Peter Leithart on the Synoptic Problem 

That was an informative presentation. Thank you. Something I often wonder about is the transmission time for a document in the 1st century. In other words, when a gospel was written, how long would it take for it to have wide distribution across the known world? How quickly did important documents travel between, say, major churches like Antioch, Alexandria and Ephesus?

Good message - Thank you. What bible do you have on the podium?

Correct me if I’m wrong but Bauckham actually argues that Matthew did NOT write the Gospel attributed to him.

Helpful overview. One thing Dr Leithart refers to Wenham's book on the subject. That was by John Wenham, not David (i.e. by the father not the son)

Proposing that Matthew, not Mark, was the first Gospel written, John Wenham offers a fresh look at an intractable problem as well as an interesting perspective on the inner workings of the early Christian church. Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem by John Wenham (Author)

Outstanding! A gift to make us strong.

Why do we have four gospel instead of one?

What if.... I mean.... I'm just saying.... What if John's REVELATION, is really just his Olivet Discourse? 😉👍

If Luke had read Matthew why the Sermon on the plain?

Where does the NT say Luke wrote Luke or Acts?

Incredible that you could get Sean Connery could lecture about the Bible

Unfortunately these assumptions are just ways to make the theology and beliefs today to fit the history. Even Mark's gospel itself has several different endings! If you view them as truly eye witnesses how come that Mark himself didn't originally record the most amazing thing of Jesus' resurrection, but he had to rely on future scholars to jot them down? It seems more likely that these differences and problems are an indication of the vast range of beliefs that exist in the 1st century, and the development of theology, beliefs, and stories themselves over the years. In addition, there are still gospels that didn't make it onto the bible today!

Approx 10 minutes or so in Mr. Leithart posits that Paul is referring to "Luke" in 1 Cor. accompanying Titus... Paul does not mention Luke, there were other's such as John-Mark (Peter's companion) who was WELL famous, traveled at the same time as Paul and his group and Mark associated with Paul and the others via Peter's dealings with Paul... Just one example of a respected gospel figure at Paul's time... Paul could be speaking about anyone... MOST scholars place Mark at approx 60'ish CE, Matthew and Luke approx 20 years later and we do NOT even know IF Luke wrote "Luke" and Acts... Like Mark and Matthew we do NOT know who the authors were, it was AFTER the death of Paul and his generation names were even placed to these gospels.

I went down this rabbit hole once before, then I decided it was inevitably pointless because your theories will remain theories until you can talk to Matthew, Mark and Luke. I read that the differences in the gospels could be explained by target audience of the author and who the author was. Take Mark, Mark was written by tradition with recollection of Peter who was with Mark on many travels. It is a gospel targeted for Romans who cared about what a man can do than his parentage which is why it is the most action-based and omits geaneology.

The consensus is that Mark was the first Gospel and it was written decades after the crucifixion.

What I don't get about skeptics is why or how can they continue to ignore the following crucial points related to evidence for the gospels being written early:

If Mathew and Luke are similar to Mark, they "copied Mark". If they are different then they "contradict Mark". This heads I win, tails you lose scholarship is unreasonable, and logically untenable.

Look at the book. - The Four Gospels at a Glance - You will be amazed. Simple, understandeble, with a good overview. The synoptic problem has been eliminated. The author has managed to bring all four Gospels together in parallel. The books are accepted at many universities.

I didn't know there was a problem smh typical 18th, 19th and 20 th century skepticism looking for so called sources and nonsense but good presentation from Leithart regardless

I'm not a biblical scholar or historian but at @