Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
The Synoptic Problem Part 3: The External Evidence for Matthean Priority
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 кві 2023
- In my last two videos, I explained the nature and scope of the Synoptic problem and critiqued the arguments which undergird the foundation of most modern Synoptic hypotheses: the theory of Markan priority. In this video, I begin the task of building a positive case for an alternative hypothesis. In my next video, we will explore the internal evidence which strongly suggests that Matthew and Luke wrote their Gospels first, and that Mark was written last. But for now, I want to leave those sorts of considerations aside and examine a different category of evidence. In this video, I want to see what sort of Synoptic theory we arrive at if we only consider what our earliest witnesses have to say about the composition of the Gospels.
Sources:
Why Four Gospels? - David Alan Black
The Three Gospels - Martin Mosse
New Synoptic Studies - William R. Farmer (ed)
The Order of the Synoptics: Why Three Synoptic Gospels? - Bernard Orchard and Harold Riley
The Interrelations of the Gospels - David L. Dungan (ed)
New Oxford Annotated Bible
New Testament in History and Literature - Dale Martin
The Sources of the Synoptic Gospels - Sang-Bok Kim
Matthew: A Commentary on his Literary and Theological Art - Robert H. Gundry
The Patristic Historians of Matthew’s Gospel - Jedidiah Tritle
The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze - Mark Goodacre
"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."
In fact, my hypothesis provides an elegant explanation for why Luke omitted the flight to Egypt in his gospel. By analyzing the chronology of events and comparing the language used in 1 Thessalonians to that in Matthew, and the language in 1 Corinthians to that in Luke, we can establish a baseline for the chronology of the gospels parallel to the letters. Once we place the gospels in a chronological line, an incredible pattern emerges, allowing us to infer Luke's motivations for deviating slightly from Matthew's infancy narrative, specifically with regard to the flight to Egypt. While this pattern is obscure and difficult to detect, it is highly unlikely that a forger could have used the language of the letters to indirectly establish the chronology of each respective gospel, thereby fooling people into thinking the gospels were written before 70 AD. This is the nature of true history; it is often unplanned and gaps can be filled with information from multiple sources. As a result, many of my colleagues and I no longer subscribe to a post-70 AD dating of the gospels based on these findings.
1. Yes, I join with the others in wanting to read your hypothesis.
2. Do you have any comments about about the supposed 'Lucan omission'?
3. From a non-statistical viewpoint, I perceive "Luke's motivations for deviating slightly from Matthew's infancy narrative" in terms of (A) their authors' different backgrounds, (B) their intended audience and (C) to complete the record.
4. Matthew, first written in Aramaic, was intended for Jewish Christians to show that Jesus was the fulfillment of the Hebrew prophets and it conformed to their patriarchal culture. This might explain why Matthew's infancy narratives focus primarily on Joseph.
5. Luke, written in Greek, was intended for Gentiles, particularly Gentile women who initially were the most receptive to the message of the Gospel. This might explain why Luke's infancy narratives focus primarily on Mary. In this respect, Luke's gospel forms a companion to Matthew's in completing the record of Christ's infancy in their respective female and male focus. Did Luke receive his information by conducting an interview with Mary, Jesus' mother?
6. Also, in contrast to Matthew's earlier gospel with its methodical catalogue of teachings that reflects the calculating meticulousness of a prior tax collector, Luke's emphasis is on the human aspects of Jesus that would resonate well with Gentile women, particularly Christ's loving kindness. It reflects a quality of gentle care that is the mark of a well-trained physician.
7. The four gospels combined present a comprehensive picture of the Person of Jesus Christ. The three synoptic Gospels emphasize different aspects of His humanity. The last Gospel emphasizes Christ's divinity.
A. Matthew: Jesus as fulfillment of the prophets, His own prophet and divine rabbi.
B. Mark: What Jesus actually did, i.e., the work of His public ministry.
C. Luke: How Jesus felt and interacted with others.
D. John: His divine preexistence with The Father, extensive elaborations on His miracles and excerpts of Jesus' communications with The Father.
8. The Gospel of John also appears to be one of 'complete the record' designed to supplement the three earlier gospels. It omits the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper present in the earlier three, while also having an extended 'Bread of Life' discourse in its Chapter Six.
@@annakimborahpa I have a face book group where I go into details about all of this. There are several articles I wrote explaining a few things that shed light into this subject. The group's name is "The Apologist Corner" I haven't had the time to finish the paper.
I have a face book group where I go into details about all of this. There are several articles I wrote explaining a few things that shed light into this subject. The group's name is "The Apologist Corner" I haven't had the time to finish the paper. You need to read everything in all the posts concerning Pesher all the way to my last post I just posted in the group.
Unfortunately this is pretty weak and has been explored before. I'd enjoy reading the posts though you described and will do so.
An excellent comprehensive presentation.
1. The big takeaway from the testimony of the early Patristic Fathers is that (A) Matthew wrote the first gospel in a Hebrew dialect that was later translated into Greek, and (B) John wrote the fourth gospel, both of them apostles and eyewitnesses. There is no ancient witness or tradition that Mark wrote the first gospel, a hypothesis that was proposed only a few centuries ago.
2. I offer a conjecture about the traditional order that places Mark before Luke:
A. Mark and Luke were composed during the same time period.
B. Even if Mark was derived in some way from Luke, perhaps whoever determined the traditional order decided to place Mark before Luke as a gesture of recognizing a greater apostolic prominence.
C. Since:
(1) Mark was a companion of Peter and Luke was a companion of Paul
- and -
(2) Peter was the first of the apostles and given the name Cephas by Jesus at the beginning of Christ's public ministry in John 1:42, a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kephas that means 'rock', whereas Paul was a later apostle who also refers at times in his letters to Peter as Cephas, meaning that Paul knew Peter to be the 'rock',
- then -
(3) could it be that the decision to place Mark before Luke in the traditional ordering of the gospels (A) was a means of recognizing Peter before Paul in the same manner that Peter appears first in all the listings of the apostles in the gospels and (B) took to heart the following words of Paul where the apostle to the Gentiles writes in 1 Corinthians 15:8-9 (ESV): "Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God"?
3. From a Catholic perspective, in January of 2022 Pope Francis declared St. Irenaeus of Lyons to be Doctor of Unity of the Church after receiving numerous requests from bishops' conferences around the world. With this declaration of Irenaeus as the 37th Doctor of the Church, his writings are given a greater deference and authority within the Catholic Church and that includes the contents of Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter One.
I think this is a plausible story which explains why Mark was canonically placed prior to Luke. But as I hope to show nearly conclusively in my next video, Mark was clearly literarily dependent upon Luke.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 Looking forward to it.
As a seasoned Quality Engineer with over 25 years of experience, I worked for Bio-Rad in Boston, MA, where I acted as a vital liaison between corporate and the FDA. My daily responsibilities included applying advanced statistical techniques to identify the root causes of product failures. Now, I am pursuing a degree in Biblical Studies alongside my engineering career.
I have a face book group where I go into details about all of this. There are several articles I wrote explaining a few things that shed light into this subject. The group's name is "The Apologist Corner" I haven't had the time to finish the paper. You need to read everything in all the posts concerning Pesher all the way to my last post I just posted in the group.
So you tested food/beverage quality, and used excel to figure out why some food/beverage products didn’t meet expected nutritional content or shelf life?
After I finish writing my article, I will gladly share my findings with you. These groundbreaking discoveries could be the final piece of evidence needed to establish the priority of the Gospel of Matthew.
How can we know when you have finished it?
Once you're finished, I'd love to read it as well!
Same. Please shoot me your info, bro
@@namapalsu2364 I promise I'll come back to my comment and post a reply. The article will be released alongside a video going into the hypothesis. I have few atheist statisticians who validate my mythology. This way the amount of possible bias is greatly diminished.
@@eternalgospels Are you by any chance, D. Castellano?
5:59 - Clement of Alexandria seems even more clueless than Papias. He apparently knows all about the movements of people living almost two centuries prior to him many hundreds of miles away, and yet he's clearly wrong. The genealogies are clearly later additions or they would agree, and the fact that gMark doesn't see the need for one suggests that the author had not seen a gospel narrative that included a genealogy. gMatt includes one because he's trying to ape the Torah, and gLuke may include one because he's trying to improve on gMatt, though that's not compatible with what I said earlier. After all, why didn't gLuke agree with gMatt on the genealogy, then? Perhaps the genealogy of gLuke was added later for a similar reason by someone not familiar with the genealogy in gMatt.
*Matthew’s Greek-only text*
This one jumps out at me
Matthew 5:17-18 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Truly I tell you, until the sky and the land pass away, not one *iota or keraia* will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Iotas and Keraias are Greek diacritical marks. Hebrew would not have these for about 1,000 years.
Matthew is implying not only that Jesus knew primarily the Septuagint, but that he expected his listeners primarily knew that one, too.
So if Greek Matthew is a translation of a Hebrew text, the Greek has changed at least one significant quote from Jesus.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tittle surprising place for a possible explanation
It seems to me tho that the external evidence still largely fits with a seprate aramaic document that Matthew wrote that contained sayings of Jesus and was the basis for Matthew to write his gospel in Greek after Mark wrote his. Some would even call that document Q.
Papius for exapmle explicitly uses the word "sayings". Doesnt have to refer to the gospel we now know and love
The biggest issue that I think this issues faces is that none of the Fathers mention a secondary canonical Matthew. They seem to equate the Hebrew/Aramaic Matthew with canonical Matthew (Irenaeus in particular). If this is how things happened, I would expect someone to mention it happening.
As for Papias' reference to the logia, he uses the same term in reference to Mark. The term logia was commonly used as a synonym for Scripture in early Christian literature.
So yes, this perspective can be made compatible with the writings of the early Church. But it's certainly not a perspective which arises naturally from reading them.
@Faith Because of Reason An argument from silence as it pertains to a "secondary canonical Matthew"? That seems like flawed reasoning.
Also, you do not have "Papias' reference to the logia"; you have a secondary historical source attributed to Eusebius of Ceasarea. Whether the transmission of the text or the quotations contained within are accurate is unknown.
The argument that Matthew could not have been written in Hebrew, because he depends on the LXX is probably one of the more problematic claims. Matthew probably has one of the highest concentrations of non-LXX readings of any of the books. He consistently quotes the minor prophets from something that isn't the LXX. I think Cousland's critique might be self-destructive if those things are considered.
I don’t quite understand how Luke could just have been writing “Paul’s Gospel” when Paul was not an eyewitness of Jesus’s ministry on earth
I think the idea is that Luke was recording the Gospel which Paul preached. Obviously Paul would have had other sources for his information. There are some reasons to find this plausible. For example, compare Paul's description of the last supper with Luke’s description. The two agree with one another in wording more than Luke agrees with either of the other Synoptics.
Don't forget that Paul even calls the gospel "my gospel" in Galatians, which as the channel owner said, appears to refer to what he was preaching as far as how to be saved, because that is what the book of Galatians is about. (It might even refer to Acts or maybe even Hebrews if it refers to a book of the the gospel of Luke.)
So, that is Biblical language.
Also, don't forget that in Acts, Paul says that Jesus said it is better to give than to receive. (In his final words to the elders at Ephesus.)
That is nowhere in the Gospels and might have been something he heard from the apostles or from the Lord himself.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 I always reckoned Luke (when traveling with Paul) would have had access to several apostles and eyewitnesses of the Lord. I’m also under the impression that Luke spoke to many of the women followers of Jesus since he names many of them that the other evangelists don’t, like Joanna
@@busfeet2080I think the most striking thing regarding Luke's Gospel is the infancy narratives, which might only have been gleaned from conversation with precisely one source, only one of Christ's followers having been there at the time.
Given that he's very clear about using all the sources he had access to in order to put down a thorough and orderly account, it's hard to imagine that the blessed virgin and the mother of God was not one source of Luke.
I didn't see mentioned in here another point in favor of Hebrew Primacy of Matthew: the gospel was written to a Jewish audience. It is more likely you would write it in the language of the audience, especially considering that was Matthew's native language as well. For example, Paul, in Acts when dealing with the Jews directly, spoke Hebrew to them. Why would it be different for his contemporary, Matthew?
The answer to your question may be the same answer to the question of, why did they write the Septuagint (Greek) more than 200 years before Christ?
Greek became a common language in Hellenized Israel, religious leaders keeping the Hebrew and the common population incorporating Greek
@28:10 you summarize that external evidence supports Matthean Priority. If you mean Priority of the gospel according to Matthew, as we know it today, your statement seems to be wrong: Papias as the first wrote of Matthew written in Hebrew, as you also acknowledged: there is NO proven way from a Hebrew/Aramaic collection of Jesus's sayings to the Greek gospel according to Matthew. As Dale Martin said: the Greek Matthew is written in Greek; it is word for word similar to Mark (and Mark was based on Peter's recollections, according to Papias).
Adding more fathers until Augustine does not strengthen your argument of Matthean priority. They likely all depend on Papias, directly or indirectly.
. . . Generally, external evidence and internal evidence need to be combined: internal evidence shows clearly literary dependence between Mark and Matthew, and external evidence supports Mark being based on recollections of apostle Peter. Hebrew and Greek Matthew cannot be assumed to be the same - the Hebrew Matthew could have been something very different, something like Q, before it was translated to Greek, or another text.
I agree. I possess statistical analysis data to prove your hypothesis. All I need to show this hypothesis is 1 Thessalonians, Matthew, 1 Corinthians, Luke and Josephus. My hypothesis heavily relies on keyword phases and their order in Paul's letters in Koine Greek mentioned above. I posted an article in mythvision concerning this. You responded to the article and wanted me to send you a friend request. I left mythvision because it is full of extremely close minded individuals who make it a habit to constantly insult other people with different views.
Farmers hypothesis on Matthean priority is correct. I strongly sustain this idea due to my data analysis. Mark without a shadow of a doubt is third. Matthew is first, Luke second, Mark third, and John last.
There are a lot of problematic assertions and reasonings in this video, but let me focus on one. Clement of Alexandria is the only relevant Church Father who might support the Griesbach Hypothesis (Augustine, if he really means what Peabody argues he means, is too late anyway). You assert that some rejecting the GH have suggested that Clement interpolated himself. However, the far more probable suggestion is that it was *Eusebius* who combined two statements from Clement in a strange way. This is evident from several lines of evidence.
First, aside from the two quotes of what Clement said about Mark in Eusebius, there is a fragment from the Hypotyposeis preserved in a partial Latin translation, the Adumbrationes. In this, there is a third fragment from Clement about Mark, as a comment on 1 Peter 5:13. In this fragment, any reference to other gospels is absent. There is reason to think that all three fragments derive from the same passage in the Hypotyposeis, which is best represented by the Adumbrationes (which is, after all, the Latin translation). This means that the passage about Mark was not placed in the context in which it is in H.E. 6.14.5-7, which means that Eusebius must be responsible for this placement.
Second, the passage about the gospels with the genealogies being written first, is better understood as a contrast between Matthew and Luke on the one hand and John on the other hand, since John was "perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, (...) composed a spiritual Gospel." The phrase "external facts" seems to refer to the genealogies spoken of in the comment about Matthew and Luke, since John does not include a genealogy, but instead gives a "spiritual genealogy" in his prologue. Furthermore, the fact that the first and third gospel are not referred to by name indicates that this is actually not an official statement by Clement about the origin of the four gospels, but a statement about the gospel of John, of which the comment about the gospels with the genealogies is only a subordinate clause.
Third, we can actually identify the context in which this statement about the gospels with the genealogies originally stood. Many have suggested that the "Unattributed Fragment" about the gospels in H.E. 3.24 derives from Clement, but nobody so far has recognized that H.E. 3.24.13 is actually a paraphrase of H.E. 6.14.5-7 with the comment about Mark omitted. Eusebius states: "And the genealogy of our Saviour according to the flesh John quite naturally omitted, because it had been already given by Matthew and Luke, and began with the doctrine of his divinity, which had, as it were, been reserved for him, as their superior, by the divine Spirit." This is the same statement we find in H.E. 6.14.5-7, even including words Eusebius almost never uses, such as γενεαλογία and προγράφω.
This definitively shows that Eusebius combined two separate fragments from Clement of Alexandria, one about the gospel of John with an introductory statement about the gospels with the genealogies, and one about the gospel of Mark. The reason Eusebius did this we cannot determine with certainty, but probably these two fragments were the only he had from Clement about the origin of the gospels, and he tried to put them as best as he could in the traditional order Mt-Mk-Lk-Jn, but since he could not separate Mt and Lk, it became out of necessity Mt-Lk-Mk-Jn, by splitting the passage about John.
Therefore, there is actually no patristic support of the GH at all. The patristic tradition unanimously supports the order Mt-Mk-Lk-Jn, and states that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, which means that they did not refer to our Greek gospel of Matthew. And surprisingly, this order (Mk-Lk-Jn) conforms to the order suggested by the Two-Source Hypothesis, which is actually very strong since your arguments against Markan Priority were really bad.
I place Matthew no later than 45 AD. Luke no later than 55 AD. Acts no later than 65 AD.
What about Acts' dependence on Josephus and Calvin's hypothesis about Luke-Acts being an anti-Marcionite construct?
4:20 I'm sure it's obvious to anyone that Irenaeus must have known Papias' work, since he basically just regurgitates the information without embellishment.
Even then, can we really take somebody writing more than 150 years after the supposed fact as any kind of "witness" at all? This isn't early evidence at all, it's just evidence that's earlier than we are.
By the way, I understand why you say that Irenaeus is more clear on the order of the gospels being composed, but surely it's obvious this is from his own over-reading of Papias.
I also note that Irenaeus states outright that John son of Zebedee is the disciple that Jesus loved most of all in gJohn which is highly contested by scholars, and which I think is even very unlikely from a simple reading of gJohn.
A couple issues:
1. Yes, Irenaeus knows Papias' writings. But Papias is unlikely to be his source (or at least his only source) for his information on the Gospels since he supplies quite a lot of information which Papias does not.
2. Irenaeus is writing only about 100 years (not 150 years) after the composition of the Gospels if we assume early dates. If we accept later dates, Irenaeus is only writing 60-80 years after the Gospels. There's kind of a catch-22 here for skeptics. The later they want to date the Gospels, the closer they push them to the writings of the Patristics.
3. Irenaeus is passing on the witness of John (via the witness of Polycarp) and gives us the entire chain of transmission. Certainly Irenaeus is not an eyewitness to the composition of the Gospels himself, and I would never argue for this. But he does have access to those who do and that's why I find value in his testimony. He's at least in a position to know what he's talking about.
4. I am happy to argue that John the Elder and John the apostle are one in the same. I'm aware that this is controversial among scholars. But I think that the case is strong.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 Love your point 2). Really enjoyed the vid encouraged by Erik from Testify. Peace.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 Irenaeus doesn't say that he received his information about the gospels from Polycarp, let alone via Polycarp from John.
@@willemjanblom2268 no, he doesn't specifically say where got this information. But he does tell us that he got information from John via Polycarp. So we know that he has access to the apostles through sources other than Papias. That was my point.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 fifty years is still far too long to make much difference to my point. As for the additional details, that's a good point, though it seems to me like this unnamed extra source might be similarly late and quite possibly unfounded in any fact, especially since textual analysis shows a completely different and irreconcilable picture.
By the way, thanks for your videos and your replies to my comments. I don't want to give the impression I'm criticising you in a negative way. This is all very interesting stuff, and when I comment I am not trying to make out that I've got a better idea of what happened back then! It's just an interesting subject.
The lessening of the emphasis of Matthew is clear from a Satanic/Anti-Christian point of view. Matthew establishes Jesus Christ as the True Israel and seed of the promises of both Abraham and David in the very first sentence of the Gospel. In addition, the Sermon on the Mount (the second Law, given by the eternal lawgiver for a "better/everlasting covenant") is given. This is the law of the Kingdom of God and for those that WOULD possess it. To a lesser degree the parables of Matthew's Gospel also establish the same priority of these first two. Simply, there IS no inheritance for anyone of any of God's promises outside of Christ Jesus, who is here also established as the Lord God of Israel, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Basically, Matthew's Gospel invalidates the claims of Judaism and rightly puts emphasis not on the people of the "children of Israel" but on the Lord Himself. But that does not jive with modern politics, especially those of secular origin. Now, if no one actually keeps Christ's commandments (as the mediator of the New Covenant) and everyone thinks they are saved apart from ALL law (even the law of the Kingdom/the Law of liberty), not just the Law of Moses... then Christ is not Lord of anyone... and the ruler of this world can still pervert everyone until his doom. "Belief" in the Gospel is to believe that Christ is the righteous judge that will return, hence, "Repent and believe the Gospel" and that the righteous judge will return to destroy ALL evil and those who sin against Him. This is established throughout the whole of the Scriptures and is emphasized often especially in the Septuagint. Ancient Hebrew is illustrative here. Matthew's priority is that there is NO true Judaism apart from Christ, the True Vine (and John adds to this later). Paul ALSO establishes this in every one of his epistles. If you want to confuse believers on who Christ is WHILE having them disregard what is said of the Lord in the Old Testament... discarding the validity of Matthew is a must.
Totally, man. The only reason that actual scholars disagree with Muh Tradition is because Satan is controlling them. No need to actually read scholarly writing if you can just dismiss it out of hand as products of paranormal evil!
The issue is solved is Mark was written first in Latin and later in Greek.
You know like the ancients claim lol
I would say a slight criticism with the counterpoint about the Hebrew Matthew. There was no Masoretic text until about 1100AD and that text was changed to favor Judaism. The Ancient Hebrew ideas are present in the Septuagint (for instance, Christ is clearly mentioned in the LXX Psalm 2, "The Lord and His Christ"). But this does not mean that the Hebrew could not have been used simply because the Septuagint is quoted. Indeed, we see this as the case with the Book of Daniel. A blending of two languages to prove the Hebraic and established points. It is possible then that Matthew was primarily Hebrew, but quoted the Greek LXX simply because it was familiar to the readers at the time. So each ALL CAPS quotations we have would have been direct septuagint quotations.
Ah good point. I should have done better research on which Hebrew texts were in use by Jews at that time. I think my point still holds though. The Scriptural quotations certainly could have originally been from the Hebrew scriptures and when (if) the translation took place, the translator could have simply adopted the Septuagint's rendering.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 Certainly possible. I tend to favor a blend of the DSS and Septuagint as most accurate re:the Old Testament. The Masoretic/Aleppo completely changes out the text though. Most "Biblical Criticism" or "contradictions" of New and Old Testaments are due to an unfamiliarity with The Septuagint or DSS generally.
The Masoretic was NOT changed really at all consonantally.
The Masoretic also is a tradition of texts, which sometimes includes the "unchanged" contested passages like "they pierced my hands and my feet" which is a consonant change from the DSS.
Most of the "changes" are with the vowel dots which did not even exist in the first century.
Matthew sometimes translates the OT himself when the septuagint is wrong. For instance, the passage from Jeremiah about the money for the Potter's field is that way. I think he also translates Isaiah 53 differently.
Also, there is no single Septuagint text but different Greek translations as well.
Details about everything are messy
@@OnTheThirdDay Changing the emphasis (including the dots and titles) changes the whole meaning. Deuteronomy 6 is a perfect example. Is the inheritance of the nations numbered according to the angels, OR the children of Israel after the flood? The Masoretic takes Christ's inheritance away- which is significant. The fact is that the Masoretic changes Moses. EVERY early Hebrew text is in congruence with the above, except the Masoretic. Because the rabbis believe they are the promised seed of Abraham and NOT Christ. Which Jesus flatly denies in John 8 among many other passages in the NT. In fact, most of the parables are about this topic. This is also in agreement with the DSS and the Church Fathers: Matthew 21: 37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.
38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and LET US SEIZE ON HIS INHERITANCE.
39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.
This is the conclusion of the parable about Jesus taking their Kingdom away and giving it to another nation that would bear it's fruit. And the Scribes and Pharisees perceived He was speaking about them.
The Scribes and Pharisees wrote the Masoretic.
2:55 - anybody who can read can easily see that the gospel of Mark is utterly against Peter. Only an idiot would claim it is a faithful record from the recollections of Peter, unless Peter's scribe hated him and was taking advantage of Peter's illiteracy to record for posterity the fact that he was an idiot, a coward and a liar.
Internal evidence is actually all you need to make the case for Matthean priority, as Mark Goodacre Seema to know from the way he makes this case. I'm not fully convinced, but honestly I think it likely that the author of gLuke had what we might term an earlier draft of gMatt (without the first two chapters prepended yet, obviously).
Also, gLuke and gMatt follow the chronology of gMark, so this claim from Papias that the events are out of order is also nonsense, unless it applies equally to gMatt and gLuke as well. Further evidence against this is that gMark reads as if it has a clear narrative progression, with three or four distinct sections all developing the ideas of the previous section.
Finally, gMatt was written in Greek originally, not translated from Hebrew or Aramaic, so Papias appears to be demonstrably wrong about everything. No wonder this "evidence" is rejected by all but the most religiously conservative scholars.
Two points:
1. While Mark's Gospel does not fail to mention Peter's blunders, I don't think that you can say that the Gospel is against Peter or hates Peter.
2. As I explained in the video, the arguments against a Hebrew Matthew are not conclusive. However, it is possible that Papias and Irenaeus are not referring to the Hebrew language at all.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381
1. Okay you think that, we all have our cross to bear I suppose!
2. The only other language they might have mistaken for Hebrew is Aramaic, or something similar. It's clear that gMatt was originally written in Greek though. I doubt you are making a case that Papias means "Greek" when he says "Hebrew"?
Maybe Peter was humble about his short comings and it came across in the Scripture?
Mark has a particular focus on Peter. For instance, the book ends (short ending) righr after the angel tells the women to "tell the disciples and Peter" which appears to be Mark emphasizing that Peter was told because the other gospels do not include the extra reference to Peter and because Peter is already included in the disciples.
A good point to mention is that Mark does not name Peter as the disciple who cut off the servants of the high priest's ear.
If he so HATED Peteras opposed to the other gospel writers, why would they add in a detail like that?
There are also good internal evidences from the language and author comments that Mark was written for a Roman audience. This supports what was said by the church father. See the second episode of the Mark series on Anthony Roger's channel for an analysis of this.
@@integrationalpolytheism Also, many have discussed the possible Matthew in Hebrew.
First, there are church fathers (e.g. I know it includes the scholar Saint Jerome) who said they SAW Matthew in Hebrew. That and these other witnesses seem to be enough evidence for me that such a document did exist.
My impression is thst historically speaking, that is a lot of evidence coming from around the world which would certainly be used if we are discussing any ancient book.
The relationship between that and the (Greek) gospel of Matthew, however, is not certain.
Second, why is it that we can all agree that the Gospels were written in Greek but are orginally sourced from words snd sayings in Hebrew and/or aramaic and/or (maybe a little) Greek, but we can't acknowledge an early source for one of these documents written in Hebrew or aramaic? I don't see why it cannot be a retelling in a different language but not a word for word translation.
NT scholar Mike Licona says that he thinks the Q source could be this early version of Matthew that the fathers refer to.
I personally like this theory and have heard it elsewhere as well.
Papias said, I believe, that Matthew wrote down "the sayings of Jesus" in thr Hebrew language (which might have referred to aramaic), which is much of what Q supposedly contained.
Then it is not necessarily unreasonable to think that Q is a greek retelling of what Hebrew Mathew was. Then Q was extended to be Greek Matthew and was a source of Luke.
Or Hebrew Matthew was Q and was retold and rewritten as Greek Matthew and greatly extended. Then Luke came along (who admitted that many have attempted to tell the story he is telling) and used Greek Matthew but obviously had some different sources that he followed for the early part of the book.
(He might have had a fragment of Matthew or just retold the early part from scratch from his sources for whatever editorial reason.)
@@OnTheThirdDay no they haven't.
This is similar to "they found pharoah's chariot wheels under the red sea".
They didn't.