Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
The Synoptic Problem Part 2: A Critique of Markan Priority
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 кві 2023
- In this video, I critically assess the major arguments which have been cited to support the theory of Markan priority both in the past and in the present. I conclude that all of them fail for a variety of reasons. The aim is to show that the case for Markan priority has been vastly overstated and oversold. This, of course, is no proof that the Gospel of Matthew was written first or that the Gospel of Mark was written third. We shall explore the external and internal evidence for these conclusions in two future videos. The only conclusion that I reach here is that there is no justification to be had for the theory of Markan priority despite the confidence with which it is widely held. However, it is my hope that this video serves to clear away some of the bias against the the Patristics, and motivates us to take what they have to say about the Synoptic Gospels seriously.
Sources:
Christology and the Synoptic Problem: An Argument for Markan Priority - Peter M. Head
A History of the Synoptic Problem - David L. Dungan
The Progressive Publication of Matthew - B. Ward Powers
The Originality of St. Matthew - B. C. Butler
ICC Matthew 1-7: Volume 1 - W. D. Davies and Dale Allison
God’s Equal - Sigurd Grindheim
The Holman Apologetics Commentary on the Bible - Jeremy Royal Howard (ed)
The Case for Jesus - Brant Pitre
The Two-Source Hypothesis: A Critical Appraisal - Arthur J. Bellinzoni (ed)
The Case Against Q - Mark Goodacre
One Gospel From Two: Mark’s Use of Matthew and Luke - David Peabody, Lamar Cope, and Allen J. McNicol (eds)
"Fatigue in the Synoptics" New Testament Studies 44 (1998) - Mark Goodacre
The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze - Mark Goodacre
Mark’s Gospel - Prior or Posterior? - David J. Neville
An Early Reader of Mark and Q - J. Verheyden & G. Van Belle (eds)
The Mirror or the Mask - Lydia McGrew
"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."
Awesome series! I strongly believe there was a hebrew/arameic version of Matthew's gospel account that was first out. Fingers strongly point to it in early church history. Personally, Mark is my favorite, because actions speaks louder than words and if familiar with 2nd Temple Judaism and ANE context, Mark is actually very high on Christology.
I will discuss the possibility of a Hebrew/Aramaic Matthew in my next video. I defend it as a possibility, but I don't think it's necessary to understand the Synoptic problem or to accept the priority of canonical Matthew.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 I agree.
This is not a criticism, but I just had to discard the scholars and use my "common sense", I have aspergers so it's not necessarily neurotypical "common sense". First, there are no gospels, they have a common message because they are all listening to each other preach and are good at memorization and transmitting oral tradition without error. During this time people are saying you need to write this down, and because they are moving out to evangelize, like Phillip they want to leave in Jerusalem a Christian liturgy in the style of Torah, i.e. MATTHEW in Hebrew in some liturgical form in the first 1-2 years that is agreed upon by other Apostles, this is why he has a genealogy, and can end with disciples stole the body, he is speaking to Jerusalem. Peter is going into the Greek and Aramaic diaspora, doesn't need a liturgy, they can request a copy of Matthew, but does need an interpreter (Papias said Mark was his interpreter), Mark writes it so Peter can stay consistent as he between synagogues and copies are made so the various synagogues aren't saying Peter one thing at one place and a different thing at another. Some of the things uniquely Mark are phrased to anticipate arguments such as why did Peter do miracles here and not there i.e. "he couldn't do many miracles because of unbelief". He doesn't need the virgin birth story because when he says SON OF GOD the diaspora Jews immediately think virgin birth. Luke traveling with Paul copies Matthews STYLE and creates a liturgy for gentiles and let's them know copies of Matthew and Mark are available for comparison. John is the last in Asia minor where he has a mix of Jews and gentiles who need to get along, an example of the disputes is the later quartodeciman controversy with Polycarp and Rome. It also "divinely inspired " anticipated the REVELATION to come. I place them all before Peter and Paul died, or John maybe right after, I think he left before 70 AD. I think 70 AD Temple destroyed, Jerusalem becomes Aelia Capitolina, and the Bar Cochba rebellion after which anything jewish was outlawed, including gospels written in Hebrew and Hebrew documents being confiscated and destroyed is why we only have Greek manuscripts. Your welcome to use, or not, any of this you want, I think it's the best explanation for all the data.
How? GMatthew often quotes from the LXX. That would make no sense if it was originally in Hebrew.
@@alfred9916 it would when it was translated. Into Greek so the Greeks reading it would know what he is quoting.
@14:00
A bit of a correction of this whole section:
The argument from "harsh readings" or "low Christology" isn't really that Mark himself had a "low Christology", but rather that examples of "softened language" like "could not" -> "did not" are consistent with a later writer redacting a wording that had come to be seen as too harsh. Indeed, if low Christology were a later invention, then it is conceivable Matthew would be more sensitive to "could not" wording and replaced it with "did not" to avoid confusion, whereas the earlier Mark, not battling against such heresies, didn't have as much sensitivity using "could not ... because of their unbelief" because he saw no risk being misunderstood.
The argument isn't "Mark really believe Jesus couldn't do miracles, Matthew came later and, influenced by a higher Christology, changed the wording to 'did not'". The argument is instead "Mark was careless in his wording here, Matthew came later and used more careful wording". The argument rests on the idea that if Mark were reading directly from Matthew, it is unlikely he would transform "did not" to "could not", as that would be less carelessness and more of a deliberate change. Of course another possibility is independence: Mark was published later, but was written independently of Matthew, and so it wasn't like Mark was copying from Matthew and deliberately changed "did not" to "could not": his carelessness was in the context of independence from Matthew.
That being said I'm sure a bunch of pseudo-"scholars" on "historical Jesus" have since attempted to take Marcan priority as a given and then argue from Marcan priority that "Mark shows a lower Christology, and Mark was earliest, therefore early Christians had a low Christology".
Given the state of New Testament scholarship I shouldn't have been as surprised as I am to see how shoddy the case for Markan priority actually is. In any case, I'm interested to see where this series goes. I'm currently inclined towards Stephen Boyce's view that Hebrew Matthew was first, then Mark, then Greek Matthew and Luke (the order of the last two being less clear). But this is an issue where I'm easily open to persuasion.
Boyce is a smart guy. But I don't think he has come to grips with the evidence for the posteriority of Mark which I will present in my fourth video.
The main things we can be pretty sure about are that Matthew wrote in Hebrew and circulated around the Hebrew community, and it was later translated to Greek, almost certainly it was the first fully compiled and published. Contemporaneously, Mark was probably written and circulated in bits and pieces, probably some Latin, some Greek, translated from the teaching of Peter, and was probably only compiled and published as a book later maybe after Peter's death. Luke was written in Greek based off the teachings of Paul, it's not clear when it was published but it was likely also published progressively in bits and pieces.
My view is that Matthew was compiled first in Hebrew, Mark and Luke were written contemporaneously and progressively published, they could easily have borrowed from each other and from Matthew: there was no idea of "plagiarism" being "bad" back then, if you had a letter from your correspondence with other apostles and it contained some chapters for a gospel, you may redact and edit it according to your understanding but there's no reason they wouldn't copy it almost entirely.
It's easy to suspect Luke was in fact finalized and published last, maybe together along with the Acts of the Apostles. Luke could easily have been redacting and updating bits and finalizing for a while, especially his scholarship related to the genealogies etc. Luke would have basically been Paul's secretary/chronicler and would be keeping extensive records and updating them etc etc. All the while, he wouldn't have kept it all secret or held it all under an embargo for some sort of "midnight release party" like a Harry Potter book: no, Paul would have included pieces of it and various drafts in letters sent out etc. So of course Mark could have copied sections from Luke even if Mark were compiled and published first.
I find the argument that Mark had a low Christology funny, since he begins the gospel by attributing a prophecy, from Isaiah about YHWH, to Jesus.
A voice cries: “In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be lifted up,and every mountain and hill be made low; the uneven ground shall become level, and the rough places a plain. And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.”
@@dagoth77 This is a widespread error. Neither Mark, nor almost anyone except a few priests and rabbis especially in Jerusalem, would have spoken Hebrew during that time. It was almost a dead language, hence why Jerome had to take Hebrew lessons in Jerusalem while preparing the vulgate. The old testament version used by marks author was the Septuagint, which, like our English translations, would have merely said Lord, not Yahweh. The passage is thus easily interpreted as referring to the Messiah.
Note that you should never assume that an ancient author quoting a prior text has concern for the context of the text. Ancient authors arguably use quotes out of context more often than in context (I've never sat down and counted, but maybe someone out there has) and a classic example is Matthew using the passage about Rachel weeping for her children to describe herods slaughter of the innocents, while the original text is clearly not referring to literal children, but rather describing the exiled people by way of metaphor.
8:05 _"we don't know exactly what audience of a particular gospel might have been"_
Off the top of my head, Mark has to explain Jewish hand washing customs and Jewish holidays to his audience so the inference is that it's to a gentile audience. John 20:16 has to explain that the word rabbi meant "teacher" and so this would have been to a gentile audience as well.
I think Mark certainly had Gentiles in his audience. But he may well also have had Jews. My point was simply that we don't know the exact identity or composition of the Gospel audiences.
The problem is, Matthew's "Why do you ask me about what is good? There is one that is good" is nonsensical. It equivocates between two uses of "good" (one to refer to deeds, and one to refer to people).
On the other hand, "Why do you call me good? No one is God but the one God" does not equivocate at all. It is therefore more likely that Matthew changed the wording to prevent (what he regarded as) a misunderstanding.
Why isn't it just as likely, assuming you are correct in how you are interpreting Matthew, that Mark changed Matthew to make the statement coherent?
@@faithbecauseofreason8381
My point is that Markan priority _explains_ of the the oddity of the statement in Matthew. Matthean priority doesn't explain it at all. It is therefore evidence in favour of Markan priority.
I'm not saying "Mark would have changed Matthew if Matthew came first" is improbable. Though, I do think that it would be extremely improbable if Mark believed that Jesus was God (as you argue). If he believed that, and wanted others to, he _certainly_ wouldn't deliberately reword a statement in a way that makes it look like Jesus denying he is good (and thus God)! This is the "criterion of embarrassment".
You need to increase your volume a little bit. I have to turn the volume all the way up to hear you clearly.
Noted. Thanks.
I just stumbled upon your channel and this series is super informative.
Love the in depth analysis
Here from @Testify
Great video, I absolutely love it. Just stumbled upon your channel because of Testify, and I have to say this is absolute a goldmine for a student of theology like me :)
One thing that still makes me hesitant to reject Markan priority is that the greek in Mark is really simple compared to Matthew and Luke. You quickly said that this could be explained by positing that the purpose of Mark was more evangalistic in nature, so he therefore made the greek simpler for the intended audience. This for me, however, seems to a rather weak explanation, because the grammar of Mark actually has a lot in common with the Hebrew language. It therefore may seem very simple to us, but for a native greek the grammer is probably more difficult to follow because it sounds unnatural. It would make more sense if Luke and Matthew improved Marks language instead of Mark making Matthews greek worse right?
I'm not sure how simplistic or colloquial Greek can have a lot in common with Hebrew. Could you explain what you mean by this?
@Faith Because of Reason well for example, Mark start every sentence with "Kai" (and), which is really common for Hebrew narrative but unusual for Greek writings, which prefer the meaningless word "de".
Or in Hebrew, the phrase "and it happend" is apears a lot in narrative, but is foreign to Greek . Mark on the other hand does use it a lot.
I can give you more examples if you like, but I think you get the point. I know that some scholars would contest that Mark uses Semitic language, but according to my greek teacher (and to me for what its worth), it is fairly obvious that Mark wasn't a native greek speaker who didn't really make mistakes, but certainly did have some akward Greek. It would be more logical for me that if Mark used Matthew and Luke he wouldn't chance the Greek in this way
@Jochem Schaab so, it looks to me like the evidence here supports that the author of Mark had Hebrew as their first language. Fair enough. But I don't see why a Hebrew-speaking person couldn't rewrite Matthew and Luke in a style which was more comfortable for themself. I don't really see that this indicates Markan priority.
@Faith Because of Reason Mmm I just talked about this with my professor and he said that every gospel has some hebrew elements in them, even Luke a non Jew. He says this is probably because of the influence of the LXX. Luke only has some Septuagint phrasing in his gospel, while Matthew has a bit more and Mark basically uses the same style as the narrative parts of the LXX. So an explanation could be that Mark wanted his gospel to be more in line with the LXX.
@@jochemschaab6739 I would have to check his references on that, but even if true, that nevertheless seems compatible with Markan posteriority to me.
Thank you very much. I am reading the Gospels as an Orthodox and for me it is obvious that Mark is just a distilled and in many ways literarily improved version of Matthew. If not the Matthew that got in the Canon, then what is called proto-Matthew or Logia certainly had to had come before Mark.
Really? I feel like Mark is easily the most poorly written of all the gospels.
Not saying that means it was written first, but Matthew is a masterpiece in comparison. Luke is a masterpiece period.
@@martyfromnebraska1045 It depends on what you mean by improved, imo. Mark is a simplified narrative in many ways. It is so easy to break down into a structure, and those structures make it nicer to read because it makes the story more striking.
Yet, obviously I think Matthew is a more interesting narrative in many ways because he makes so many explicit connections to the Old Testament, and even in English it reads a bit better (my Greek is not up to the task of reading the Gospels even with help, but I'm told that it's a bigger difference in the source language).
"Whether prior or posterior, the mystery of why Mark left out the resurrection appearances remains."
Prior to the Gospels, Paul is our best (only?) indication of what the early Christians believed. Paul seems to know nothing about the empty tomb and can share only a list of people the risen Jesus appeared to. This suggests the oral tradition had not yet produced any widely accepted accounts of what the risen Jesus was up to. In that case, it's quite natural that Mark, writing first, has no such stories to share.
If Mark wrote later, the mystery remains. Why would a non-believer be less interested in resurrection appearances than a believer?
Well, I disagree since I think that Matthew and Luke predate Paul's letters.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 Why do you think a gospel written for a nonbeliever would be less likely to include resurrection appearances? I would think the resurrection would be a top priority for that audience.
@MyTwoCents well let's make a distinction between reporting the resurrection and reporting the resurrection appearances. Mark does report the former which is what is most important for unbelievers. I agree that it is most odd that Mark does not choose to include the resurrection appearances. Perhaps this is supposed to stimulate curiosity on the part of the recipients and motivate them to ask those within the Christian community for further details. Ultimately we really don't know why Mark left them out.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381a better explanation is that there is a lost ending of mark that included them and was replaced later after it was lost
@kiroshakir7935 why is that a better explanation?
This is great! Muslim apologist love the Markian priority because they think it has a lower view of Christ (obviously wrong). Maybe one of us that viewed this will be placed in a position to discuss their information with a Muslim and bring to saving faith. Praise God!
@4:04 you show a diagram of the overlap of Mark, Matthew, and Luke. While I have seen the diagram in the same form before, the percentages giving the overlaps were much different, mostly much larger. Especially, Mark was nearly completely contained in Matthew and only about 2% was neither in Mathew nor Luke (the naked man fleeing, the blind man healed with spit and a third story I don't remember now). Could you tell us the source for your percentages @4:04?
@27:05 you state correctly that church tradition links Mark to the apostle Peter. But the uniquely Markan material is so small that we must wonder what Peter added to Mark's gospel - if, on the other hand, Mark was first, then Peter's recollections for the Christian communities he visited could be the base for Mark's colorful narrative.
. . . Church tradition also says the apostle Matthew collected Jesus' sayings, but in Hebrew/Aramaic. The many word-for-word similarities of the Greek Matthew with the Peter-based Mark indicates that the Greek Matthew is NOT simply a Greek translation of the collection of Jesus' sayings but its own, later work. Personally, I think the Greek Matthew used Mark and Luke (or an early Luke without birth narrative) to write his most orderly gospel that already in the second century became the favorite gospel of the church.
The diagram was just a picture which I borrowed from an online article to give a visual for viewers to see the type of phenomenon which motivated the argument from order. I wasn't necessarily endorsing the specific stats which it put forward.
I think Mark actually has a bit more unique material than most scholars generally think. Powers puts the number as high as 25%. I think that number may be a little high. But still, I'm not sure it's true that Mark has "so little" unique material.
I think it likely that Peter used the Gospels of Matthew and Luke so there's no contradiction between Mark using them and also recording Peter's teachings.
The early Church could be merely referring to the dialect of Matthew's Gospel rather than its language and I think that Robert Gundry gives a good argument for this.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 - why would Peter use other's writings to speak about Jesus? He had been there himself when it all happened. Granted, after decades, Peter's memory was also formed by his listening to others when they recalled together the years of the Lord that changed their lives - but it was still listening, not reading.
. . . If you assume Peter read Matthew and Luke, you are probably aware that you assume much earlier dates for the writing of Matthew and Luke than what most scholars assume today. You don't need to share scholarly skepticism towards fulfilled prophecies, like Jesus' prophecy over Jerusalem, but you should ask yourself what the audience for Greek gospels would have been during Peter's lifetime when the Greek churches were very small. And if Peter would read the Greek of Luke's gospel and let it guide his preaching (Greek was a foreign language for him).
. . . To the language of Papias' Matthean gospel: I think your emphasis on the second part is correct that everyone interpreted and translated it, as good as they could - which wouldn't be worth mentioning if it would have been in Greek. All in all, it seems to be too much uncertainty to say to modern scholars they should consider authoritative what Papias probably meant.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 - I've seen the diagram in question again, with the numbers I remembered, on the Wikipedia article on the Synoptic Gospels. It's apparently sourced from an article from 1968, Honoré, A. M. (1968). "A Statistical Study of the Synoptic Problem". Novum Testamentum. 10 (2/3): 95-147. doi 10.2307/1560364. ISSN 0048-1009. JSTOR 1560364.
. . . The article finds 94%(!) of Mark also in Matthew and further 3% in Luke: only 3% are uniquely Mark, according to the article. If another article has other percentages, we need to look what exactly they've counted: word for word agreements, similar sentences, or similar stories. The latter would give the highest overlapp and the smallest amount uniquely to Mark.
. . . With these numbers, I consider Papias' remark of Mark writing down what Peter preached in contradiction to the canonical gospel according to Matthew being only the translation of an earlier collection of Jesus' sayings. As I've written before, I think the canonical gospel according to Matthew has used many sources: Mark, probably Luke, maybe also the collection of Jesus' sayings.
@@Achill101Matthew was an eyewitness and thus his account is first-hand, unless you believe "the anyonmous gospels myth". His writing style, parables and knowledge of custom is uniquely Judean. This proves that his audience were fellow Judeans.
The argument that Markan priority is proved by its brevity compared to the gospels of Matthew Luke and John is ludicruous. This can easily be explained by Mark's gospel being a 2nd hand retelling and intended for a Gentile audience. There are many examples of detailed stories that first start out long but are shortened to its basics when retold.
It is likely that Peter's experiences and his possible knowledge of the 2 remaining gospels shaped his views of the events, when he told it to Mark. While Aramaic was his primary tongue, Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman East and that included Palestine. Especially in maritime trade, in which Peter took part as a fisherman, Greek would have been of use.
Is this purely a scholarly problem then? Or is there a bigger issue im not aware of when discussing which gospel was written first? I didnt realize there was so much dispute and i find your video very interesting, i just want to make sure im not missing a bigger picture.
Did you see the first video? There I tried to explain the relevant to the problem to apologetics.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 Ahh, that makes sense. I didnt watch the first one yet, ill do that. Thanks for the response.
Skeptics love to say the story of Jesus developed legendarily over time, and putting Matthew first would make that theory pretty ridiculous.
So much useful information, especially the debunking of the arguments in favor of Markan priority. Your summary that every argument in favor of Markan priority has been refuted over and over again and yet scholars keep coming up with more arguments desperate to prop it up by hook or by crook simply refusing to let it die a natural death was very revealing. Given how often it has been refuted, the fact that Biblical scholars refuse to abandon the theory proves that most Bible scholars aren't really interested in facts or truth.
The history behind the development of Markan priority is fascinating. You wouldn't believe how politically and religiously motivated the idea was. A lot of the early acceptance of Markan priority among Protestants was reactionary against the Roman Catholics who all mostly held to Matthean priority until fairly recently. It had nothing to do with the evidence.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 according to John Bergesma, much of the initial reasoning came from Hegelian philosophy, the “thesis” was Petrine Christianity, the “antithesis” was Pauline Christianity, and the “synthesis” was “early Catholicism” or “Patristic Christianity” around the late 4th/early 5th century, and this kind of thinking is still reflected in the arguments of the people who insist that Mark must be the earliest because it is “the most primitive” gospel
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 The history behind such development (the development of Markan Priority), particularly the political and religious background, is a great topic for a new video (hint, hint).
Saying Mark doesn’t have appearances imo is an unfair argument because Mark ‘s ending seems to be lost .
thanks for the video! I came from Testify's shoutout
I'd like to know however if you are a Protestant to know, what your underlying methods in understanding scripture are (esp. sola scriptura)?
I am a Protestant. I prefer the Wesleyan doctrine of Prima Scriptura over Sola Scriptura.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 Thanks for your answer. I hadn't heard about Prima Scriptura but now that I know of it I think I too prefer it over Sola Scriptura. Thanks brother :)
Do you elsewhere in your series address the micro-conflation argument? It's the idea that the way Mark splices together Luke and Matthew assuming Markan priority is implausible based on historical studies showing no ancient authors doing this presumably because their writing methods made doing that quite difficult. Alternatively, the divergence of Matthew and Luke given Markan priority is easily explained.
In part 4, I argue that the conflation present within Mark strongly suggests Markan posteriority. Mark's Gospel displays known characteristics of conflation. Therefore it is reasonable to suppose that Mark is a conflator.
Thank it is great ! but is it possible to have a sub french version ? for my friends thank you
If someone wanted to create a French version, I wouldn't have a problem with that.
Does anyone think John was first? I don't understand how any of these books could be dated very precisely.
John A. T. Robinson has a book entitled The Priority of John where I believe he defends the idea that John was written prior to the Synoptics. While interesting, from what I understand, his theory has garnered little support. And even if John was written first, this wouldn't really tell us anything about the Synoptic problem anyway. The puzzles of verbatim agreements and differences, and the questions of order would still remain.
Also, the Synoptic problem isn't really all that concerned with dating the Synoptic Gospels. It's more concerned with the order of the Synoptic Gospels. For regardless of when one dates the Gospels, all of the puzzles pertaining to their order will remain.
Loved this video. Keep it up. God bless.
If the unanimous witness of history is correct and Matthew was written in Hebrew this entire problem seems like a non problem that makes no sense to even really worry about since Matthew's Greek is a translation and would obviously use Mark's Greek.
Oh damn i've never thought about that
What does "just as divine" mean? Are there degrees of divinity?
Well, no, I don't believe that there are degrees of divinity. But many proponents of Markan priority believe that divine Christology evolved over time with Jesus getting incrementally portrayed as more divine. So I was addressing this idea when I said that Mark portrays Jesus as being just as divine as Matthew and Luke. It was intended to be a comparative statement.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 I'm now wondering how these particular proponents think of divinity. Do any of them connect their ideas to the Two Powers in Heaven theology, or are they alleging that early Christians were adopting pagan ideas of divinity?
@@stephengray1344 Bart Ehrman argues that ancient people didn't view things in quite the same bivalent way that you and I might with respect to divinity. He says that they acknowledged a range of divine and semi-divine beings. I haven't surveyed the literature of the ancient world well enough to know if he is right on this point.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 That sounds like he's relying on a fairly Heiserian view of the supernatural. So it might be plausible if there was any actual evidence of Jesus being viewed as more of an angelic being in the earliest Christian writings.
@Stephen Gray well, we could debate the details of that. All I need for my case to work with respect to Markan priority is that Mark have no lower of a Christology than Matthew and Luke.
Great use of the word Dogma in the beginning 😎
We call that projection.
Also, your response to "he could not do any miracles there" vs "he did not do many miracles" simply misses the point. The point is that Mark 6:5 is a _harder reading_ than Matthew 13:58. It it more likely that Matthew would change "could not do any" to "did not do many" than that Mark would do the opposite _(especially_ if he had a high Christology!). There are many other examples of Mark having "harder readings" than Matthew (e.g. Mark 1:32-34 vs Matt 8:1).
It's only a harder reading if you presuppose the interpretation which I argued against
1. From Wikipedia: Irenaeus (/ɪrɪˈneɪəs/; Greek: Εἰρηναῖος Eirēnaios; c. 130 - c. 202 AD)[3] was a Greek bishop noted for his role in guiding and expanding Christian communities in the southern regions of present-day France and, more widely, for the development of Christian theology by combating heterodox or Gnostic interpretations of Scripture as heresy and defining proto-orthodoxy. Originating from Smyrna, he had seen and heard the preaching of Polycarp, who in turn was said to have heard John the Evangelist, and thus was the last-known living connection with the Apostles] who in turn was said to have heard John the Evangelist, and thus was the last-known living connection with the Apostles.
2. From Wikipedia: Against Heresies (Ancient Greek: Ἔλεγχος καὶ ἀνατροπὴ τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως, Elenchos kai anatropē tēs pseudōnymou gnōseōs, "On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis"), sometimes referred to by its Latin title Adversus Haereses, is a work of Christian theology written in Greek about the year 180 by Irenaeus, the bishop of Lugdunum (now Lyon in France).
3. From the newadvent website: Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 1:
No. 1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. MATTHEW ALSO ISSUED A WRITTEN GOSPEL AMONG THE HEBREWS IN THEIR OWN DIALECT, WHILE PETER AND PAUL WERE PREACHING IN ROME, AND LAYING THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE CHURCH. AFTER THEIR DEPARTURE, MARK, THE DISCIPLE AND INTERPRETER OF PETER, DID ALSO HAND DOWN TO US IN WRITING WHAT HAD BEEN PREACHED BY PETER. LUKE ALSO, THE COMPANION OF PAUL, RECORDED IN A BOOK THE GOSPEL PREACHED BY HIM. AFTERWARDS, JOHN, THE DISCIPLE OF THE LORD, WHO ALSO HAD LEANED UPON HIS BREAST, DID HIMSELF PUBLISH A GOSPEL DURING HIS RESIDENCE AT EPHESUS IN ASIA.
No. 2. These have all declared to us that there is one God, Creator of heaven and earth, announced by the law and the prophets; and one Christ the Son of God. If any one do not agree to these truths, he despises the companions of the Lord; nay more, he despises Christ Himself the Lord; yea, he despises the Father also, and stands self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own salvation, as is the case with all heretics.
He also said Jesus almost lived to the age of 50 and that there are four Gospels because there are four corners of the earth.
1. Can you please provide a reference for "He also said Jesus almost lived to the age of 50"?
2. I have no problem with the second statement. The four gospels were originally were composed in and for four different regions of the Roman Empire: Matthew for the Hebrews in Israel/Palestine; Mark for the Romans that Peter preached to in Rome; Luke for the Greeks that Paul evangelized in his travels; and John at Ephesus in Asia Minor.
@@annakimborahpa Against Heresies, Book II, Chapter 22, Section 5.
Here's the quote: "For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: "Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old," Luke 3:23 when He came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men,] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information."
Response:
This can be interpreted in the following manner:
1. He died in his thirties: "He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age."
2. His demanding public ministry greatly aged His appearance to that of old age while He was teaching. This was visibly noticeable before He suffered and died and this transformation occurred in the one year of teaching between His baptism and His suffering and death:
"Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify;"
3. Sleep deprivation will do that to you. Also, knowing that you will be rejected by your countrymen, made a target for destruction by those in authority, fully aware of your horrific death and knowing that the sight of it will cause tremendous emotional injury to those you love, particularly your mother.
4. Thanks to you, I think I can better understand what our Lord went through in His brief public ministry.
1. Are you a follower of John Calvin? The devoted French followers of Calvin were known as Huguenots.
2. According to Wikipedia: "He (Irenaeus) was buried under the Church of Saint John in Lyon, which was later renamed St Irenaeus in his honour. The tomb and his remains were utterly destroyed in 1562 by the Huguenots.
3. The destruction of Irenaeus' tomb and remains occurred two years before John Calvin's death in 1564. With his blessing?
Be careful, this is a very misleading video. First, over half of it is spent addressing theories/ideas that are outdated/unpopular. You don't hear these arguments much anymore, but seeing 25 minutes of their refutation could give the impression that marcan priority has really bad arguments. The rest of the video does address some of the more viable arguments but often misrepresents them or undersells their strength. For example, saying that Mark might have added the story of the naked man because Peter gave him that story is...well...no explanation at all. It doesn't matter at all where Mark got the story. What matters is that it's bizarre. It's something that you are more likely to subtract than to add, and the fact that Peter might have given him that detail does not turn it into an important detail all of a sudden-it's still bizarre. The same goes for the miracle that takes two steps. The fact that Peter could maybe possibly be the origin of that story doesn't make it not strange. And if you think that the parts of Mark that differ from the other synoptics are the parts given by Peter, well, then Peter has given Mark a very strange, and small, collection of anecdotes. And in that scenario it would mean that Mark relied primarily not on his firsthand witness, no less than Peter himself, but on written documents, at least one of which wasn't even by a witness. Very strange. If you think that Papias was referring to the same Mark as ours, and if you think he's right that it was derived from the account of Peter, then you should probably take Marcan priority much more seriously because it makes a lot more sense in that scenario. But of course Papias could be talking about a different work than what we have or he could be wrong about its origins.
Regarding editorial fatigue, it seems you have intentionally chosen some of the weaker, more refutable examples, and conveniently neglected some of the stronger ones. You point out, for example, that Matthew often gives the correct title for Herod Antipas, tetrarch. Mark calls him, dubiously, a king. Now this isn't a total error, strictly speaking, as king is a somewhat loose term in greek as well as in English. But it is imprecise and not a comfortable reading. Why would Mark have consistently altered Matthew's correct, precise term, tetrarch, to the dubious "King?" More likely is that Matthew, when copying Mark, said "King" once (and only once, if memory serves) because he was suffering from editorial fatigue, and didn't catch the mistake while copying.
There's so much more I could say, but let me address the issue of Mark as kerygma. You simply have not presented sufficient evidence to support this assertion. How can we say that Luke and Matthew were intended for believers while Mark is for non-believers? It's highly speculative. And to suggest that Mark introduced bad grammar where Matthew and Luke had good grammar because Mark was meant to be read aloud is silly (not the least of which because all ancient documents were usually read aloud, even when someone was reading alone). Introducing simpler grammar might make sense, but the issue regarding Mark's grammar that proponents of Marcan priority bring up is it's poor quality, not its simplicity. Those two things are not the same. Why does Mark have awkward grammar where Matthew and Luke have good grammar? The best explanation is obvious. Matthew and Luke were using Mark and cleaned up his grammar. Enough said.
Bingo. You nailed it
The problem determining which comparative analysis of the gospel is correct is that all Biblical analysis's are speculative. There's no way to demonstrate emphatically which is correct. All of them make reasonable assumptions, but which -- if any- - of those assumptions is correct? What this video demonstrates--in a sophisticated manner--is the uncertainty of everything in the Bible. When questioning what is God's message? One can't answer that question definitively. We can prove that water boils at a certain temperature at a given altitude by demonstrating the veracity of our statement. We can't do that with the Bible because every interpretation is a speculation, and there is no way to prove your speculation is superior to someone else's. You can argue that your's is more reasonable than the other guy's, but that's not proof that either one is correct? What we have here is God's failure to communicate. If we honestly can't understand the message, how can God righteously burn us screaming and writhing in agony for ever because we got it wrong? The least God could do is to communicate in a manner we could clearly understand.
I mean we have relatively early external sources
@Nathan Holden and, as I will argue in my fourth video, the internal evidence is likewise quite strong that Mark knew and used both Matthew and Luke.
You stated: // is the uncertainty of everything in the Bible //
I don't see how you are coming to that conclusion from this video. I will say two things:
Firstly, I agree with you that we are not in an epistemic place to hold high confidence in any of these theories regarding the order and dependency of the authors who wrote the synoptic Gospels.
Secondly, the above has very little (or nothing at all) to do with the actual message in those Gospels.
You seem to be conflating the two as if they are the same issue.
It's shorter, so it fits their evolutionary theory.
It's either a summary (mark) or a more detailed account (Matthew)
@@kiroshakir7935 According to Clement of Alexandria, the gospels that include genealogies [Matthew & Luke] were written first. The gospel according to Mark came about when Peter publicly proclaimed the word and preached the gospel at Rome. Those who were present urged Mark, one of Peter's long-time followers who remembered what was said, to make a record of what had been spoken. Mark wrote entirely what is called the Gospel according to Mark Bing search
Desperate attempt from an apologist to rely on the tradition.
Do you have substantive response to my critiques of the arguments for Markan priority? Virtually none of my critiques depended upon Church tradition. But while we're on the subject, I don't see what's wrong with relying on tradition if there are good reasons to trust it.