evidence. As well, it shows a very clear redaction profile for Luke. Also, I believe that the case becomes way stronger when we start looking at the Greek.
This is such a great intro video. I assume this will get some people excited to learn more. I started learning friggin Koine Greek I'm so interested in this stuff. And I'm an armchair Bible scholar at best.
@ReligionforBreakfast
Would you consider doing a video on "missing" Judeo-Christian tradition documents like the Q document?
(Bearing in mind we don't know what existed and what didn't due to some documents' existance being speculative)
Great vid!
Amazing video. One of my favorites. I am so interested in fact based religious studies, I ate this right up!
Dr. George Howard wrote a book about the Hebrew original of Matthew. I've been reading out of a Hebrew manuscript of Matthew for the last twenty years or so. One of the things I've noticed the last few years is that in a lot of places where the Greek Matthew followers Mark or Luke so closely (like, word for word) the Hebrew doesn't. Two clear places where you can see this are Matthew 3:11 and Matthew 10:2-4
In Matthew 3:11, the Hebrew is באש רוח הקדש. ("in the fire of the Holy Spirit") The Greek is εν πνευματι αγιω και πυρι ("in the Holy Spirit and fire") which is identical to Luke.
In 10:2-4, it lists the twelve apostles. In the Hebrew, the order is: Peter, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, James, John, Thomas, Matthew, James, Thaddeus, Simon, and Judas. In the Greek of both Matthew and Luke it's Peter, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James, Thaddeus, Simon, and Judas. So pretty different.
The more I look at it, the more it looks to me like the Hebrew of Matthew was original, then Mark wrote, then Luke wrote with a copy of Mark at hand, then someone translated Matthew from Hebrew to Greek with copies of Luke and Mark in hand, then John wrote. (Using the traditional names for the authors because I'm too lazy to make up other names, I'm not for this purpose actually defending the traditional authorship.)
If you'd like more, Dr Howard's book is on Kindle.
www.amazon.com/dp/B00IMHJ0NQ/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_glt_51454MVR458YYKYN640E
I've got a blog post where I go into my thoughts past that here:
shaunckennedy.wordpress.com/2018/04/24/matthew-from-the-hebrew/
And a decade and a half ago I made my own translation of Matthew from the Hebrew that I'm preparing to revise, edit, and just generally improve. If you want to read that you can from a link to the Google Doc here:
shaunckennedy.wordpress.com/sources/
(I'll keep that link up-to-date as best I can.)
I agree with your theory.
So you disagree with Mark as the priority?
@@partydean17 For Matthew
@@sthelenskungfu ok interesting. So when we say Matthew tho we are technically talking about a text different enough that there is a slightly different original Matthew than the greek gospel one?
@@partydean17 I'm not quite sure I followed that last sentence. So I'll try to more clearly lay out my understanding of their dependence.
Without committing to a chronology, Matthew and Mark were written independently. Matthew was written in Hebrew, Mark in Greek.
Luke was written by someone with a copy of Mark. It was written in Greek.
Someone who had a copy of Mark and a copy of Luke translated the Hebrew edition of Matthew into Greek. When they are telling the same story, rather than translate they simply copied from either Mark or Luke.
Does that answer your question?
Can you do a video about John and how the US Evangelicals prefer his ''super-power'' version of Jesus?
Matthew is actually the “favorite” of conservative scholars, while John has traditionally been viewed more favorably by liberal scholars like John A. T. Robinson’s *The Priority of John*. See also Margaret Barker’s book on John.
If you’re suggesting Jesus in John is “more miraculous,” that’s really not the case. Indeed, Simon Gathercole and Larry Hurtado have published books which have undercut the prior consensus that the Synoptics or Paul have a low Christology.
I think most Christian's prefer John because John is where you can solidify the oneness of Jesus and The Father. It really is the gospel FOR Christian's.
@@partydean17
Not quite sure that’s right.
Mark 4:39: He got up and rebuked the wind, and said to the sea, “Hush, be still.” And the wind died down and it became perfectly calm.
Psalms 107:29: He caused the storm to be still, so that the waves of the sea were hushed.
Mark 6:48: At about the fourth watch of the night, He came to them walking on the sea.
Job 9:8: God alone stretched out the heavens, walking on the sea as if on dry land.
Matthew 12:25: And knowing their thoughts, Jesus said to them…
Psalm 94:11: The Lord knows the thoughts of man.
Matthew 28:20: And surely I am with you always, even to the end of the ages.
Psalm 139:10: If I take the wings of the dawn, if I dwell in the remotest parts of the sea, even there Your Hand will guide me.
@@partydean17 In a way yeah, it captures a more distinct form of Christianity, while Matthew & Luke (esp. Matthew) are more of a neo-Judaism and Mark is more bare-bones and almost non-theological (aside from apocalyptic stuff)
@Noah Scheid
But Jesus had body parts & Jesus is God.
Amazing video as always!
If it’s something you’d be interested in, I’m hoping you’ll do a video on Inuit and First Nations faiths at some point!
This is actually a SUPER good idea. I'd be fascinated to research a video about Inuit religion...
@@ReligionForBreakfast Please do! 😁 very excited at the prospect of watching it.
Love your content. Keep up the great work!
So, I'm curious: could it also be that Matthew and Luke used a now-lost version of Mark? So, a lost source, but not a full gospel, but rather just some lost sections of Mark? Any clear evidence against this?
You could make that your hypothesis. There is a version of Mark usually called Secret Mark, however both the quotations have no parallels with the synoptics. The first one, however, appears to be a more primitive version of the Lazarus story from John.
Scholars have wondered that long ago, and the consensus is that Mark alone as we know it is the source for Matthew and Luke. No Proto-Mark to account for the extra content in the other synoptic gospels.
From Wikipedia: “There was much *debate at the time over whether Matthew and Luke used Mark itself or some Proto-Mark* (Ur-Mark). In 1899 J. C. Hawkins took up the question with a careful statistical analysis and argued for *Marcan priority without Proto-Mark* , and other British scholars soon followed to strengthen the argument, which then received wide acceptance.
While that quote alone doesn’t give an through explanation, a deeper study of Mark and the evidence in favor of Marcan priority is enough to discard a Ur-Mark as the source of the extra content within Luke and Matthew. I’ll put it this way: Mark has plenty of quirks and unique stances for it to be the only source of the other synoptic gospels.
While we have to take into account the possibility of Mark deriving from other written sources, it’s considerably unique theologically. For instance, it doesn’t make a definite statement on the divinity of Jesus. If we want to explain Luke and Matthew, Mark is not enough, we need Q.
That being said, I do encourage you to do your own research if you’re interested. I’m no scholar, I’m just an enthusiast like many others in this comment section.
Isn’t this similar to the theory of the Q source?
@@procyon6370 Secret Mark is probably totally made-up too. Morton Smith had some solid scholarship but it's pretty clear he was writing his own fan-fiction there.
Thank you for mentioning the alternative to the Q hypothesis. I've read a number of books and articles on this subject, and the existence of Q never made a lot of sense to me. It seems to defy Occam's Razor. It's so much simpler to assume that Luke copied Matthew. (Or that Matthew copied Luke? How sure are scholars that Matthew was written before Luke?)
To be honest, I think Q is so popular because it presupposes some historicity to Jesus of Nazareth. But Q falls apart pretty quickly.
@@LordJagd Not exactly, it is not so much the existence of Q itself, but the view of the evangelists (and especially Luke) as copy-paste-compilers truthfully recording the extant Jesus material in their time, a bit like Snorri Sturluson, rather than writers of their own books based on extant material like Vergil (or Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, to stay Nordic), so the view creating a need for Q which changes the probability of a historical Jesus being the source of those stories. The difference between faithfully recorded ancestral stories and a King Arthur & Robin Hood comic book, more or less....
Marvellous little presentation. Thank you.
Thank you for the sharing!
I've heard a version of the Farrer hypothesis elided with tradition before that goes something like:
Mark and Matthew wrote their gospels independently, but Matthew wrote his in Hebrew, not Greek. When someone then translated Matthew into Greek, it was easier to just use their copy of Mark where the stories were the same. Then, Luke came along and had access to both when he compiled his own gospel.
I don't know if it works, but it's interesting.
Luke & Matthew are like fan edits/ remakes to retcon elements of Mark's Gospel narrative
And John is a straight up fanfic.
@@NotDaveGahan don't say that
What is the point being so disrespectful towards christians
@@anyoneatall3488 I’m being facetious. John is not without value, as parts of it are comparatively more accurate. I said that mainly because the whole “disciple whom Jesus loved” narrative reminds me of a self-insert fic as such a privileged character isn’t found in the other gospels. Also, John’s gospel is the odd one out, taking more liberties with historical accuracy for the sake of theology when compared to Mark.
@@NotDaveGahan So, keeping to the fanfic analogy, John is a Mary Sue?
@@NotDaveGahan Haha never thought of the "whom Jesus loved" as a self-insert but that's really spot-on. John is still sick though.
This is amazing. I wish there were videos like this for the Pali Canon.
10:05 Precisely the reason I don't stack my books on top of eachother. It would cause a break in the space-time continuum, merging my manga, history, and math texts.
At the catholic school i grew up in they would explain the impossibility of the gospel authors using mostly the same wording despite being independent as “divine revelation” where God told them what to write and that’s why they’re so similar, and if questioned would relapse back to faith. Needless to say i bounced off religion real quick after that
And how did they explain that John's so different? Didn't he get the memo? :-)
@@FranciscoTornay His holy WiFi was faulty
@@FranciscoTornay Did John say any message other then what Matthew mark luke said? They still don’t contradict each other
@@chandlerwheeler7605 You're so eager to play apologetics that you're missing the whole context of the conversation
A collab between Religion for Breakfast and Useful Charts, two of my favourite history channels on CZcams!
How cool is that?? 😊😊
When in Catholic school I was originally taught that Mark is a synopsis of Matthew. I was taught that someone wanted to give us the skinny. The NAB introduction we were using said otherwise.
This channel is a treasure. Thank you very much for your content!
Useful chart is also a good channel . I watch that channel also
I love both of the channels. I am even part of Matt's sub reddit.
@@cgt3704 wow cool . isnt he a Jew ?
@@Cherry-sg4zg yes. He is but as a christian i like his videos. Its actually thanks to Matt that i found out about Biblical Archeology
@@cgt3704 hmm,. He is good . What is your opinion about Trinity ? 🙄.
@@Cherry-sg4zg why are you asking this question all of a sudden ?
Another wild theory states that Marcion of Sinope actually had the first gospel and the others were taken from it.
And one thing we know about Marcion is that he supposedly was the first to compile a collection of texts.
It's interesting to see that theory develop, you find scholars thinking it was based on Luke, then it was contemporaneous with Luke, and then it was the first gospel. The arguments are very strong too.
Regardless, it is amazing that these events are so important that the authors felt they were worthy of recording so long ago. Kudos🎉🎉🎉 God bless y'all
It seems to me that I recall being taught that the Epistles came first and they had certain formulas and creeds I them. So perhaps there were other documents being used that the gospels were based on. Perhaps not the Q document, but sayings documents and copies of sermons perhaps? It's intriguing.