Note - The Q hytpothesis was developed decades before the first fragments of Gos. Thomas were found. What do you think? Can you see the case for Q? Let me know!! 👇👇👇
Hi CJ, UsefulCharts had the Gospels of Thomas and John dated to around the same time in ~100 CE, and the Gospel of John was written in response to the Gospel of Thomas, have you heard of this theory? John seems to be very polemic at addressing various "heretical" ideas such as Docetism and a spiritual resurrection, scholars like Gregory J. Riley and April De Conick are some who promote this idea.
@@andymoshi it's definitely a good theory. There's no definitive answer, as with most interesting questions there are scholars on both sides. One of the tricky things is also debating whether gospels are actually responding to each other, or to communities or texts that hold the same ideas.
Another well presented, thought-provoking video. Once again, it got me thinking about something that once really caught my attention in relation to the Q-Document - a synchronicity of sorts - something I still think about from time to time. While learning the history of Daoism (Taoism, if you prefer), I of course came across the text known as the Daodejing - I say "of course" because the Daodejing is the central text of the Daoist religion/philosophy. It's essentially a collection of spiritual sayings/teachings (to put it as simply as possible) attributed to a figure named Laozi. Now, in Chinese culture, Laozi is venerated to near God-status - a prophet, at the very least. In fact, during the Han Dynasty, he was considered a god. But it wasn't always that way. The name "Laozi" actually translates to "Old Master." So for several centuries, the sayings attributed to Laozi (now found in the Daodejing) were just teachings attributed to "the old master" - ie. "the old master says...(insert teaching here)." These were basically anonymous yet spiritual pieces of wisdom. That is, until around the middle of the 2nd Century, when a man known to history as Zhang Daoling claimed to have had a visionary encounter with the old master (Laozi) - a revelation - who he described as being a deified figure (originally born to a virgin, no less). This revelation would prompt Zhang Daoling to travel far and wide and teach the things that Laozi revealed to him. Things like moral reform and purity, the concept of heaven and spiritual authority, healing and exorcism, man's covenant with the gods, and the need to establish a holy society in Laozi's honor. And thus, Taoism, as we know it, was born. Sound familiar? According to church father accounts, some of the earliest sects of "Christians" were Jews who venerated writings that were mere sayings attributed to Jesus - a name which translates to "God saves," or even as simply, "savior" - ie. "the savior says...(insert teaching here)" - quite reminiscent of the much debated Q-Document. Then, along comes a man named Paul who says this savior revealed himself to him; that he was a deified being who spoke of heaven, moral reform, purity, spiritual authority, healing and exorcisms, the coming kingdom in his name, and thus, Christianity, as we know it, was offically born. The parallels are striking. Now, this isn't to say one story influenced the other or anything else anyone wants to read too deeply into here. But I guess it is to show how the words of a charlatan can transform anonymous knowledge into a god who they claim speaks through them. It happened in virtually the same fashion in two very distant corners of the earth at virtually the same time. Since then, those figures of revelation have become the center of attention while the original spiritual teachings attributed to them have fallen to the wayside. Funny how that works. At the very least it's something of I've always found to be an interesting coincidence.
That's really interesting. There are a couple early Christian groups who hated Paul for exactly this reason. I think you could also ask the same question further back about Jesus and John the Baptist. It's a fascinating question, because for some reason Jesus gets tied to John's movement-- and it's not clear that the connection was all that strong.
@cjohnyrun Yes! What you just mentioned is along the lines of what I'm eventually gonna go over in detail in email form to get your opinion on (still working on it when I get a chance here and there, I'll send it to you soon). One of those sects in particular that hated Paul was the Ebionites, which literally means "Poor Ones" - the same title the Essenes at Qumran called themselves (ie. CD 9:19, 1Qsb 5:21, among others), an extremely messianic group who practiced baptisms, followed the Torah "to every jot and tittle," and gave up all of their possessions to benefit the community, which is all very reminiscent of Jesus (a messianic figure) being baptized by John and also saying things like, "blessed are you Poor Ones, for yours is the Kingdom," and, "sell all your possessions and give to the Poor," among other passages. Could John and Jesus have been among the same school (or similar school) as those messianics at Qumran? Better yet, was John the Baptist first viewed as a messianic figure before his arrest and murder, when that role was then passed on to his disciple Jesus? Josephus says John was killed because "Herod, who feared that the great influence John had over the masses might put them into his power and enable him to raise a rebellion (for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise), thought it best to put him to death" (Antiquities 18:117-19). So John was such an important leader-figure that he was a threat to the king's power? Moreover, as you mentioned, after John is arrested, he sends out messengers to find out if Jesus is ready to take on the roll of leadership or if they should be looking for someone else to fill it (Luke 7:20). Also, in Luke 11:1, before Jesus teaches his disciples the Lord's Prayer, he does so in response to them asking him to, "teach us to pray as John taught his disciples.” It seems to that the only way Jesus would know how John taught his disciples to pray would be if Jesus was one of John's disciples himself. After all, who baptized who? So, again, it raises the question as to whether John and Jesus were of this Ebionite sect (John the leader before Jesus, Jesus next, James after him) - a sect which carried on into at least the fourth century, venerating Jesus as "a plain and common man, who was justified only because of his superior virtue" (Eusebius, Church History 3:27). A messiah. Not a god. As mentioned, this sect hated Paul and saw him as an apostate, liar, and imposter and rejected all his teachings. Were these the original followers of Jesus, the ones who were sent to Antioch to make sure Jewish laws were being followed, mentioned by Paul in his letter to the Galatians - the "circumcision group" "sent by James" "the brother of the Lord"? Were the "super-apostles" "from Judea" who traveled to Corinth with "letters of recommendation" and told that assembly that Paul was a liar these same Ebionites? The real successors to John and Jesus? It's all very appetizing food for thought.
You are doing great work. Never apologise for the Greek. Not only is it an education for us but actual proof which we can ourselves with confidence when rebutting someone to use to prove our points! Bravo!
Thanks for doing the side by side with the text to help make your arrangements. If they do find a copy of Q, I hope the title is "The Gospel according to Q*bert." 😂
I heard of the gospel of Q, but had no idea what it was. Thank you for the dedicated lesson. Absolutely fascinating. This is a justified belief, but still a theory. Somewhere in a clay jar, in a hollowed out Cave is the gospel of Q. That should set your academic mind spinning.🙏🙏🙏 10:45
Oh it does! It makes me want to get a shovel. But unfortunately, there are a lot of people doing terrible things to history in the name of finding manuscripts. Which would be great for another video. I'm really glad it was interesting!
I love analyzing the differences between the synoptics like this. It's so fun! My take is that Jesus is being used, in a literary/narrative way, to represent "peace" or "forgiveness" or "divine salvation" etc. With that in mind, I can see how each Gospel writer was infusing their own "spin" on how to present Jesus effectively in this way. "Blessed are you when you are persecuted for sake of peace and forgiveness" It's almost like "Jesus=spirit of peace/joy/love" is the secret code to crack the gospel meanings! I used to think this: "Blessed are those who are persecuted because they believe that the Bible is journalistic eyewitness accounts." Which is silly: even "the demons" believe that. Even "atheist scholars" can believe that Jesus existed. It's not mere mental belief, but embodying the spirit of peace and compassion (Jesus) that is the real goal of a true Christian, and the entire point of the gospel narrative. Jesus is IN YOU! :)
The issue is Christianity feels the need to monopolize peace and forgiveness by saying only by believing in Jesus can you truly have peace and forgiveness and if you reject this very specific teaching that not everyone gets a chance to learn about, then you’ll be tormented forever with no way out. This shows the emotional manipulation Christianity imposes on people. The real challenge is to offer peace and forgiveness with no dogmatic strings attached.
@@Chriliman Yes: this "monopoly" and fear mongering creates a sense of cognitive dissonance that leads to neurotic behavior. Also, it goes against the teachings of the gospels, which, for example, hold up the Samaritan as superior to even the highest level religious authorities of the day due to the Samaritan's compassion and mercy, not their religious ideology.
@@jeredmckenna I agree, I think those teachings have good morality to them, but when they’re coupled with the idea you should mutilate your body to keep from sinning or that you should fear the one who can destroy both body and soul in Gehenna or that certain blasphemy is unforgivable, then we’re back to my original point.
@@Chriliman For me, the recognition that the gospels are "scriptural texts" or "sermons" or "Theological artwork", using the language of their day, helps me cut through some of that and find better meaning. For example, when Jesus says "they'll be thrown into the fire" and so forth, I agree: why? Because "the fire" or "Gehenna" and so forth are metaphors for the pain and suffering caused BY sin. For example, if I HATE you, then I am the one suffering in the misery of my OWN hatred. There is not LITERAL lake of fire, of course! It is a symbol for the "fires" of resentment, fear, and anxiety. But I speak for myself :) And I totally agree and resonate with you, that the hyper literalist evangelical world has, just like the ancient Pharisees, used religion as a tool to oppress and control the masses. Nothing has changed! Which is ironic: with a nuanced reading of the gospels, we can see that Jesus was saying (in a nutshell) that hell is the place created by arrogant religious leaders who use fear to manipulate people :)
@@jeredmckenna kinda feels like you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too. Do you think Jesus was the actual son of god sent to save the world through his blood sacrifice and that when we all die we’ll either be saved by him or be tormented forever for not believing? I think some of the harsh threatening language could be explained by Greco-Roman Jews and Roman political leaders creating the gospels in an attempt to pacify the anti-Roman Jewish rebellions who wanted a militant messiah, but obviously the Roman’s didn’t want that so they tried to make them believe in a peaceful messiah or else suffer Roman destruction, which they did.
I find studying the Bible much more enjoyable as a non-believer than when I was still a believer. I can look at the different theological spin each of the authors puts on the story and enjoy learning about how multifaceted early Christianity was.
I totally agree. I find it so fascinating when you can actually look at all the differences and try to understand the evolution, as opposed to trying to iron out anything unique or interesting between books
If anyone is intrigued by this, a good book to have on hand is *_Synopsis of the Four Gospels: Greek - English Edition_** of the **_Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum_* [Hardcover - January 1, 1993; Original Greek Edition by Kurt Aland (Editor)]. Although out of print, it's available used, or through Library Loan, or you might find them yourself in a second-hand-book store, which is where I found both copies I have (although they're the Latin originals: _Omnia Mihi Lingua Graeca Sunt_ ).
Oh interesting! Why? TBH I don't really have any strong ideas about it. Trinitarian theology and its intricacies have never been super interesting to me. I love social history more
Chris, Why would anyone be upset over there being earlier lost material? There is a gaping black hole of 30+ years between Jesus’s death and the first gospel. There HAS to be something else, the alternative of no prior material lends credible doubts about the legitimacy of the whole story about Jesus.
@@Silver_Is_Money they exist! I have a link to a bunch of resources in the description. I think there's one there. Or you can purchase a more formal and if you're interested
I really enjoyed this one. I like Mark Goodacre a lot, have read and listened to him speak and am listening to his course on the Synoptic Gospels currently. But like you, I am unconvinced by his arguments against Q and in favor of the Farrer hypothesis - I still definitely lean Q. My impression is that the majority of critical scholars still believe a Q source existed, but among younger scholars say those under forty, the majority might be leaning in the direction of the Farrer hypothesis, likely due largely to Goodacre's influence
@@karlu8553 that's an interesting take. You could be right. I find it a tricky question, because a lot of people are influenced by ideology instead of good historical inquiry. (Obviously not MG, he's a fantastic scholar). But I think some people who like his work also like that it justifies the things they believed to begin with... If that makes sense
I adore your content and you do an admiral job in presentation. Mark Goodacre is really compelling. Luke and Matthew are definitely related. ( comment will continue, I'm more wordy than knowledgeable.)
Think Lk is copying My and there are passages where I think Mt is copying Lk. Maybe that is the case for Q. Seeing how Mt & Lk deviate from Mk is crucial to understanding the synoptics. What insight do we get if Mt or Lk were the prior source, or both used Q.
@@AbjectusInDomoDeus great questions, and I don't think I did as much Justice to the argument for Q as I could have. I may do another video at some point. The trick with interrelationship if you have to come up with a convincing reason why Matthew or Luke would edit the way they do. This includes leaving tons of good material that would have helped them make their case. But there is not one theory on the synoptic problem that doesn't have at least some challenges
Part of me wants to believe in Q and part of me doesn't. I feel I need compelling evidence to believe in Q because Luke could just have copied Matthew. I admit my biases, albeit they probably cancel each other out. I'd be interested to read a reconstruction of Q according to scholars and then compare with, say, Thomas to evaluate plausibility. Otherwise I shall categorise it as a hypothetical only.
I'm not familiar with all of the arguments here. From what I understand, people think Q was a sayings gospel. Then the sayings Gospel of Thomas was found, and Q proponents said, "Nope. That's not Q." Does the Q hypothesis seem unfalsifiable if the next sayings gospel, if ever found, also get a negative reaction? I think authors like Matthew, Luke and John changed Mark's text to meet their own needs and the expectations of the audience. That seems like a simple, elegant explanation to me.
@@markrothenbuhler6232 there it certainly room for another gospel to be found from the sand somewhere that will change our opinion of everything. We know that many other gospels existed. Imho Q is the best explanation we have, unless something better comes along (or unless a gospel that looks more like Q shows up)
A sayings gospel is just a kind of gospel - one composed of sayings rather than of narrative. Q is thought to be a saying gospel because the shared material in Matthew and Luke, but not Mark is mostly sayings of Jesus. That doesn't mean that any sayings gospel should be Q. Any candidate for Q would have to have those particular sayings. The hypothesis is falsifiable, but not by finding a sayings gospel that isn't Q. There could be many such and also a Q.
I watched the video. I saw you point out places where Matthew and Luke are the same, and other places where they are not. Maybe I'm dumb. How does this support the Q hypothesis over the Farrer hypothesis? Couldn’t you do the same thing with Matthew and Mark and posit some other source document and so on in an infinite regress?
@@bigdavexx1 yeah, both Q and Farrer are attempts to explain why Matthew and Luke share material. So the fact that they do doesn't prove either theory. The theories are attempts to explain why they share it. You probably could do the same thing with Matthew and mark, for example. But it makes a lot of sense to see that Matthew copied mark and made adaptations. So for now that's the best explanation. Unless we found another gospel that agreed with Matthew and Mark against Luke or something.
I'm not trying to cast shade. I really value what you're doing, but I'm not convinced there was a Q. But the question is debated among people who are smarter than me and have more than an MDiv that actually required learning Greek and Hebrew, I was also gaslighted into Latin & glad of it.
You're convinced by Q and your advisor was a great Q scholar. The scholars who do the NT Review were both under Mark Goodacre and think the Farrer hypothesis is best. I'm seeing a pattern here, lol (kidding)
Haha you're not wrong. Exposure is a real mind-changer. My oversimplification -the weakness of Q is where Matthew and Luke share readings against mark. -the weakness of Farrer is that you have to explain why Luke would leave out so much good stuff that would make his points. Theological developments luke should love. Stuff about gentile inclusion.
Even Gnostic narratives are still within the Bible itself. Proverbs 4 is a prime example. The lost and banned Gospels are just as relevant and accurate imo. Thats why i dont listen to The Church Fathers, or the so-called ordained ones. ALL of the gospels hold truth, whether anyone wants to admit it or not.
The idea of the material world vs spiritual in the Gnostic understanding is very much in the New Testament, and notions of recent Christians (ie. initiates) not being ready to fully understand the "mysteries" and "solid food" as Paul calls it, as opposed to giving them "milk" that's easier to grasp. It is very interesting, as some Roman critiques accused Christian bishops and writers of keeping secret teachings and deeper wisdom/knowledge from the lay people.
Lets remember the church father are just a bunch of early theologians pushing to have their "orthodox" narrative be the one that stands the test of time. It absolutely doesnt mean that they are right!
@@SiphusIgnitus it's an interesting observation. I think it's pretty clear that people who are later dismissed as gnostics read some of the now-canonical books and believed that they justified their ideas. Just as non-canonical Gospels hold a lot of Truth on what the Christian movement is/was
@@cjohnyrunAs Bultmann showed, there are strong gnostic motifs in New Testament writings, especially St Paul. The current NT contains specifically anti-gnostic content as the path to proto-orthodoxy takes root.
There are fake scripture-type writings, and there are tons of real scriptures that didn't make it into the Bible because they were unnecessary. The Bible even tells you about different writings by the kings and prophets. In the Bible, God sent a lying spirit into 400 false prophets to bring down a king. But one real prophet told the king the truth, and he refused to listen. It's like a parable of your life. There are all kinds of lies out there, but only one truth. Nothing compares to the wisdom of the Bible; there is no philosopher, no "sacred" writings, absolutely nothing. Not even today's modern studies on behavioral science can compare with it. The Bible was pulled from public schools in 1958. What followed was a disaster. The kids were being taught love and wisdom. Now, they are being taught how to sin and accept sin as a right. This led to massive sex and drug addictions, which led to mental illness, divorce, mental illness, homelessness, and more.
Hmm. Which part of the evidence you've shown here can't be used to support the two gospels hypothesis? Which has its advantages over Markan priority because it doesn't force secularists to magic up ideas like Q to paper over the cracks caused by their late dating of the gospels...
@@mikehutton3937 I sense undue hostility here. Many devout scholars have enjoyed the synoptic problem, and approached it with an open mind -- including the great F.F. Bruce, who believed the gospels were even more reliable because they had older sources.
@@cjohnyrun Thank you for responding. My issue is not with the discipline itself, but rather the way it is presented. Q is a hypothesis, but it is one of many, and is presented exactly as I described. Markan priority exists because of late dating of the gospels, which it turn exists because of the secularization of the Bible which critical scholars are forced to use. I know this is a over-simplification, which is all very fine, but the scholars presenting Q don't feel the need to point this out, or admit that the evidence and techniques they use can equally be used to argue to a completely different conclusion, which I believe is the case here. Rather, when explaining what is going on there is now an apparent over-confidence in the conclusions which scholars have chosen to support. It doesn't seem to matter to Bart Ehrman, Dan McClennan, or Richard C. Miller, that "scholarly consensus", which is cited whenever their conclusions need to be granted additional gravitas, is nothing more than an appeal to authority. Scholarly consensus, as has been shown more recently in social science fields, is often a form of mass self-aggrandizement. If people want to speculate on what might have happened in the 1st century, then fine. But presenting it in a way which can be misconstrued to imply that those speculations might actually have a reasonable chance of being true, is overstepping the mark. IMHO.
Well I’m one of those conservative Christian-types that you weren’t looking forward to hearing from 🤪 But I’ve been enjoying your various videos. I’ve made a few negative comments on some of your videos, but on the whole I’ve really learned a lot from your videos. But I find the differences in the Synoptics to be much more interesting than the similarities in them. If they just copied and each other, and copied Q, why are the Synoptics so different? One has no birth narrative, and the other two have very different birth narratives from each other. There are different stories, different parables, different crucifixion narratives, and very different sayings of Jesus. Obviously, you’re picking similar sayings, but there are some sayings that are not only not similar, but many that don’t even exist in the other Gospels at all. Why do you think that is? You hinted at it there when you were talking about the differences in Matthew’s and Luke’s Beatitudes. But why are they so different if they copied so much of each other’s work?
Well, the two birth narratives are incompatible and ahistorical. The authors seem to be inventing or adding different details to support their own message.
They are still very similar and copy exactly "word for word" massive segments from Mark, John is completely different because it was written way later. I think the Q hypothesis is right because of what we see them doing with the older gospel, and another mysterious source(s).
I do think that each gospel narrative was written for a deliberate purpose/had an underlining religious point they were trying to get across to a given people or community, even if they borrowed a lot from other writings.
@@toddstevens9667 first, I apologize for the way I said that in the video. It came off more harsh than I meant it. I'm just getting a little jaded from people telling me I'm going to hell 🫠. I'm glad you're here. This is a great observation. Fundamentally, these two poles aren't mutually exclusive. If a gospel writer knew about other Gospels and still decided to write one, it was obviously because they thought they could do a better job: theologically, literarily, etc. hence vast amounts of copied material, but also complete originality and unique viewpoints--to the extent that the theology contradict each other. I think we could imagine Matthew and Luke probably never dreamed that their gospels would be stuck in a compilation next to mark, their source (that they tried to fix LOL)
@ So I was thinking about why conservative Christians (like me) would have a problem with the idea of Q or even the notion that Mark was copied by Matthew or Luke. I think it gets down to our notion of “inspiration.” I imagine that most conservative Christians that believe in the inspiration and infallibility of scripture think that the Gospel writers sat down at a desk, quill and ink pot in hand 😜, and sort of “Let go, and Let God.” They think that the writer just sort of zoned out, and when they came back to themselves, the Gospel was in completed form, lying there on the desk in front of them … the Holy Spirit having done its work. I imagine that’s pretty much how they think the Gospels were written. I have absolutely no evidence that they think this way, but it seems to be the only answer for why they react so negatively to the ideas you present (which are not exclusive to you, obviously). I’m just curious. The dating of the various Synoptics is sort of a hot topic. Most Christians like me would place their date before 70AD (absolutely relying on the notion that Jesus told the future in the Oliver Discourse). While I suspect most critical scholars would place their date somewhere in the early 70s for Mark, and 80s-90s for Matthew and Luke. My assumption is that most scholars would doubt Jesus’ ability to predict events 40 years into the future. Do you have an opinion on the dating of the Synoptics?
Note - The Q hytpothesis was developed decades before the first fragments of Gos. Thomas were found.
What do you think? Can you see the case for Q? Let me know!!
👇👇👇
Hi CJ, UsefulCharts had the Gospels of Thomas and John dated to around the same time in ~100 CE, and the Gospel of John was written in response to the Gospel of Thomas, have you heard of this theory? John seems to be very polemic at addressing various "heretical" ideas such as Docetism and a spiritual resurrection, scholars like Gregory J. Riley and April De Conick are some who promote this idea.
'Who Wrote the Gospels?' - UsefulCharts
10 Sept 2021
towards the end
@@andymoshi it's definitely a good theory. There's no definitive answer, as with most interesting questions there are scholars on both sides. One of the tricky things is also debating whether gospels are actually responding to each other, or to communities or texts that hold the same ideas.
@ 🙏🏿🙏🏿🙏🏿🙏🏿
Another well presented, thought-provoking video. Once again, it got me thinking about something that once really caught my attention in relation to the Q-Document - a synchronicity of sorts - something I still think about from time to time.
While learning the history of Daoism (Taoism, if you prefer), I of course came across the text known as the Daodejing - I say "of course" because the Daodejing is the central text of the Daoist religion/philosophy. It's essentially a collection of spiritual sayings/teachings (to put it as simply as possible) attributed to a figure named Laozi.
Now, in Chinese culture, Laozi is venerated to near God-status - a prophet, at the very least. In fact, during the Han Dynasty, he was considered a god.
But it wasn't always that way.
The name "Laozi" actually translates to "Old Master." So for several centuries, the sayings attributed to Laozi (now found in the Daodejing) were just teachings attributed to "the old master" - ie. "the old master says...(insert teaching here)." These were basically anonymous yet spiritual pieces of wisdom.
That is, until around the middle of the 2nd Century, when a man known to history as Zhang Daoling claimed to have had a visionary encounter with the old master (Laozi) - a revelation - who he described as being a deified figure (originally born to a virgin, no less).
This revelation would prompt Zhang Daoling to travel far and wide and teach the things that Laozi revealed to him. Things like moral reform and purity, the concept of heaven and spiritual authority, healing and exorcism, man's covenant with the gods, and the need to establish a holy society in Laozi's honor. And thus, Taoism, as we know it, was born.
Sound familiar?
According to church father accounts, some of the earliest sects of "Christians" were Jews who venerated writings that were mere sayings attributed to Jesus - a name which translates to "God saves," or even as simply, "savior" - ie. "the savior says...(insert teaching here)" - quite reminiscent of the much debated Q-Document. Then, along comes a man named Paul who says this savior revealed himself to him; that he was a deified being who spoke of heaven, moral reform, purity, spiritual authority, healing and exorcisms, the coming kingdom in his name, and thus, Christianity, as we know it, was offically born.
The parallels are striking.
Now, this isn't to say one story influenced the other or anything else anyone wants to read too deeply into here. But I guess it is to show how the words of a charlatan can transform anonymous knowledge into a god who they claim speaks through them. It happened in virtually the same fashion in two very distant corners of the earth at virtually the same time. Since then, those figures of revelation have become the center of attention while the original spiritual teachings attributed to them have fallen to the wayside. Funny how that works. At the very least it's something of I've always found to be an interesting coincidence.
That's really interesting. There are a couple early Christian groups who hated Paul for exactly this reason. I think you could also ask the same question further back about Jesus and John the Baptist. It's a fascinating question, because for some reason Jesus gets tied to John's movement-- and it's not clear that the connection was all that strong.
@cjohnyrun Yes! What you just mentioned is along the lines of what I'm eventually gonna go over in detail in email form to get your opinion on (still working on it when I get a chance here and there, I'll send it to you soon).
One of those sects in particular that hated Paul was the Ebionites, which literally means "Poor Ones" - the same title the Essenes at Qumran called themselves (ie. CD 9:19, 1Qsb 5:21, among others), an extremely messianic group who practiced baptisms, followed the Torah "to every jot and tittle," and gave up all of their possessions to benefit the community, which is all very reminiscent of Jesus (a messianic figure) being baptized by John and also saying things like, "blessed are you Poor Ones, for yours is the Kingdom," and, "sell all your possessions and give to the Poor," among other passages. Could John and Jesus have been among the same school (or similar school) as those messianics at Qumran?
Better yet, was John the Baptist first viewed as a messianic figure before his arrest and murder, when that role was then passed on to his disciple Jesus?
Josephus says John was killed because "Herod, who feared that the great influence John had over the masses might put them into his power and enable him to raise a rebellion (for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise), thought it best to put him to death" (Antiquities 18:117-19). So John was such an important leader-figure that he was a threat to the king's power?
Moreover, as you mentioned, after John is arrested, he sends out messengers to find out if Jesus is ready to take on the roll of leadership or if they should be looking for someone else to fill it (Luke 7:20).
Also, in Luke 11:1, before Jesus teaches his disciples the Lord's Prayer, he does so in response to them asking him to, "teach us to pray as John taught his disciples.” It seems to that the only way Jesus would know how John taught his disciples to pray would be if Jesus was one of John's disciples himself. After all, who baptized who?
So, again, it raises the question as to whether John and Jesus were of this Ebionite sect (John the leader before Jesus, Jesus next, James after him) - a sect which carried on into at least the fourth century, venerating Jesus as "a plain and common man, who was justified only because of his superior virtue" (Eusebius, Church History 3:27). A messiah. Not a god.
As mentioned, this sect hated Paul and saw him as an apostate, liar, and imposter and rejected all his teachings. Were these the original followers of Jesus, the ones who were sent to Antioch to make sure Jewish laws were being followed, mentioned by Paul in his letter to the Galatians - the "circumcision group" "sent by James" "the brother of the Lord"? Were the "super-apostles" "from Judea" who traveled to Corinth with "letters of recommendation" and told that assembly that Paul was a liar these same Ebionites? The real successors to John and Jesus?
It's all very appetizing food for thought.
Q is a shapeshifting alien from Star Trek. He's really mischievous.
You are doing great work. Never apologise for the Greek. Not only is it an education for us but actual proof which we can ourselves with confidence when rebutting someone to use to prove our points! Bravo!
@@mikipope5140 thanks very much! I'm really glad it's helpful. I have fun doing it too
It is good to see your showing and highlighting of the Greek words. Keep up the good work!
@@rexgigout1472 thanks!
Thanks for doing the side by side with the text to help make your arrangements. If they do find a copy of Q, I hope the title is "The Gospel according to Q*bert." 😂
@@Adam_Elyon I'm glad it's helpful! I do certainly hope that is the unknown writer's name 😂
I heard of the gospel of Q, but had no idea what it was. Thank you for the dedicated lesson. Absolutely fascinating. This is a justified belief, but still a theory. Somewhere in a clay jar, in a hollowed out Cave is the gospel of Q. That should set your academic mind spinning.🙏🙏🙏 10:45
Oh it does! It makes me want to get a shovel. But unfortunately, there are a lot of people doing terrible things to history in the name of finding manuscripts. Which would be great for another video.
I'm really glad it was interesting!
I love analyzing the differences between the synoptics like this. It's so fun! My take is that Jesus is being used, in a literary/narrative way, to represent "peace" or "forgiveness" or "divine salvation" etc. With that in mind, I can see how each Gospel writer was infusing their own "spin" on how to present Jesus effectively in this way.
"Blessed are you when you are persecuted for sake of peace and forgiveness"
It's almost like "Jesus=spirit of peace/joy/love" is the secret code to crack the gospel meanings!
I used to think this: "Blessed are those who are persecuted because they believe that the Bible is journalistic eyewitness accounts."
Which is silly: even "the demons" believe that. Even "atheist scholars" can believe that Jesus existed.
It's not mere mental belief, but embodying the spirit of peace and compassion (Jesus) that is the real goal of a true Christian, and the entire point of the gospel narrative. Jesus is IN YOU!
:)
The issue is Christianity feels the need to monopolize peace and forgiveness by saying only by believing in Jesus can you truly have peace and forgiveness and if you reject this very specific teaching that not everyone gets a chance to learn about, then you’ll be tormented forever with no way out. This shows the emotional manipulation Christianity imposes on people. The real challenge is to offer peace and forgiveness with no dogmatic strings attached.
@@Chriliman Yes: this "monopoly" and fear mongering creates a sense of cognitive dissonance that leads to neurotic behavior. Also, it goes against the teachings of the gospels, which, for example, hold up the Samaritan as superior to even the highest level religious authorities of the day due to the Samaritan's compassion and mercy, not their religious ideology.
@@jeredmckenna I agree, I think those teachings have good morality to them, but when they’re coupled with the idea you should mutilate your body to keep from sinning or that you should fear the one who can destroy both body and soul in Gehenna or that certain blasphemy is unforgivable, then we’re back to my original point.
@@Chriliman For me, the recognition that the gospels are "scriptural texts" or "sermons" or "Theological artwork", using the language of their day, helps me cut through some of that and find better meaning.
For example, when Jesus says "they'll be thrown into the fire" and so forth, I agree: why? Because "the fire" or "Gehenna" and so forth are metaphors for the pain and suffering caused BY sin. For example, if I HATE you, then I am the one suffering in the misery of my OWN hatred. There is not LITERAL lake of fire, of course! It is a symbol for the "fires" of resentment, fear, and anxiety.
But I speak for myself :) And I totally agree and resonate with you, that the hyper literalist evangelical world has, just like the ancient Pharisees, used religion as a tool to oppress and control the masses. Nothing has changed!
Which is ironic: with a nuanced reading of the gospels, we can see that Jesus was saying (in a nutshell) that hell is the place created by arrogant religious leaders who use fear to manipulate people :)
@@jeredmckenna kinda feels like you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too. Do you think Jesus was the actual son of god sent to save the world through his blood sacrifice and that when we all die we’ll either be saved by him or be tormented forever for not believing?
I think some of the harsh threatening language could be explained by Greco-Roman Jews and Roman political leaders creating the gospels in an attempt to pacify the anti-Roman Jewish rebellions who wanted a militant messiah, but obviously the Roman’s didn’t want that so they tried to make them believe in a peaceful messiah or else suffer Roman destruction, which they did.
I find studying the Bible much more enjoyable as a non-believer than when I was still a believer. I can look at the different theological spin each of the authors puts on the story and enjoy learning about how multifaceted early Christianity was.
I totally agree. I find it so fascinating when you can actually look at all the differences and try to understand the evolution, as opposed to trying to iron out anything unique or interesting between books
Yes! Great topic and process!! 👍
Awesome! I hope it all makes sense
If anyone is intrigued by this, a good book to have on hand is *_Synopsis of the Four Gospels: Greek - English Edition_** of the **_Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum_* [Hardcover - January 1, 1993; Original Greek Edition by Kurt Aland (Editor)]. Although out of print, it's available used, or through Library Loan, or you might find them yourself in a second-hand-book store, which is where I found both copies I have (although they're the Latin originals: _Omnia Mihi Lingua Graeca Sunt_ ).
@@EduardQualls it's definitely well worth having. There could be digital copies floating around too
Would love to hear your thoughts on the filioque.
Oh interesting! Why? TBH I don't really have any strong ideas about it. Trinitarian theology and its intricacies have never been super interesting to me. I love social history more
Chris, Why would anyone be upset over there being earlier lost material? There is a gaping black hole of 30+ years between Jesus’s death and the first gospel. There HAS to be something else, the alternative of no prior material lends credible doubts about the legitimacy of the whole story about Jesus.
I think it threatens the idea that gospels were written by eyewitnesses.
I'd like to see a Q reconstruction.
@@Silver_Is_Money they exist! I have a link to a bunch of resources in the description. I think there's one there. Or you can purchase a more formal and if you're interested
@@cjohnyrun I found one! Thanks!!!
But I don't think I've seen compelling evidence that shows that one didn't copy off the other rather an independent source. There are passages where I
I really enjoyed this one. I like Mark Goodacre a lot, have read and listened to him speak and am listening to his course on the Synoptic Gospels currently. But like you, I am unconvinced by his arguments against Q and in favor of the Farrer hypothesis - I still definitely lean Q. My impression is that the majority of critical scholars still believe a Q source existed, but among younger scholars say those under forty, the majority might be leaning in the direction of the Farrer hypothesis, likely due largely to Goodacre's influence
@@karlu8553 that's an interesting take. You could be right. I find it a tricky question, because a lot of people are influenced by ideology instead of good historical inquiry. (Obviously not MG, he's a fantastic scholar). But I think some people who like his work also like that it justifies the things they believed to begin with... If that makes sense
I adore your content and you do an admiral job in presentation. Mark Goodacre is really compelling. Luke and Matthew are definitely related. ( comment will continue, I'm more wordy than knowledgeable.)
Think Lk is copying My and there are passages where I think Mt is copying Lk. Maybe that is the case for Q. Seeing how Mt & Lk deviate from Mk is crucial to understanding the synoptics. What insight do we get if Mt or Lk were the prior source, or both used Q.
@@AbjectusInDomoDeus great questions, and I don't think I did as much Justice to the argument for Q as I could have. I may do another video at some point. The trick with interrelationship if you have to come up with a convincing reason why Matthew or Luke would edit the way they do. This includes leaving tons of good material that would have helped them make their case. But there is not one theory on the synoptic problem that doesn't have at least some challenges
Maybe Luke existed in an earlier and later form allowing both to influence each other.
Part of me wants to believe in Q and part of me doesn't.
I feel I need compelling evidence to believe in Q because Luke could just have copied Matthew.
I admit my biases, albeit they probably cancel each other out. I'd be interested to read a reconstruction of Q according to scholars and then compare with, say, Thomas to evaluate plausibility. Otherwise I shall categorise it as a hypothetical only.
I’m really enjoying all of your videos! Thank you! Also the sound is much improved. 👍🏻
Thanks! I got a better mic, that helps
I'm not familiar with all of the arguments here. From what I understand, people think Q was a sayings gospel. Then the sayings Gospel of Thomas was found, and Q proponents said, "Nope. That's not Q." Does the Q hypothesis seem unfalsifiable if the next sayings gospel, if ever found, also get a negative reaction? I think authors like Matthew, Luke and John changed Mark's text to meet their own needs and the expectations of the audience. That seems like a simple, elegant explanation to me.
@@markrothenbuhler6232 there it certainly room for another gospel to be found from the sand somewhere that will change our opinion of everything. We know that many other gospels existed. Imho Q is the best explanation we have, unless something better comes along (or unless a gospel that looks more like Q shows up)
@@cjohnyrun Thanks for the direct reply!
A sayings gospel is just a kind of gospel - one composed of sayings rather than of narrative. Q is thought to be a saying gospel because the shared material in Matthew and Luke, but not Mark is mostly sayings of Jesus. That doesn't mean that any sayings gospel should be Q. Any candidate for Q would have to have those particular sayings.
The hypothesis is falsifiable, but not by finding a sayings gospel that isn't Q. There could be many such and also a Q.
@jeffmacdonald9863 exactly
I watched the video. I saw you point out places where Matthew and Luke are the same, and other places where they are not. Maybe I'm dumb. How does this support the Q hypothesis over the Farrer hypothesis? Couldn’t you do the same thing with Matthew and Mark and posit some other source document and so on in an infinite regress?
@@bigdavexx1 yeah, both Q and Farrer are attempts to explain why Matthew and Luke share material. So the fact that they do doesn't prove either theory. The theories are attempts to explain why they share it.
You probably could do the same thing with Matthew and mark, for example. But it makes a lot of sense to see that Matthew copied mark and made adaptations. So for now that's the best explanation. Unless we found another gospel that agreed with Matthew and Mark against Luke or something.
@cjohnyrun , if all the evidence can be explained equally well with or without Q, I apply Occam's Razor and assume there is no Q
I'm not trying to cast shade. I really value what you're doing, but I'm not convinced there was a Q. But the question is debated among people who are smarter than me and have more than an MDiv that actually required learning Greek and Hebrew, I was also gaslighted into Latin & glad of it.
Tell us why you are not convinced.
Great vid.
You're convinced by Q and your advisor was a great Q scholar. The scholars who do the NT Review were both under Mark Goodacre and think the Farrer hypothesis is best. I'm seeing a pattern here, lol (kidding)
Haha you're not wrong. Exposure is a real mind-changer.
My oversimplification
-the weakness of Q is where Matthew and Luke share readings against mark.
-the weakness of Farrer is that you have to explain why Luke would leave out so much good stuff that would make his points. Theological developments luke should love. Stuff about gentile inclusion.
@cjohnyrun That's a really helpful explanation for me as a layperson, thanks for that simplification!
@@Darksouls184 it's an oversimplification, but hopefully it helps LOL. The arguments for both are very complicated
Even Gnostic narratives are still within the Bible itself. Proverbs 4 is a prime example.
The lost and banned Gospels are just as relevant and accurate imo. Thats why i dont listen to The Church Fathers, or the so-called ordained ones. ALL of the gospels hold truth, whether anyone wants to admit it or not.
The idea of the material world vs spiritual in the Gnostic understanding is very much in the New Testament, and notions of recent Christians (ie. initiates) not being ready to fully understand the "mysteries" and "solid food" as Paul calls it, as opposed to giving them "milk" that's easier to grasp. It is very interesting, as some Roman critiques accused Christian bishops and writers of keeping secret teachings and deeper wisdom/knowledge from the lay people.
Lets remember the church father are just a bunch of early theologians pushing to have their "orthodox" narrative be the one that stands the test of time. It absolutely doesnt mean that they are right!
@@SiphusIgnitus it's an interesting observation. I think it's pretty clear that people who are later dismissed as gnostics read some of the now-canonical books and believed that they justified their ideas. Just as non-canonical Gospels hold a lot of Truth on what the Christian movement is/was
@@cjohnyrunAs Bultmann showed, there are strong gnostic motifs in New Testament writings, especially St Paul. The current NT contains specifically anti-gnostic content as the path to proto-orthodoxy takes root.
There are fake scripture-type writings, and there are tons of real scriptures that didn't make it into the Bible because they were unnecessary.
The Bible even tells you about different writings by the kings and prophets.
In the Bible, God sent a lying spirit into 400 false prophets to bring down a king.
But one real prophet told the king the truth, and he refused to listen.
It's like a parable of your life.
There are all kinds of lies out there, but only one truth.
Nothing compares to the wisdom of the Bible; there is no philosopher, no "sacred" writings, absolutely nothing. Not even today's modern studies on behavioral science can compare with it.
The Bible was pulled from public schools in 1958.
What followed was a disaster.
The kids were being taught love and wisdom.
Now, they are being taught how to sin and accept sin as a right.
This led to massive sex and drug addictions, which led to mental illness, divorce, mental illness, homelessness, and more.
God know how to speak directly to us without the Gospel.
Hmm. Which part of the evidence you've shown here can't be used to support the two gospels hypothesis? Which has its advantages over Markan priority because it doesn't force secularists to magic up ideas like Q to paper over the cracks caused by their late dating of the gospels...
@@mikehutton3937 I sense undue hostility here. Many devout scholars have enjoyed the synoptic problem, and approached it with an open mind -- including the great F.F. Bruce, who believed the gospels were even more reliable because they had older sources.
@@cjohnyrun Thank you for responding.
My issue is not with the discipline itself, but rather the way it is presented. Q is a hypothesis, but it is one of many, and is presented exactly as I described. Markan priority exists because of late dating of the gospels, which it turn exists because of the secularization of the Bible which critical scholars are forced to use. I know this is a over-simplification, which is all very fine, but the scholars presenting Q don't feel the need to point this out, or admit that the evidence and techniques they use can equally be used to argue to a completely different conclusion, which I believe is the case here.
Rather, when explaining what is going on there is now an apparent over-confidence in the conclusions which scholars have chosen to support. It doesn't seem to matter to Bart Ehrman, Dan McClennan, or Richard C. Miller, that "scholarly consensus", which is cited whenever their conclusions need to be granted additional gravitas, is nothing more than an appeal to authority. Scholarly consensus, as has been shown more recently in social science fields, is often a form of mass self-aggrandizement.
If people want to speculate on what might have happened in the 1st century, then fine. But presenting it in a way which can be misconstrued to imply that those speculations might actually have a reasonable chance of being true, is overstepping the mark. IMHO.
Well I’m one of those conservative Christian-types that you weren’t looking forward to hearing from 🤪 But I’ve been enjoying your various videos. I’ve made a few negative comments on some of your videos, but on the whole I’ve really learned a lot from your videos. But I find the differences in the Synoptics to be much more interesting than the similarities in them. If they just copied and each other, and copied Q, why are the Synoptics so different? One has no birth narrative, and the other two have very different birth narratives from each other. There are different stories, different parables, different crucifixion narratives, and very different sayings of Jesus. Obviously, you’re picking similar sayings, but there are some sayings that are not only not similar, but many that don’t even exist in the other Gospels at all. Why do you think that is? You hinted at it there when you were talking about the differences in Matthew’s and Luke’s Beatitudes. But why are they so different if they copied so much of each other’s work?
Well, the two birth narratives are incompatible and ahistorical. The authors seem to be inventing or adding different details to support their own message.
They are still very similar and copy exactly "word for word" massive segments from Mark, John is completely different because it was written way later. I think the Q hypothesis is right because of what we see them doing with the older gospel, and another mysterious source(s).
I do think that each gospel narrative was written for a deliberate purpose/had an underlining religious point they were trying to get across to a given people or community, even if they borrowed a lot from other writings.
@@toddstevens9667 first, I apologize for the way I said that in the video. It came off more harsh than I meant it. I'm just getting a little jaded from people telling me I'm going to hell 🫠. I'm glad you're here.
This is a great observation. Fundamentally, these two poles aren't mutually exclusive. If a gospel writer knew about other Gospels and still decided to write one, it was obviously because they thought they could do a better job: theologically, literarily, etc. hence vast amounts of copied material, but also complete originality and unique viewpoints--to the extent that the theology contradict each other.
I think we could imagine Matthew and Luke probably never dreamed that their gospels would be stuck in a compilation next to mark, their source (that they tried to fix LOL)
@ So I was thinking about why conservative Christians (like me) would have a problem with the idea of Q or even the notion that Mark was copied by Matthew or Luke. I think it gets down to our notion of “inspiration.” I imagine that most conservative Christians that believe in the inspiration and infallibility of scripture think that the Gospel writers sat down at a desk, quill and ink pot in hand 😜, and sort of “Let go, and Let God.” They think that the writer just sort of zoned out, and when they came back to themselves, the Gospel was in completed form, lying there on the desk in front of them … the Holy Spirit having done its work. I imagine that’s pretty much how they think the Gospels were written. I have absolutely no evidence that they think this way, but it seems to be the only answer for why they react so negatively to the ideas you present (which are not exclusive to you, obviously).
I’m just curious. The dating of the various Synoptics is sort of a hot topic. Most Christians like me would place their date before 70AD (absolutely relying on the notion that Jesus told the future in the Oliver Discourse). While I suspect most critical scholars would place their date somewhere in the early 70s for Mark, and 80s-90s for Matthew and Luke. My assumption is that most scholars would doubt Jesus’ ability to predict events 40 years into the future. Do you have an opinion on the dating of the Synoptics?
first
lol well done