Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Solving The Synoptic Problem Without Q With Professor Mark Goodacre
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 чер 2022
- #MarkGoodacre
#Qdocument
#FarrerHypothesis
#TheSynopticProblem
Mark Goodacre is the Frances Hill Fox Professor of Religious Studies at Duke University, North Carolina, USA. He earned his MA, M.Phil and D.Phil at the University of Oxford. His research interests include the Gospels, the Apocryphal New Testament, and the Historical Jesus. Goodacre is the author of four books including The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002) and Thomas and the Gospels: The Case for Thomas's Familiarity with the Synoptics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012). He is well known for creating web resources on New Testament and Christian origins, including his podcast, the NT Pod. Goodacre has acted as consultant for several TV and radio programs including The Passion (BBC / HBO, 2008) and Finding Jesus (CNN, 2015-17). Goodacre is currently working on a book on John's knowledge of the Synoptic Gospels.
markgoodacre.org/
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @history-valley
Twitter: @Jacob56723278
Email: jacobberman553@gmail.com
www.patreon.co...
Discord server / discord
PayPal Link www.paypal.com...
Centurions For Paul Facebook Group / 957292477950756
Thank academia for allowing a Goodacre to come forth. Great interview, sound logic, and nice on the ears.
Long time no see Justin, how you doing brother?
@@History-Valley Busier than I care to be but better than I deserve LOL. So glad you're able to do content with your line of ?'s
I was lucky enough to be taught by Mark at Birmingham university.
Smile more Jacob! It'll help your guests open up. Fantastic video all the same
This is a very enligthening episode. Prof Goodacre has a clear way of explaining that i enjoy.
One more superb episode with one of the absolute top scholars! There is no Solution to the Synoptic Problem without Mark (Goodacre :)
Great guest Jacob, been waiting for this one, up there with Dr. Price and Dr. Carrier.
Great questions. Great you didn't do a huge monologue at the beginning like others do
Goodacre is a brilliant redaction analyst. Even greater than Ehrman who is a textual analyst.
Not greater than Erhman who speaks Aramaic and Hebrew
Jacob this is a fantastic episode; the questions were very good and Professor Good acre's answers. were even better.
What is the probability that copies ceased being produced because the canon, doctrine, and dogma were being Catholicized?
Trobisch says that our edition of the New Testament was redacted by a SINGLE person just like Uthmanic rescension of the Quran sometime in the 2nd century. Presumably, the older copies were not preserved after that recension.
Dr Goodacre's argument that Mark didn't use Josephus makes sense, why did Mark get so much wrong if he used Josephus? UNLESS Mark was trying to contradict Josephus.
Yes, he wasn't copying it just taking stuff from it and changing it. Goodacre saying he would have used it to fact check is odd when "Mark" wasn't trying to write a fact based history he was writing fiction, an allegorical story, he didn't care about facts.
i think Goodacre believes in a 'Historical' Jesus. This is an illogical position to take. Gospel Jesus is clearly a literary creation. There are historical figures such as 'Judas' the Galilean upon which Gospel Jesus uses as a kind of Template. But Judas Galilean was a very violent Messianic Jewish Rebel who was indeed crucified by Pilate. Check book by Daniel Unterbrinck.
@@khsuki1 I think this ignores that in Greco-Roman antiquity, it was the default for biographies of real people to be fictionalized. It's plausible (although of course nowhere near certain) that Mark was doing the same thing. Just because a lot of Mark is clearly fictitious, it doesn't necessarily mean that he was not biographizing a real person, according to the common standard of that culture.
@@khsuki1why the scare quotes? The anonymous gospel theory is nonsense and easy to disprove.
I’m waiting for the day when all of these texts are placed into a database along with all the other Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew texts from that time, and then properly analyzed for determining who borrowed from whom. I think this is how we will ultimately solve many of the questions as to the origins of certain texts, and how they were compiled.
Thomas’s existence actually is a nice argument against the existence of Q because Thomas looks like an example of the opposite of the Q to Matthew path. Thomas looks like someone taking a lot lot lot of sayings that make no sense without extra narrative context and pulling them out of the narrative and putting them into a shorter document for who knows what purpose. A very large fraction of the sayings in Thomas just make no sense without extra context that has obviously been removed.
If Luke had acces to Matthew Gospel, why his version has a different story about Jesus birth. This birth story is totally different in Luke with no common ground with the story told by Matthew. This is one of the reason why the common wisdom is that Luke did not know the Matthew Gospel. There are many other reasons.
Thankyou. Dr Goodacre’s presentation of what ‘Luke’ did to ‘Matthew’ (and Mark) is compatible with the idea that ‘Luke’ did similar things to ‘John’. I would add my current view that the author of Luke is writing later than John ,as Dr Paul Anderson contends, and several times has been mildly influenced by details and passages he has read in ‘’John’, or remembers from hearing in an audience, read from ‘John’. These details include also such extended narratives as John’s arrangement of the denials of Peter interspersed with the witness of Jesus, and aspects of order in the Last Supper. Yet ‘Luke’ appears to have deliberately (moderately) downgraded John’s particularly favoured personages Mary Magdalene (‘seven devils’)and Mary, Martha (why won’t Mary help me in the kitchen?’)and Lazarus (a beggar whose sores are licked by dogs’)of Bethany. This would suggest a degree of rivalry of viewpoints, or reputation, of the author of Luke against the author of John
The two positions I'm convinced about, Farrer hypothesis and Marcion hypothesis. Farrer is definitely more parsimonious.
Steve Mason says it doesn't make sense that Luke would treat Mark and Matthew so differently as sources. Robert Eisenman says we simply cannot understand the relationships between the 4 gospels. Yup, my best parrot impression...
Great guest. But as he says, people can only speculate on how transmission actually happened. Why would he assume that a 100 AD Luke knew Josephus as opposed to a 60 AD Luke having access to some of the witnesses or documents Josephus would use decades later?
I wonder about this assumption as well. It adds extra steps based on speculation while rejecting the most simple possibility.
Luke takes stuff from Josephus in a way that he is copying (like using the same phrases). Luke also leaves out details which sometimes make the reference not make sense even though it did in Josephus.
This is succinct so far,
half way through
We should consider the possibility that Jesus himself had a hand in writing and editing the Holy Gospels.
Luke may have similarly mined/used the Nicodemus passage John 3:1-21, turning a mental and moral process for all believers he read of in John into a physical process for Jesus in Luke, to elevate Jesus in his physical conception, a divine conception that may not even been thought of by the author of John. See the wording at Luke 1:24-25 and there note the Nicodemus-like question ‘How can these things be’ and the other words shared with the Nicodemus passage: ‘power’ dunamos (dunamai ‘getting the power to do something’ is used in Nicodemus’ question), spirit, born’ and in Luke 1 verse 31 mention of a womb, v32 sitting on a throne in his kingdom, and in verse 37 ‘nothing will be impossible with God’. As if answering also the unspoken objection of Nicodemus. Multiple correspondences.
The Farrer-Goulder-Goodacre hypothesis is a possible solution to the synoptic problem. I think 🤔 the Q theory is much more convincing! If Luke had known Mark and Matthew, why he would create a completely new native story and destroy the famous sermon on the mount?
What about the diferences in the description of the Sign of Jonah in the synoptics?
At 58:00 minutes he sounds like he’s talking to physicists
Order/Relationship of the Gospels according to me:
-Mark
-Marcion (extended Mark/Q/Sayings/Logoi)
-Matthew (uses both Marcion/Mark)
-Luke (Edited Marcion's Gospel, used Matthew)
Luke and Matthew are interchangable, possible Luke was written first or Matthew. In that case, Matthew used Luke if Luke was written prior and Matthew later. In my theory it's hard to tell which because Marcion is Ur-Lukas, so it's difficult to tell if Matthew used our Luke, or Ur-Lukas, Marcion.
I'm open to Matthean Posteriority so I don't know what to make of which Gospel was last, but I do think Mark was first, Marcion was Q. So the important thing is that Mark and Marcion were first.
Couldn't Luke have been using a different version of Matthew and that would explain the simplier language that Dr. Goodacre talks about in the beginning of the video?
Thomas is the only Christian document that only contains possibly said verses without a bunch of stories being told that the writer could not possibly have known about
Were the gospel writers suddenly incapable of talking to other people? That’s the simple explanation for “stories the writer could not possibly have known about”.
I have a video called "unraveling the Absurdity" where this subject is touched upon. Also, I have a new video coming soon that destroys the house of cards that the Gospels are post 70 AD.
Q is a sayings source. There's lots of sayings which exist in Luke and Matthew not in Mark.
Also Thomas.
It looks like the early Jesus movement took a good deal of trouble to preserve Sayings of Jesus and Mark seems to have been an exception in not being interested in them.
Nah.
Mark is so brilliant, However, the elephant in the room seems to have been missed by every scholar whether deluded, mesmerised indoctrinated Christian or rational atheist Biblical scholar. Even if there was a Jesus, how do we know what he said? The trouble is we are indoctrinated as children (like Muslim children) to believe these are the words spoken by our Prophet/Messiah and taken down faithfully by men with telepathic powers and even if they were writing decades later they still had telepathic powers. In reality, they were a bunch of dick-heads making stuff up - copying Old Testament stories and grafting them onto the moron named Jesus (who thought stars were tiny lights in the firmament and could fall to earth), making up stories to fulfil prophecies (not prophecies at all and taken wildly out of context), borrowing themes from Homer, Josephus, Romulus and Remus etc. Tell me a conversation word for word you had with a work colleague two months ago? Page after page after page after page. Exactly. Zilch. We remember 0-20% of conversations (officially). I would put it lower to 0-4% So unless these illiterate fishermen were chasing after Jesus with a laptop and touch-typing then we can assume it is all made up bullshit. How would they know his words were important? Where did they sleep every night and who fed these weirdo's? Who financed them? Tell me where your uncles grandad was born? Who was there and what was said? What building or room it was in? Yup you don't know but you still retain this weird indoctrination from Sunday School that the Gospel writers had superior, telepathic powers to us mere mortals. Now tell me which town your own grandad was born? (Maybe not too hard) What building? What room? Who was there (how many nurses) what was said? What happened after he was born? You get my drift. The Gospels are all made up. How do we know other than the former? They describe what happened when nobody else was there. What people thought. What happened in secret. What happened behind closed doors etc. Wake up and smell the coffee!
When you talk like this, no one takes it as serious scholarly curiosity. It reads more like emotion without logic or evidence, which is exactly why most learned scholars whether “indoctrinated Christian or rational Atheist” disagrees with what you wrote here.
@@CircusofPython OK, now you answer every question I posed then. We shall await your learned reply. Some peoples lives have been destroyed by religion. I will ram that stupid book down the throat of any twat who tries to tell me it is good. To see that moron Jesus tell us we have to obey every Law in the Old Testament and then for a child to read that they could be handed over by their parents to strange men and led away to be stoned to death is pure evil. (Deuteronomy 21:20)