What Are the Synoptic Gospels?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 лют 2025
- Visit www.bartehrman... to shop from Bart Ehrman’s online courses and get a special discount by using code: MJPODCAST on all courses.
The phrase "synoptic gospels" is thrown around a lot in Biblical scholarship, but what does it mean, and why are they important? Are they as similar as people seem to think, and what do non-academics get wrong about them? Today, Megan is joined by Dr. Mark Goodacre, professor of Religious Studies and expert in all things synoptic, to answer these questions and to investigate some of his favorite differences between these fascinating texts.
![[LIVE!] NEW BIBLE STUDY SERIES - The Bible You Never Knew - Session #2](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HhBhqmfOLVo/mqdefault.jpg)
Ehrman vs Goodacre arguing Q's (non)existence would be a great episode!
This 👆
I believe Ehrman had interviewed Goodacre on Q. I believe I've also heard Ehrman say that Q is not a topic he's interested in debating. I'd love to see it too, but I don't think it's likely to happen unfortunately.
I want to see that, too! I would pay good money to see that! 💰
Megan's colour coordination is brilliant
I felt the guy that listens in his truck, I’m listening from work as i write this.. Bart changed my life! Thank u guys
I love this guy! His affection for scholarly study and joy of discovery is exciting.
It’s like listening to Young Sheldon, UK version
Two of my favorite YT people discussing my favorite topic. Many thanks, I love your reach out. Let me also take the opportunity to say how good of a host you are, Megan. Beautiful personality and asking all the right questions. All the best from Holland!
Always a treat to get to hear Dr. Goodacre.
Thanks Mark for sharing your delight in a subject I thought I wouldn't learn anything new about as Bart has covered it umpteen times. Refreshing!
Bart, you've changed somehow... Mark is excellent from the other interview videos I've watched him on. Thanks again Mark!
As a complete novice to this whole area I am really enjoying this podcasts. So much information to digest. Thank you.
This was a very refreshing episode
You mean refreshingly absent of Bart's boyish laughter?
What a wonderful episode!
The synaptic gospels are the gospels that were transmitted through neither oral traditions nor written works, but *neuroelectrochemical signaling* . Wait, did you say synoptic?
You had me going there
I rather like synaptic!
😂 beautiful
The myopic gospels were a bit short sighted
Nicely done
Great conversation - very informative. Thanks, Mark and Megan!
Thanks for having Mark Goodacre on . Great episode hope everyone is safe from the weather that has torn through the east coast.
Do you think this was recorded before the hurricane? Hope everyone is safe.
Great episode! Sometimes the special guest episodes are a little less engaging because Bart is so charismatic, but Mark really knows how to pull you into the story!
Megan, you are a fantastic interviewer and your own knowledge and insights always enrich the episodes you host.
Fascinating topic and a fresh perspective.
Fantastic, thank you Dr Goodacre!
If only it were true that the New York Times and Washington Post were unaware of each other's coverage of a given event... 😆
Another fascinating episode, thank you both. Listening to the history of the synopses of the Gospels reminded me of Darwin's comparison of the evolution of language (as pioneered by the Brothers Grimm) to the evolution of life. Texts evolve too, obviously. Evolution is everywhere.
cheers from an atheistic Bible fan in cloudy Vienna, Scott
11:42 About the 200 Denarii not buying enough food:
Maintaining one Gastra* for a year costs about that much.
See: the logistics of the Roman Army for more.
(It's an entire genre here on UA-cam).
*Gastra or Castra, a Roman military base.
The difference between "coloring in" a textbook or on your computer is :- If you get a cut from the sale of the book and you make sure that every new student has a nice, clean copy there with them at the start and the correct parts have been filled in at the end of each lesson.
( no 2nd hand market, lots of new sales )
It’s a good idea to hang onto all of your textbooks for any subject you’re at all interested in.
Thank you.
I would like to know more about why Mark does not think Q does exist.
Well, didn't he write a book about it?
Said book is probably even available through the library, even if it might take an inter library loan to get it. 🤷♂️
Mark Goodacre 🎉🎉🎉
Send my best wishes to Bart and his community
Very good, ty👍
Great as usual
Okay. Still waiting for that Acts of Pilate or whatever gospel episode they previewed weeks ago.
When i was in confirmation classes they taught us that "synoptic" meant "seen by the eye" and only recently have I learned that was incorrect.
I wonder how widespread that idea is.
You mean in contradiction to “seen by the ear”?
I wrote “contradistinction”, and my IPad’s AS changed it to “contradiction”.
Mark Goodacre rocks!
I apologize for my ignorance regarding this debate, but what is the most compelling argument against the existence of a Q gospel?
The argument is the identification of passages in the Gospels of Luke and Mathew that are in agreement/seemingly identical, but AREN'T part of the sections that have been taken from Mark. So Q, whatever it actually would've been as a document, would be the source from those non-mark sections that are both in Mathew and Luke. Though Q would've likely been a gospel like document, its not necessarily a gospel in the same sense as the ones we know.
But, like they discussed, the existence of Q is not an universally accepted explanation, and there are other theories, like the one Goodachre defends.
@@gustavosanabio473I understand that already- you can draw a virtual Venn diagram that suggests a non -Mark source. But that is the argument FOR the existence of Q; my question is, what is or are the strongest arguments against Q?
@@nolongerthere Oh, sorry I think I was very tired last night and misread your comment. How embarrassing.
In any case, Mark Goodacre, featured in this episode, is probably the most well regarded scholar that specializes in the Synoptic problem that doesn't subscribe to the two source hypothesis, alive today. He is very much a academic successor to Austin Farrer , and while he by no means just parrots his arguments, he builds on them. If you want a comprehensive argument agaisnt Q, he is the guy.
Its not one single, easy to replicate, argument against Q, and keep in mind, the Farrer Hypothesis (defended by Goodacre) is far from the only opponent of que Two Source Hypothesis, and as such the argument against Q is contingent on the opponent proposition one chooses. However, none have garnered as much attention, especially in the American continent, as Farrer's. And frankly, none are as convincing, and none that don't take Markan priority into account (unlike the 2 source and Farrer's, who both do) should be taken seriously at this stage.
But to give you a very big oversimplification of the argument, its that Q is a hypothetical reconstruction that is more complex, and thus more likely to be wrong, then a much safer conclusion that could be made. Which conclusion? That Mathew was a source for Luke. If this ideia can be corroborated, then any complex attempts to reconstruct a hypothetical Q source become moot, and thus it could be safely dispensed with, as you would account for Markan priority, Mark's presence in both Mathew and Luke, and the agreements between Mat and Luke. The complex part is how you could safely reached that conclusion. This hypothesis, expressed graphically, wouldn't look like the Venn diagram (like you mentioned) of the 2 source hypothesis, but would instead look like this:
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Synoptic_Farrer_Theory_Mk-Mt_en.svg#/media/File:Synoptic_Farrer_Theory_Mk-Mt_en.svg
@@gustavosanabio473 Wow- well, that was an astonishingly thoughtful, helpful kind, and really well-composed response. You're making a mockery of social media; how dare you, Sir! Lol. Seriously, thank you. In short, if I understand, the argument is essentially in favor of the more parsimonious hypothesis, assuming a route of transmission from Matthew to Luke within the presumptive time lag between them. What corroborating evidence would need to surface? I need to re-listen to this podcast, which I enjoyed but may well merit a second go-through! Again, thank you very much.
@@nolongerthere About your last question: I'm not an expert so if I answer this in an authoritative manner, I would be totally in over my head, so I can't really answer. What I can kinda answer confidently, its that its unlikely that any new empirical evidence will just pop into existence out of nowhere. So new developments in the debate will probably happen in the same way we got to this point, through textual criticism, new ideia vs rebuttal and so on. The difficulty in corroborating that Luke used Matthew, and the resulting skepticism that arises from it, its what holds back this position from becoming consensus. Though it MUST be said, its not a fringe position either, its somewhere in between, and Goodacre's personal popularity does a good deal in ensuring that a whole new audience, including younger people entering the field or just studying it for their leisure, come into contact with this ideia. This type of influence itself could be enough to shift around the consensus after a long time, even if a major breakthrough that gives a decisive answer between the 2 competing hypothesis never ends up happening.
And it doesn't seem like Goodacre's model (a revised version of Farrer's) really NEEDS a breakthrough to make sense. It can make sense or not depending on how persuasive the arguments are in a given scholarly context. This is unsatisfying of course, when we study anything scholarly, we WANT definitive answers. But what we want isn't always what we can have, and the fact that history/anthropology/religious studies and other human sciences in general are often a study in probabilities and not certainties, is simply in the "nature of the game" I'm afraid.
Given the fact that I, personally, am not a professional scholar of this field, I don't really have a position, which might seem weird given all I've said about it. But in reality its not my place nor is it a necessity. I think both propositions make sense, and I try to keep up with what the majority agrees upon, and adjust my thinking accordingly. If I just turned around and said "you know what, I think the Farrer Hypothesis is right", that's arbitrary because I'm not equipped to give the final word on it.
I did a double take after clicking. Had to check the channel I was in lol. But really cool collaboration. Goodachre is one of my favorites.
Nice one! Not everyone can go to University.
I decided to listen to Misquoting Jesus again as a break from NT Pod and Mark followed me here :0
With regard to Luke going his own way, as stated around minute 19.
Luke begins his gospel by sarcastically dismissing the other gospels as innacurate.
So yes, he does change them and tells us why.
Thsts a good point most people dont recognize.
Even as a child, Thomas was my favourite ... because of the doubt.
I love Christian scientists like Max Planck because they find balance between extreme atheists and religious fanatics.
I love Christian scientists like Max Planck because they find balance between extreme atheists and religious fanatics.
What does it mean to "believe?" Raised as a Lutheran, I know what the gospels say which I categorise as objective knowledge. However I feel that belief is subjective. I honestly can't say whether I believe the gospels or not because I don't understand what belief "feels" like. It becomes an ontological question that I cannot answer. The question of belief has vexed me for most of my life, from when I was first introduced to the Bible, and I am running out of time to answer it.
When you decide to sit on a chair, you trust that it will hold you up. If it is a trustworthy chair, it will; if not you will fall. The problem is not with trusting, the problem is with the object of our trust. Belief and trust is the same word in the NT. Decide if Jesus is trustworthy and then, if yes, trust Him. It's a mental decision just like that chair. Stop trying to 'feel' it. Jesus said if you are willing to obey Him, you will know if He speaks truth. That's not a leap of faith, that's a mental decision to obey.
@@glyssieberberian708 Belief and trust are synonymous? I'm afraid that I find that insufficient. If you trust your neighbour you must first believe in your neighbour. If the meaning of the words in question is the same, you should be able to say, "If you trust your neighbour you must first trust your neighbour." You could call that a literary Möbius loop but that's just rationalising something which on the face of it is simply absurd.
Denying Q is a HUGE argument.
And so, I gather, is postulating it. Anyway, I find it difficult to care very much. The Gospels each tell embellished and otherwise distorted versions of stories that were passed along orally with distortions themselves for some time before, and a fair portion of the various gospels were copied verbatim into other gospels. Beyond that, we’ll never know quite what happened. It would be nice if we didn’t have to guess what this man Jesus actually said, but whatever he did actually say was, in any case, just one man’s opinion.
"Birth of the Messiah" and "Death of the Messiah" are great introductions to comparing the four gospels.
Could Q simply be an oral quelle? Of course I would prefer written sources, but if there had been a written source, there should be a written reference by now.
So John names everyone but himself?
So he's a clever chap. Can he put up a book shelf?😊
6:30 That's quite late. I got introduced to the idea of synopsis at age 8, when during a course which would be called "Sunday school" in the U.S., but was actually happening on Wednesday after school for us, our teacher showed us her synopsis. And when we were talking about chapters in the New Testament, we were always asked to mark the chapter in our notes as "synoptic" or "Luke only" or "Matthew only".
I learned about evolution and natural selection in Sunday school (age six-small numbers are spelled, by the way), not Gospel synopsis. Far more important.
@@jeffburns4219 I learned about natural selection in regular school and in a lot of Science books I had as a child. And by the way, if writing 8 instead of eight was your biggest concern with my post, I am relieved.
Marvelous harmonization????😮 COULD we say “blowing smoke “??
Sorry to seem snobbish, but has everyone forgotten the word "among" and the distinction between the words "between" and "among?"
11;48 ''200 denarii would not buy food ...'I suppose 400 would. .1denari was wage of day laborer. were there 5 000 people? Just a speculation
After I stopped reading the Gospel as the inspired words of a god and began reading it as the written thoughts of Bronze Age Hebrews living in barbaric tribes on the Sinai Peninsula I could no longer take it seriously.
So does it have no literary, historical, or moral value as a text?
Does anyone else see Mark's last name and immediately think "I'm stuck in an ATM vestibule..."
No.
I would love to hear an explanation of ACT OF THOMAS
OK…not buying any product advertising more than 30 seconds on YT. Watching a dog food ad for 5 minutes is crazy!
I watch a lot of youtube. I couldn't do it without a premium subscription, which blocks the ads. I know it's not cheap, but it is an option.
out from a wall you mean like a paywall?
👍👍👍
They speak american with such a strange accent...
They are English not American
@@jaclynrichmond1049 duh...
don't the Synoptic Gospels have a literary dependencies between the gospels
I think that’s rather what these people have been going on about.
That's not Bart
Something is wrong with "Barts" Voice
18:45
8:54
gas how Q was droppin" truths even back then...
The gospel writers steeped in the Hebrew Bible? Or was it the Septuagint?
To my understanding they're using the LXX
Yes - I think "Hebrew scriptures" in this case is a generic term for the collection of texts, rather than the specific language.
13:10
Prof. Goodacre is easy on the ear and Brit to Brit is good stereo here.
You guys have to chill with the ads. Every 5 minutes it’s like you’re trying to shill something. Really distracts from the conversation.
Shilling what? Scholarly work?
@@GameTimeWhy Is this a new concept for you?
Welcome to the wonderful world of Internet, and the especially wonderful world of UA-cam.
Unfortunately thats how they make money and how they have to survive.
@@Bronco541 I’m fine with needing to promote your brand or product, but Dr Goodacre could barely get his name out before Meghan went to a break to push the next webinar. The channel used to reserve this stuff until the latter or end of the discussion, and now they’re beginning to push it earlier and more often. It’s overboard, but just my opinion.
I like the Book Clarence better
I like The Book of Laughter and Forgetting (by Milan Kundera). I also like “Book of Saturdays” (by King Crimson).
they all have the same narrative God the Father and Yeshua
I am falling in love with this girl
You know she's married, right? With children, too.
Seemingly smug and tortuous explanatory upload 'under the skirt' of Dr Ehrman: Why not Simply: the birth, life and death of Jesus
I’d guess because Mr. Mark is discussing the Synoptic Gospels, not the birth, life, and death of Jesus. What’s with the scare quotes?
@@jeffburns4219 Except that the synoptics are about the birth, life and death of Jesus: they're historical narratives.
What? I don't even get what you mean by that.
@@gustavosanabio473 Please email Dr Ehrman and ask if the synoptics are about the birth, life and death of Jesus.
Searching again for non existent problems with a woke host
How are they non existent problems?
We all know you're very jealous how much more intelligent the host is than you.
Go ahead and hang a sign on yourself that says you're clueless.
@Chiamex I think they were being ironic
@@gibbano101 “They”?
@@jeffburns4219 yeh
31:39