Ian, you are an amazing teacher. Thank you for uploading this. I am left with one question though. If the original manuscripts of Mark did not include the Resurrection, why does it appear in both Matthew and Luke? The two accounts of the resurrection are both very distinct to the point of conflict. Nevertheless, this makes it unlikely that the two authors copied from a common source (be it Q or from each other). Seeing as much of Luke is copied from Matthew, why would Luke contain a seemingly original account of the event? Is there a strong argument against Luke and Matthew both being witness to the resurrection? Thank you so much
Matthew & Luke include more story than Mark because the authors wanted more story than Mark provided, so they made it up. Luke differs from Mark because the author was writing for a different audience (gentiles instead of Jews) so he changed the parts he didn’t like. The argument against the authors of Matthew & Luke being witnesses to the events is that they were written decades after the events & sometimes tell the story of events no third party was present to witness.
Absolutely fascinating! I'm an atheist who is a Bible nerd. I had a eureka moment towards the beginning of your presentation. It seems that the only authentic Gospel is Mark's because the other Gospel writers had a theological agenda which as we all know is especially strong in John. This would mean that their Gospels were interpretative rather than a straight intention to present a factual account. I hadn't previously considered that this theological motivation was so strong in Matthew and Luke as well as John. I have a question: If Luke copied from Matthew did he even have access to Mark or did everything come from Matthew and Q? Additional observation: It seems possible to me that if 'Q' ever existed it may have simply been a collection of sayings with, perhaps, the inclusion of some parables. What do you think?
About 1% of Luke matches Mark but not Matthew, suggesting the author either had a copy of Mark as well or a slightly different copy of Matthew than what we have. I wouldn’t give Mark any more credence of authenticity than Matthew & Luke. It's an attempt to use Zoroastrian themes & Greek stoicism & literature tropes to create a new form religion out of Judaism.
@@Tysto Thank you. It's a shame that we will never know 100% the true origins of the Synoptic Gospels. Wouldn't it be amazing if we found complete scrolls of the Gospels or Q or M & L (assuming that M & L existed). Fascinating subject. I've heard the Zoroastrian idea before. Thanks again.
I'd love to know your thoughts on the conflicting birth narratives. I'm of the opinion that Matthew (or whatever sources that writer was using) came up with the "Virgin Birth" idea due to their reading of Isaiah 7 as Messianic prophecy (which... I don't think it is). Luke preserves the 'Virgin Mary' concept, but de-links it from prophecy. Similarly, Matthew has the whole baby-killing thing with Herod the Great for prophetic reasons. Luke makes no mention of prophecy, but tries to shoehorn Herod the Great and Bethlehem in anyway by having Mary learn about her FUTURE pregnancy during Herod, and by having Joseph need to travel for the census. Is this Luke including traditions (Virgin, Bethlehem, Herod) that are too popular to ignore, while removing contradictions and prophetic implications he doesn't agree with?
Most of what Matthew & Luke add to Mark came from Greek mythology. Almost nothing reputed to be fulfillment of Old Testament prophesy about the messiah was actually about the messiah in the first place, because there is virtually nothing about the messiah in the Old Testament.
This is invaluable! Just found your channel because Laura Robinson had a discussion on Shannon Q's channel this week. That a recent lecture like this is available makes me giddy with nerdiness!
Nice lecture! I am interested in long lengths of word for word literary connections. Where can I find lists of such connections? Also, I heard Goodacre is researching John’s use of the Synoptics, can’t wait to read the results of his research.
The Gospel of Thomas is a sayings gospel. The earliest attestation that we have of Thomas comes from Hippolytus of Rome (170-235 CE) where he declares it heretical in his _Refutation of All Heresies._ It doesn't mean that Thomas was Q, but it is evidence that sayings gospels did exist.
Every scholar who has published on the synoptic problem in the last one hundred years (atheist, Christian, and otherwise) believes in an historical Jesus.
Regarding micro-conflation... isn't Luke confirming a possibility of such when he claims careful study of all the testimonies before writing his own accord in Lk 1.3?
I write out my lectures in prose ahead of time. I don't read that script in class, but it helps me think about how to articulate clearly the information.
Really amazing video! Enjoyed it and learned a lot from it! Thank you very much for making it available. One part of it did throw me a little. I may just be dense, but I wasn't clear how the "editorial fatigue" point actually lends positive evidence toward Q's non-existence over and above its existence. It seems to indicate that there is a relationship between Matthew and Luke for that parable, sure... but couldn't it just as easily indicate that the parable of the talents was in Q, Matthew copied it verbatim, and Luke altered it, succumbing to editorial fatigue vs. Q, just as easily as editorial fatigue vs. Matthew? You still made what felt like a solid case, and the point about the burden of proof made a lot of sense, but the editorial fatigue example doesn't seem like it ought to tip the scales particularly one way or the other, since it seems like what we see could happen just as easily in either scenario. Probably nuances to it that are going completely over my head, but that was the one part of the talk that did make me do a bit of a double-take and say "wait... how's that work?"
Thanks so much. And awesome question! I agree, that editorial fatigue is not itself a challenge to the 2SH (i.e. that Q exists). Rather, the problem for the 2SH is uni-directional Mt-->Lk fatigue. There are several cases where the Lukan form of the story lapses back into Matthean details creating an inconsistency (documented in Goodacre 1998) but no instances where Matthew lapses back into a Lukan form. If both gospels were re-purposing an earlier source we should expect to find fatigue in both directions.
It’s interesting that Ian calls out the impossibility of microconflation as a strong argument in favor of markan priority. That exact same reasoning would apply to rule out the 2 source hypothesis.
I’ll preface this question by saying I’m not a scholar, I’m just a layman. But how would this hypothesis be affected if it turned out that Marcions evangelion predates the Luke that we know, and our Luke is Marcion plus additions/revisions in a similar way that Matthew is of Mark, rather than Marcion being a cut down version of Luke like people used to say Mark was a cut down Matthew. It would be interesting to see this same analysis with Mark Matthew and Marcion. Because then might there be a possibility of a layer of Luke (Marcions gospel) that is independent of Matthew and then another layer of Luke added later that knows Matthew?
In response to your example of the talents parable, the 10 Minas in Luke does not necessarily reveal editorial fatigue. Each servant is given 1 mina, the first makes 10 more. Yes that is 11, but he is then put in charge of 10 cities because he has made 10 more minas, not 11 cities. In the same way the servant who makes 5 minas (6 including the original) is given 5 cities not 6. When at the end the master says 'give it to the servant who has 10' he simply means the one who has made 10 as the amount they make is more important than the total number, illustrated by the 10 cities and 5 cities instead of 6 and 11 cities. In your lecture you imply the 10 minas is a lazy slip up where Luke has copied Matthew. But it is consistent with the maths for the servant who made 5, and Matthew doesn't mention the number 5.
Mr Mills, @0:40 you present several books, much to the delight of your audience, but because of my browser and PC's inability to provide adequate resolution, I am unable to decipher the books' titles/authors: perhaps you may list them for me please? I'll hazard they include the eminent N T Wright as one of the authors? And, thanks for sharing your scholoarship journey with us.
A very good, succinct, and good humoured lecture. Hypothesising a "Q", even if there were not the problems that immediately fail it, would still, all other things being equal, fail on parsimony alone.
Thanks! I disagree. If the Mark-Q overlaps didnt exist and there was bi-directional editorial fatigue, I would believe in Q to explain the Double Tradition .
@@newtestamentreview9931 Yes, if the evidence were different we might come to a different conclusion. But the evidence isn't different: it is what it it is.
My only question with regard to Luke copying from Matthew, or Matthew copying Luke for that matter, is if either had access to the other why would they present such diverse nativity narratives?
Good question. We've discussed that to some degree in our Christmas podcasts (on Raymond Brown's book). I think Luke's treatment of Matthew's nativity make sense in light of his interests reflected elsewhere (e.g. his dislike for magi as evinced in his depiction of Simon Magus).
There is a small tomb at imarna in Egypt and there is a word for word version of the lords prayer but written in hieroglyphs from between1380-1335 bc. The only difference is the word they use for god is aten. When you look back far enough you seemed to find earlier versions of most things in the bible.
I found out about this channel on Bart Erhman blog. I have been incredibly been changed watching videos on this channel about the NT. I am glad to be a part of the great things happening here. Lost access to this Gmail account. I only just gained access to it. I am glad to be back to watching videos here. I am grateful for all this information!
That's not my conclusion at all. There are many good reasons to think that Jesus was a historical person with meaningful similarities to the portraits given in the synoptic gospels.
@@newtestamentreview9931 Do you have a pdf or ppt copy that you can share of your slides you used in the lecture? I wanted to read that. If you do not have a link to that, do you have any source that can help me study it? Thanks in advance.
Q exists by definition because its a saying that goes back to Mark's day but ina different wording for example on marriage. Mathew says you can't remarry in one spot and you can if you cheats on you in another contradicting Paul and Mark but in a different wording so they have to call it something hence "Q" lastly on 47:20 you say q theorist say luke would never copy from mathew but they Say mathew consist of 3 sources Mark, Q, M for Mathew's source.
@@newtestamentreview9931 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-d_dOhg-Fpu0.html 38:50 Yes, Mathew 5:32 and Luke 16:18 are parallel and expressing Mark/Paul teaching on marriage. Therefore Q necessarily exist since its a different wording than Mark. Unless you want to say its Mathew's invention that goes against his own teaching. So even if i gave you Luke copying Mathew I still have grounds for Q but Luke abundantly points to Q but i dont need it.
@@jessepelaez874 If Q doesn't exist (as I and many scholars believe) then Matthew either composed the double tradition (Mt=Lk w/o Mk) or he got it from some other (probably unreconstructable) source. This is no objection the Farrer theory. Also, Matthew has no problem altering the wording and content of Mark (on either the Farrer or the Two Source Theory).
@@newtestamentreview9931 Exactly, that unrecontructable source has a name, its called Q for a lack of a better term. So on your view Mt has to altered mark on that Q saying but didn't alter it to his theology about marriage and thats the reason why it seems early is because its a poorly tweaked verse to the point it resemble the age of mark... also on Luke im 100percent with you on Luke knowing about Mathew but that doesn't change the fact that those Parallel Mt sayings they share seem earlier than Mathew.
@@jessepelaez874 This is what I tried to point out to you earlier. You don't understand what scholars mean by Q. No one denies the possibility of an unreconstructable source used by Matthew. Not Farrer; not Goulder; not Goodacre. And yet scholars debate over the existence of Q. Why? Because Q is not the name for just any hypothetical document (or documents). It is the designation we use for a specific hypothetical source invoked to explain the verbatim agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark. When I say Q doesn't exist, I'm saying that Luke and Matthew didn't share a reconstruct able source for the double tradition. You're not disagreeing with me (or anyone), you're just using words different from the rest of New Testament scholars. For the record (and this is a separate issue), I don't think there is any reason to believe that Matthew had any written sources for his additions to Mark. I think he composed them himself based on traditions and teachings preserved in the church. But that is TOTALLY SEPERATE from the Q issue.
2:09 (quote) - "there are no credentialed, living, academics working on the Synoptic Problem who will disagree with what I have to say about these first 2 things." False. David Alan Black is the Chair of New Testament Studies at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and he disagrees with point #2. His book 'Why Four Gospels" summarizes his position as to why he disagrees with it (There are others, but it only takes 1 to prove that claim false). He's also way better studied, researched, and 'credentialed' than this PHd candidate here. The problem with 'scholars' such as this is that they assert things as fact that are still only a 'hypothesis' at best, and doing so can greatly mislead lay-people.
I’ll respond to your concerns in reverse order. If you listened to the lecture then you would know that I didn’t “assert as a fact” any of these three claims. I spent almost an entire hour (out of a 1.5 hr lecture) explaining why almost every living scholar agrees that Matthew and Luke used Mark. You obviously disagree with my conclusion, but if you watch the video past the 3 minute mark you will see that I don’t merely assert that Matthew and Luke used Mark but lay out several detailed arguments in favor of this conclusion. Dr. Black is, indeed, a scholar; but he is not a scholar who works on the synoptic problem. He has never published anything in any peer reviewed journal or peer reviewed press on the synoptic problem. His book on the topic (which you mentioned) is published in a popular Christian press (Energerion). The foregoing does not mean he’s not a real scholar on any topic (he has published a good deal on linguistics); but my statement is still correct: I don’t believe any living scholar who publishes on the synoptic problem denies Markan priority.
@@newtestamentreview9931 The first paragraph is playing on semantics. Replace "assert" with another word, but my point still stands that it's a hypothesis. The reason I bring up Dr. Black is that he produced his own translations of the Church fathers from Latin and Greek, and his view switch based on their testimony. Unanimously, the fathers of the early church all held the view that Matthew was written first. Even Irenaeus in around 150 AD shares this view. Basically ALL external evidence supports it. It was 1700 years later that scholars began hypothesizing otherwise. But I at least appreciate that Dr. Black *still* puts forth his view as a genuine 'hypothesis', not as a dogma. You are welcome to lay out your arguments, I heard them. But in academia, this view is presented as a dogma, not a hypothesis. It's a fact which many are coming to experience and take note of. And I am reminding you and others watching that this is a hypothesis, and there are plenty of witnesses (much closer to the origin of these books) who give a different account. It's only honest to do so.
@@AuditoryStorytelling If I may please: this is Mr Mills' statement (claim, if you will): "I don’t believe any living scholar who publishes on the synoptic problem denies Markan priority." Perhaps you care to show us how the above statement may be challenged? If you do, then this will be good for scholarship, right. You may give us cause to further the discussion/dialogue, perhaps into new vistas yet uncovered. Thanks.
