This guest comes across as the most sane, measured, and obedient to the evidence you have had on in a long time. Bravo. Will listen to him again any time.
This was a great explanation. I agree with the majority consensus that Mark was first and that Matthew and Luke expanded on Mark and also added ideas possibly from another source. Dr. Tabor has done a lot of videos and has done an excellent job as well explaining why this is the most likely hypothesis.
Most likely explanation: Paul wrote all of the surviving Christian texts. He changed the story each time to fit the audience. His goal was to collect donations, not to create a consistent theology.
@@carolgebert7833 That was my hypothesis also. Paul had, most likely Egyptian, slave scribes. They were familiar with story telling. Most likely they wrote these books. I think they made up the stories. Remember that Paul was out to punish followers of Jesus. He can't do that unless he was authorized, and that authority communicated to local governors, by Rome. In that case, he can not change his mind about punishment. I think he carried out punishment work he was entrusted. Then he proceeded to create something acceptable to Rome. Maintaining scribes etc. must be expensive, a lot more expensive han a regular slaves. I think these books must be completed after Josephus completed the Jewish war. Otherwise, he would make a reference to them.
@@almazchati4178 I propose that “Mark” is a work dedicated to the king of Judea, Marcus Julius Agrippa II. It was dedicated as a way of asking the authorities if the story was sufficiently tame for the preacher to avoid arrest. Preaching the true story of Judas the Galilean would get Paul killed as a zealot sympathizer.
@@carolgebert7833 It may be so. I am causally interested in these topics. My understanding is that Paul was part of the Herod family, probably more Arab than a Jew. Agrippa may have authorized Paul to chastise the followers of Jesus, or someone from Rome may have instructed Agrippa to help Paul. Probably someone thought it may be a good idea to have an imperial religion, and put Paul in charge of it. Josephus does not reference Gospels. He certainly would write about them, if they were available and , if he knew about the involvement of Herod family, unless he was instructed otherwise or did not want to entangle with Herods for his own good. Human nature hardly changed over the centuries, just follow the money and power track. It is odd for Herod family to kill Jesus and then make a God out of him. They would not do that.
@@carolgebert7833 I think if Herods are involved with Paul, the Gospel's must be written, or revised after their reign was over. They would not let their names be smeared otherwise.
Man the ending always gets me haha listening to this nice quiet even toned lecture then next thing I know I’m walking into the clurb purse first huntyyy
I wonder if the early recorders were as obsessed with sequence as we are today. I just finished writing a family history. It’s “unpolished” in that sometimes I recall events and occurrences as writing, so it is not in sequence at all, especially in events in close approximation in time, (Which vacations did my family take in which of my teenage years, I don’t exactly recall the order, but I definitely remember that Bear next to the tent, and that 18-inch trout I pulled out of the Boulder River!…..Oh yeah, I can smell that fish right now!). Luke clearly assembled his work from his communication with eyewitnesses, even though Luke was obviously a contemporary with Paul in the 50’s and wrote it before writing the book of Acts.
Dr. Kloppenborg's research is excellent, His interpretation of Mark based on its componsition in 70 CE is the literary version of astrology. The version of Mark based on astronomy begins with Pilate's lost euangelion to Tiberius cited by Tertullian in Book V, Apolology, Cornelius was the executive editor of the staff appreciation of the combintion of Peter's testimony of campaigning with Jesus and the contents of Quelle, which was the intelligence archives of the 10th Legon that had a file on Jesus of Nazareth as a routine surveillence history, like a surveillene camera in a cold case. The important connection is between the Talking Cross of the Gospel of Peter and Mark 15:1 - 16:8, which is based entirely on Roman testimony after the fact, beginning with the crucifixison. Much of the dialogue in scriptures is Romantic in the sense that it is a description of moment of great emotion recalled in tranquility, The rececorded response of the centurion in Mark 15:39 is an interprelation of his actual first response, which was more like “Oops!” That whole “Father, Forgive them” thing took on a new meaning, That's the verstion of Mark based on astronomy,
Since the gospel of Mark doesn't mention the virgin birth and the original of Mark 16 ends at verse 8 (so no earthly reappearance and therefore not a single eyewitness) it seems that at the time of writing it, the concept of Jesus being really devine and the importance of the resurrection weren't yet (fully) developed (and/or understood).
Rather, it was not as clear to Mark as to his successors that transfiguring Jesus from the Firmament to Earth would demand more biography. E.g., the disappearance of an actual convict's body would have raised a ruckus. And, other mystery deities had virgin births, so he needed one of those too.
To me, the virgin birth narratives (and God fathering a son with a human female) seem to be appealing to the gentile/pagan population. Those sort of stories were popular in pagan mythology and had become part of the emperor worship cult in later half of the first century. Seems plausible that later writers took Mark and added their birth narratives so that Jesus could be a man good like the emperor - and the result were Matthew and Luke
I am with Mathew and Luke using the same copy of OMark Then ca 100AD an editor creates canonical Mark by the addition of the father of Alexander and Rufus and other minor additions in chapters 15 and 16 and the blind of Bethsaida. + he reformats OMark.
I am surprised how he slips past the fact that Mark is apparently the latest and least attested Gospel text out of the four that made it into the big NT (in 28th minute). Not even jokingly suggesting this could be an argument for its posteriority (a weak one, but still has to be addressed). Also he does not cover Paul's letters' relation to Mark (seems to me more important to address this, than the hypothetical Q). An original author can come up with anything, his imagination being the limit. I would expect the original story to be complete and internally consistent. For example, if original Mark lacks a 'proper' ending fitting its own plot, then it is either a later gospel, or intentionally a part of a bigger unit as per RG Price / T Dykstra - so never intended to be read out width that context; or censored in later transmission. In the Price/Dykstra scenario (Mark comments on Paul), I wonder if Mark was a censored (shortened) version of base Marcion as Luke was an expanded (padded) one?
None. When he said gospel, he meant "good news" in a more general sense rather than a written biography. First Timothy does appear to cite the text of Luke. But that epistle is widely regarded as a forgery.
@@tryme3969 No. Luke is mentioned as one of his companions in his biography ("Acts") which is presumed to have been written by Luke himself. But as for Paul's own writings, he says he knew James and Peter. Mark is (assumed) to be Peter's secretary/scribe, never mentioned by Paul. John is presumed to be "the beloved disciple" of Jesus, again, not mentioned by Paul. The earliest Gospels were written about 20 or more years after Paul wrote his letters.
@@AnthroJoe 2 Timothy 4:11 "Only (gospel writer) Luke is with me. Get (gospel writer) Mark and bring him with you, because he is helpful to me in my ministry" ---- Paul Galatians 2:9 "In fact, James, Peter, and (gospel writer) John, who were known as pillars of the church, recognized the gift God had given me, and they accepted Barnabas and me as their co-workers" ---- Paul
@@tryme3969 Even if those individuals wrote those Gospels. To me, it looks like they had not done so yet, for Paul fails to mention that they wrote the Gospels. You should look at the Greek text sometime, Paul is not mentioning any written Gospel and even the translations show that to be the case.
Is it that there are disagreements in the Synoptic Gospels? Or is it that the styles of the writers were different? We must remember that the time the Gospels were written was sometime after the death of the Messiah, and realizing that the return of the Messiah wasn't imminent in their time, the writers decided to record Events in the Chronological order and Timeline as they remembered it. ○ Of the 3 Gospel writers, Matthew was the only one who was a member of the 12 Apostles, and it is believed that his Gospel was penned to a Jewish audience. ○ The Gospel of Luke, who wasn't one of the 12 Apostles, was investigative research that was done by Luke, on the request of one Theophilus, who it is believed was a Gentle convert after the death of the Messiah. ○ The Gospel of Mark is believed to be the narrative of Peter, one of the 12 Apostles, given to Mark his Scribe. The young man referenced in Mark 14:51, is believed to be John Mark. Mark 14. [51] Now a certain young man followed Him, having a linen cloth thrown around his naked body. And the young men laid hold of him. Peter and Mark seemed to have had a very close relationship. Acts 12. [11] And when Peter had come to himself, he said, “Now I know for certain that the Lord has sent His angel, and has delivered me from the hand of Herod and from all the expectation of the Jewish people.” [12] So, when he had considered this, he came to the house of Mary, the mother of John whose surname was Mark, where many were gathered together praying. I Peter 5. [12] By Silvanus, our faithful brother as I consider him, I have written to you briefly, exhorting and testifying that this is the true grace of God in which you stand. [13] She who is in Babylon, elect together with you, greets you; AND SO DOES MARK MY SON.
We know, anyway, that none of the gospels were written by apostles, but only long after they were all dead. Any connection to any apostle is 100% conjecture, no matter how many times printed. And we know that Acts is wholesale fiction, so is no evidence for anything. The business about linen is a common allegory for death and resurrection, being the old body discarded and the resurrected body put on by the (naked) soul. Mark, James and Jesus were all very common names. You need a better reason than the name to say any two mentioned were the same person.
The likelihood of a secondary mark (Mark 2, whether it is Ur or Deutero) is reasonable. The extreme paucity of early manuscripts of Mark compared to the other canonical gospels makes it much harder to argue with any certainty that recieved/canonical forms of that text very closely resemble the commonest forms in the late first century. This is analagous to the phenomenon of genetic drift increasing with small population size. Fewer manuscripts means greater likelihood of loss of original variants and greater and more rapid divergence between manuscript lineages. The fact that canonical Mark and the "Mark" used by the synoptic successor editors appears different is very plausible when it is by far the least copied of the four canonical manuscripts.
@@History-Valley I think Luke inherited the copy from Matthew, and it deteriorated significantly more (great omission) But ca 100 AD a revised and reformated Mark emerges. He added the father of Alexander and Rufus, some instances of the twelf and the blind of bethsaida (Mathew and Luke need some healing!) + you can always do good to the poor. The Original used a quire of 5 folios (20 pages), with Mk 16:1-8 on the lower half of the 1st of 20 pages. This produces beautifull page flips. You never patch an old cloth with a new patch: pageflip. Mary and the brothers are not just moved to the end of the pericope, but to (page flip) the next page! The parable of the sower fits on one single page, so does the Olivet discourse.
As Dr. Kloppenborg noted, we will never be able to choose among a variety of possibilities all consistent with the evidence. The standard is to use the _simplest_ alternative consistent with all the evidence, without prejudice, and entertain others when new evidence and methods arise that contradict it. At the moment, the simplest is that there was just the one Mark (with varied scribal errors in different manuscripts); and 'Luke' agreed with 'Matthew' on elaboration, omission or emendation of some bits, but not on all; and the Mark we have now differs some from theirs. There is, anyway, no value in ginning up a Q: any argument depending on it is automatically invalid, because we don't have it.
@@sciptick - I do not share your opinion that eliminating Q is more parsimonious, or that Q is in any way "ginned up". The many major disagreements between Luke and Matthew are more elegantly explained by a lost source than by handwaving. Q is not the basis for an argument. It is the answer to a question that neither the Goodacre/Farrer hypothesis OR the Lukan priority crowd can answer to everyone's satisfaction.
@@AnthroJoe Disagreements between Luke and Matthew are trivially accounted for by disagreements between anonymous authors 'Luke' and 'Matthew'. (If 'Luke' had agreed with 'Matthew', he would not write a gospel.) Agreements are even more easily accounted for, by 'Luke' copying Matthew (or Mark, or whatever). We already have four anonymous, competent authors. They could copy or make up anything they needed whenever they liked, and leave out anything they didn't. That _defines_ authorship. Inventing a _fifth_ anonymous author for them to crib from adds a complication with no problem to solve. If authors can't make things up, what did Q's author crib from? Again, _we don't have_ Q, so anything said about it can only be about a ginned-up Q.
Your guest at 2.00 uses a word i don't understand and can't spell. As a moderator is it your job to explain this or ar you simply thinking your audience a purely academics?
All of these convolutions go away when you realize the gospels all came from a single author. Paul, of course. He wrote different versions to please different audiences.
That makes the least sense. We have dozens of gospels: making up gospels was evidently a favorite activity of early Christians. Likewise, Acts. The synoptic gospels are clearly in conflict, each trying to supplant the previous one. Matthew, in particular, is actively hostile to many Pauline ideas.
The Pauline letters pre-date the gospels by at least 20 years. Paul did not care about consistency. He was not an ideologue. He was out to make money. There were all sorts of congregations trained to donate money to the temple. With the temple gone, Paul saw a chance to appropriate the behavior to benefit his own pocket. I have to admit “John” was probably not written by Paul but by one of his entourage, after he died. Why “John?” Because Paul changed his name to John after the war and moved to Asia Minor. That is why Marcion had his letters, plus Acts and Luke: Because Paul/John gave them to Marcion’s parents.
@@carolgebert7833 According to 1 Clement, written in the 60s, Paul was already dead before the temple was demolished. Peter too. We know 1 Clement predates the temple demolition because it says rites are still being performed there; and because the demolition of the temple would have been the best conceivable example supporting its argument, but it does not cite that.
@@sciptickand yet Josephus tells us that Saulus of the Herodians was the person sent to meet Nero to ask for troops to quell the zealot revolt. Why him? Because Saulus/Paul used to be one of them. I think after Paul met Nero in Greece, he never went home. Instead, he changed his name to John and appropriated the old congregations he had built for the zealots 30 years earlier. (Before he was expelled for not following Mosaic Law) I.e. Paul faked his own death. Why? Because he was a traitor to the zealot cause, and he was persona non grata.
I love Markus Vinzent, but that is not the majority view. It is possibly the first to engage in the synoptic synthesis of Mark and Q, but the text of Marcion's gLord has the same characteristics as Luke, derived from Mark (albeit lacking canonical Luke's embellishments).
@@AnthroJoe what if gmark is derived from marcion's evangelion? the early church attempt to erase and eradicate marcions teachings and legacy has left us with no clear facts and data on the start of the christian movement in the first century
@@jhake67 What if? Indeed. Make the case based on evidence. Or don't. Klopenborg's work speaks for itself. Your proposed gradient of derivation toward Mark (from Marcions's Luke) is much harder to demonstrate on empirical grounds. Make your case.
You have to ask why Marcion was in possession of Luke, Acts and Paul’s letters. I think it was because Paul gave these writings to Marcion’s parents before his death. This suggests Paul wrote all the gospels. He dedicated them to other people but he was the author and he did it to misappropriate funds intended to support the zealots and the (now destroyed) temple.
@@carolgebert7833 Luke is not Pauline enough. It's Eucharistic material is influenced by Paul, but contains elements which do not match Paul's eucharistic formula in 1 Cor. AND the atonement theology of Mark is rejected and revised by Luke. Paul may have inspired Luke, but it is a later source which depended on other material besides Paul.
Mathew and John were Apostles which means messengers. But they were also students to Jesus whom to them was a Rabbi until His resurrection. Mark, a student of Peter and Luke a student of Paul means there maybe variations in writings. The message was always going to go to the Gentiles from Jesus. From the different approaches of Hillel and Shammai, and it was Hillel whom believed the Torah was not just for an elite number of students unlike Shammai, then to Jesus taking it further and going out of Israel to enemies like the Samaritans and then the ministry of Paul to the Gentiles.
If there were such apostles Matthew and John, and even students Mark and Luke, they can have no kind of connection to our gospels, being long dead before those were ever conceived of.
I am more and more convinced of interpolation. Girolamo Sonofrio in his "viris illustribus" speaking of James the Less he writes "brother of the lord nicknamed/called the Right. Origen's translators replaced the word James brother of Jesus nicknamed the right, (as it was originally in chapter XX of Jewish antiquities) referring to James himself with James brother of Jesus who was called the Christ referring to Jesus. Since the distant past, the Church, in order to prove the existence of its "Savior" as a man, has intended to support the evangelical truths with historical documentation by inventing the “Testimonium Flavianum” and also manipulating this authentic episode referring to someone James, brother of Jesus, the High Priest son of Damnaeus, as can be seen from the writing of historian Joseph. The demonstration of the alteration of the original text follows two paths: The observation that the modification introduced varies from one manuscript to another, always on the same one point of the sentence, vital for the "theological proof": the word "Christ". In fact, while in the "Testimonium Flavianum", believed to have been written by the eminent Pharisee Josephus, the Christian scribes they attested "This was the Christ", vice versa, in the passage of the Jewish historian, reported above, coming from the ecclesiastical archives, we read "called Christ...". I therefore reproduce a photocopy of an ancient text credited to Giuseppe himself, translated by Greek, dating back to five centuries ago, received, needless to say, from the archives of a Bishop, as reported on the title page: FLAVII IOSEPHII ANTIQVITATVM IVDAICARVM For Hier. Frobenium and Nic. Episcopium, Basileae, MDXLVIII (Lib. XX, chap. 8) see photo In it is referred to, bottom right, as "brother of Jesus Christ named James"... not "called Christ...". Since these translations, coming from manuscripts "edited" by Episcopi motivated to make them appear true the doctrine that postulated the advent of the Messiah Jesus, being adulterated in different ways in that single point of the passage, it shows that that little phrase was not original but added subsequently, therefore, if "Christ" is eliminated, only one Jesus remains, son of Damnaeus, with a brother named Giacomo. And then, as you know, we have the FARSA of a man who is condemned by stoning but a strange case he is taken and taken to the top of the temple and thrown from a pinnacle (Sic.) and then beaten. A beautiful tragicomic. Here are my thoughts on the TRUE Giacomo. This James was Jesus' brother son of Damnaeus, and was considered a good person in fact ..Book XX:201 But people more fair in the city, considered the narrowest observants of the Law felt offended by this fact.. Being of priestly caste and perhaps as a young man, like Josephus Flavius, he was attending the "Course according to the philosophy of the Essenes" (long hair, abstaining from food and alcoholic beverages, etc.) and in some cases will have committed a crime together with others punishable by the Mosaic law by stoning. HERE BECAUSE THIS CHARACTER WAS TAKEN FOR THE CREATION OF THE GOSPELS AND THE AUTHORS DRAWN A LOT FROM THE WORKS OF GIUSEPPE FLAVIO. A greeting
Get his books!
➡Excavating Q: amzn.to/3vTSksa
➡Q: The Earliest Gospel amzn.to/3TYy5ld
➡The Formation of Q: amzn.to/3U16pfg
This guest comes across as the most sane, measured, and obedient to the evidence you have had on in a long time. Bravo. Will listen to him again any time.
I agree with you 100% here.
Pure substance. Great discussion on Markan Priority from a sound scholar. Well done.
This was a great explanation. I agree with the majority consensus that Mark was first and that Matthew and Luke expanded on Mark and also added ideas possibly from another source. Dr. Tabor has done a lot of videos and has done an excellent job as well explaining why this is the most likely hypothesis.
Most likely explanation: Paul wrote all of the surviving Christian texts. He changed the story each time to fit the audience. His goal was to collect donations, not to create a consistent theology.
@@carolgebert7833 That was my hypothesis also. Paul had, most likely Egyptian, slave scribes. They were familiar with story telling. Most likely they wrote these books. I think they made up the stories. Remember that Paul was
out to punish followers of Jesus. He can't do that unless he was authorized, and that authority communicated to local governors, by Rome. In that case, he can not change his mind about punishment. I think he carried out punishment work he was entrusted. Then he proceeded to create something acceptable to Rome. Maintaining scribes etc. must be expensive, a lot more expensive han a regular slaves. I think these books must be completed after Josephus completed the Jewish war. Otherwise, he would make a reference to them.
@@almazchati4178 I propose that “Mark” is a work dedicated to the king of Judea, Marcus Julius Agrippa II. It was dedicated as a way of asking the authorities if the story was sufficiently tame for the preacher to avoid arrest. Preaching the true story of Judas the Galilean would get Paul killed as a zealot sympathizer.
@@carolgebert7833 It may be so. I am causally interested in these topics. My understanding is that Paul was part of the Herod family, probably more Arab than a Jew. Agrippa may have authorized Paul to chastise the followers of Jesus, or someone from Rome may have instructed Agrippa to help Paul. Probably someone thought it may be a good idea to have an imperial religion,
and put Paul in charge of it. Josephus does not reference Gospels. He certainly would write about them, if they were available and , if he knew about the involvement of Herod family,
unless he was instructed otherwise or did not want to entangle with Herods for his own good. Human nature hardly changed over the centuries, just follow the money and power track. It is odd for Herod family to kill Jesus and then make a God out of him. They would not do that.
@@carolgebert7833 I think if Herods are involved with Paul, the Gospel's must be written, or revised after their reign was over. They would not let their names be smeared otherwise.
This is some really good stuff and thus has been put into the rotation for a 2nd & 3rd viewing. Thank you, Jacob
Man the ending always gets me haha listening to this nice quiet even toned lecture then next thing I know I’m walking into the clurb purse first huntyyy
This is an excellent interview, Jacob! Thank you!
Thank you my friend and you're welcome!
Thanks for this conversation
Thanks 👍
I wonder if the early recorders were as obsessed with sequence as we are today. I just finished writing a family history. It’s “unpolished” in that sometimes I recall events and occurrences as writing, so it is not in sequence at all, especially in events in close approximation in time, (Which vacations did my family take in which of my teenage years, I don’t exactly recall the order, but I definitely remember that Bear next to the tent, and that 18-inch trout I pulled out of the Boulder River!…..Oh yeah, I can smell that fish right now!). Luke clearly assembled his work from his communication with eyewitnesses, even though Luke was obviously a contemporary with Paul in the 50’s and wrote it before writing the book of Acts.
Good one. Thanks.
Dr. Kloppenborg's research is excellent, His interpretation of Mark based on its componsition in 70 CE is the literary version of astrology.
The version of Mark based on astronomy begins with Pilate's lost euangelion to Tiberius cited by Tertullian in Book V, Apolology, Cornelius was the executive editor of the staff appreciation of the combintion of Peter's testimony of campaigning with Jesus and the contents of Quelle, which was the intelligence archives of the 10th Legon that had a file on Jesus of Nazareth as a routine surveillence history, like a surveillene camera in a cold case.
The important connection is between the Talking Cross of the Gospel of Peter and Mark 15:1 - 16:8, which is based entirely on Roman testimony after the fact, beginning with the crucifixison.
Much of the dialogue in scriptures is Romantic in the sense that it is a description of moment of great emotion recalled in tranquility, The rececorded response of the centurion in Mark 15:39 is an interprelation of his actual first response, which was more like “Oops!” That whole “Father, Forgive them” thing took on a new meaning,
That's the verstion of Mark based on astronomy,
Jacob, you should try to host a debate between John and J. Warner Wallace on if the gospels are eyewitness accounts.
Since the gospel of Mark doesn't mention the virgin birth and the original of Mark 16 ends at verse 8 (so no earthly reappearance and therefore not a single eyewitness) it seems that at the time of writing it, the concept of Jesus being really devine and the importance of the resurrection weren't yet (fully) developed (and/or understood).
Rather, it was not as clear to Mark as to his successors that transfiguring Jesus from the Firmament to Earth would demand more biography. E.g., the disappearance of an actual convict's body would have raised a ruckus. And, other mystery deities had virgin births, so he needed one of those too.
To me, the virgin birth narratives (and God fathering a son with a human female) seem to be appealing to the gentile/pagan population. Those sort of stories were popular in pagan mythology and had become part of the emperor worship cult in later half of the first century. Seems plausible that later writers took Mark and added their birth narratives so that Jesus could be a man good like the emperor - and the result were Matthew and Luke
I am with Mathew and Luke using the same copy of OMark
Then ca 100AD an editor creates canonical Mark by the addition of the father of Alexander and Rufus and other minor additions in chapters 15 and 16 and the blind of Bethsaida. + he reformats OMark.
Mark 3: 20-21 doesn't say his family grabbed him, but his friends, who may not know of his origins.
What is that word at around 16:45 ... paropy ? Is that the correct spelling? I couldn't find it on google. Paripropacy? And, what does it mean?
it's Pericope.
I am surprised how he slips past the fact that Mark is apparently the latest and least attested Gospel text out of the four that made it into the big NT (in 28th minute). Not even jokingly suggesting this could be an argument for its posteriority (a weak one, but still has to be addressed). Also he does not cover Paul's letters' relation to Mark (seems to me more important to address this, than the hypothetical Q).
An original author can come up with anything, his imagination being the limit. I would expect the original story to be complete and internally consistent. For example, if original Mark lacks a 'proper' ending fitting its own plot, then it is either a later gospel, or intentionally a part of a bigger unit as per RG Price / T Dykstra - so never intended to be read out width that context; or censored in later transmission.
In the Price/Dykstra scenario (Mark comments on Paul), I wonder if Mark was a censored (shortened) version of base Marcion as Luke was an expanded (padded) one?
How many writers of the gospel message does Paul mention in his letters?
None. When he said gospel, he meant "good news" in a more general sense rather than a written biography. First Timothy does appear to cite the text of Luke. But that epistle is widely regarded as a forgery.
@@AnthroJoe Does Paul mention Marrhew Mark, Luke and John in his letters?
@@tryme3969 No. Luke is mentioned as one of his companions in his biography ("Acts") which is presumed to have been written by Luke himself. But as for Paul's own writings, he says he knew James and Peter. Mark is (assumed) to be Peter's secretary/scribe, never mentioned by Paul. John is presumed to be "the beloved disciple" of Jesus, again, not mentioned by Paul. The earliest Gospels were written about 20 or more years after Paul wrote his letters.
@@AnthroJoe
2 Timothy 4:11
"Only (gospel writer) Luke is with me. Get (gospel writer) Mark and bring him with you, because he is helpful to me in my ministry"
---- Paul
Galatians 2:9
"In fact, James, Peter, and (gospel writer) John, who were known as pillars of the church, recognized the gift God had given me, and they accepted Barnabas and me as their co-workers"
---- Paul
@@tryme3969 Even if those individuals wrote those Gospels. To me, it looks like they had not done so yet, for Paul fails to mention that they wrote the Gospels. You should look at the Greek text sometime, Paul is not mentioning any written Gospel and even the translations show that to be the case.
Is it that there are disagreements in the Synoptic Gospels? Or is it that the styles of the writers were different? We must remember that the time the Gospels were written was sometime after the death of the Messiah, and realizing that the return of the Messiah wasn't imminent in their time, the writers decided to record Events in the Chronological order and Timeline as they remembered it.
○ Of the 3 Gospel writers, Matthew was the only one who was a member of the 12 Apostles, and it is believed that his Gospel was penned to a Jewish audience.
○ The Gospel of Luke, who wasn't one of the 12 Apostles, was investigative research that was done by Luke, on the request of one Theophilus, who it is believed was a Gentle convert after the death of the Messiah.
○ The Gospel of Mark is believed to be the narrative of Peter, one of the 12 Apostles, given to Mark his Scribe. The young man referenced in Mark 14:51, is believed to be John Mark.
Mark 14. [51] Now a certain young man followed Him, having a linen cloth thrown around his naked body. And the young men laid hold of him.
Peter and Mark seemed to have had a very close relationship.
Acts 12.
[11] And when Peter had come to himself, he said, “Now I know for certain that the Lord has sent His angel, and has delivered me from the hand of Herod and from all the expectation of the Jewish people.”
[12] So, when he had considered this, he came to the house of Mary, the mother of John whose surname was Mark, where many were gathered together praying.
I Peter 5.
[12] By Silvanus, our faithful brother as I consider him, I have written to you briefly, exhorting and testifying that this is the true grace of God in which you stand.
[13] She who is in Babylon, elect together with you, greets you; AND SO DOES MARK MY SON.
We know, anyway, that none of the gospels were written by apostles, but only long after they were all dead. Any connection to any apostle is 100% conjecture, no matter how many times printed. And we know that Acts is wholesale fiction, so is no evidence for anything. The business about linen is a common allegory for death and resurrection, being the old body discarded and the resurrected body put on by the (naked) soul. Mark, James and Jesus were all very common names. You need a better reason than the name to say any two mentioned were the same person.
Probably a dumb question but what is the word Jacob is using at 52:58 ? Empricipry?
Pericope?
@@subterfrugal2689 thanks so much!😀
They are fables.
The likelihood of a secondary mark (Mark 2, whether it is Ur or Deutero) is reasonable. The extreme paucity of early manuscripts of Mark compared to the other canonical gospels makes it much harder to argue with any certainty that recieved/canonical forms of that text very closely resemble the commonest forms in the late first century. This is analagous to the phenomenon of genetic drift increasing with small population size. Fewer manuscripts means greater likelihood of loss of original variants and greater and more rapid divergence between manuscript lineages. The fact that canonical Mark and the "Mark" used by the synoptic successor editors appears different is very plausible when it is by far the least copied of the four canonical manuscripts.
I follow the Ur-Mark position and I think that Matthew and Luke copied two revisions of Ur-Mark that Mark conflated to form canonical Mark.
@@History-Valley
I think Luke inherited the copy from Matthew, and it deteriorated significantly more (great omission)
But ca 100 AD a revised and reformated Mark emerges. He added the father of Alexander and Rufus, some instances of the twelf and the blind of bethsaida (Mathew and Luke need some healing!) + you can always do good to the poor.
The Original used a quire of 5 folios (20 pages), with Mk 16:1-8 on the lower half of the 1st of 20 pages.
This produces beautifull page flips. You never patch an old cloth with a new patch: pageflip.
Mary and the brothers are not just moved to the end of the pericope, but to (page flip) the next page!
The parable of the sower fits on one single page, so does the Olivet discourse.
As Dr. Kloppenborg noted, we will never be able to choose among a variety of possibilities all consistent with the evidence. The standard is to use the _simplest_ alternative consistent with all the evidence, without prejudice, and entertain others when new evidence and methods arise that contradict it. At the moment, the simplest is that there was just the one Mark (with varied scribal errors in different manuscripts); and 'Luke' agreed with 'Matthew' on elaboration, omission or emendation of some bits, but not on all; and the Mark we have now differs some from theirs. There is, anyway, no value in ginning up a Q: any argument depending on it is automatically invalid, because we don't have it.
@@sciptick - I do not share your opinion that eliminating Q is more parsimonious, or that Q is in any way "ginned up". The many major disagreements between Luke and Matthew are more elegantly explained by a lost source than by handwaving. Q is not the basis for an argument. It is the answer to a question that neither the Goodacre/Farrer hypothesis OR the Lukan priority crowd can answer to everyone's satisfaction.
@@AnthroJoe Disagreements between Luke and Matthew are trivially accounted for by disagreements between anonymous authors 'Luke' and 'Matthew'. (If 'Luke' had agreed with 'Matthew', he would not write a gospel.) Agreements are even more easily accounted for, by 'Luke' copying Matthew (or Mark, or whatever). We already have four anonymous, competent authors. They could copy or make up anything they needed whenever they liked, and leave out anything they didn't. That _defines_ authorship. Inventing a _fifth_ anonymous author for them to crib from adds a complication with no problem to solve. If authors can't make things up, what did Q's author crib from?
Again, _we don't have_ Q, so anything said about it can only be about a ginned-up Q.
Fanta Q
Your guest at 2.00 uses a word i don't understand and can't spell. As a moderator is it your job to explain this or ar you simply thinking your audience a purely academics?
All of these convolutions go away when you realize the gospels all came from a single author. Paul, of course. He wrote different versions to please different audiences.
That makes the least sense. We have dozens of gospels: making up gospels was evidently a favorite activity of early Christians. Likewise, Acts. The synoptic gospels are clearly in conflict, each trying to supplant the previous one. Matthew, in particular, is actively hostile to many Pauline ideas.
The Pauline letters pre-date the gospels by at least 20 years. Paul did not care about consistency. He was not an ideologue. He was out to make money. There were all sorts of congregations trained to donate money to the temple. With the temple gone, Paul saw a chance to appropriate the behavior to benefit his own pocket. I have to admit “John” was probably not written by Paul but by one of his entourage, after he died. Why “John?” Because Paul changed his name to John after the war and moved to Asia Minor. That is why Marcion had his letters, plus Acts and Luke: Because Paul/John gave them to Marcion’s parents.
@@carolgebert7833 According to 1 Clement, written in the 60s, Paul was already dead before the temple was demolished. Peter too. We know 1 Clement predates the temple demolition because it says rites are still being performed there; and because the demolition of the temple would have been the best conceivable example supporting its argument, but it does not cite that.
@@sciptickand yet Josephus tells us that Saulus of the Herodians was the person sent to meet Nero to ask for troops to quell the zealot revolt. Why him? Because Saulus/Paul used to be one of them. I think after Paul met Nero in Greece, he never went home. Instead, he changed his name to John and appropriated the old congregations he had built for the zealots 30 years earlier. (Before he was expelled for not following Mosaic Law) I.e. Paul faked his own death. Why? Because he was a traitor to the zealot cause, and he was persona non grata.
@@carolgebert7833 Nothing reliable has Paul ever named Saul.
John knows about the fountain but he doesn't know about the portic of Salomon 😂😂😂😂💵😂😂
Marcion’s evangelion is the first gospel
I love Markus Vinzent, but that is not the majority view. It is possibly the first to engage in the synoptic synthesis of Mark and Q, but the text of Marcion's gLord has the same characteristics as Luke, derived from Mark (albeit lacking canonical Luke's embellishments).
@@AnthroJoe
what if gmark is derived from marcion's evangelion? the early church attempt to erase and eradicate marcions teachings and legacy has left us with no clear facts and data on the start of the christian movement in the first century
@@jhake67 What if? Indeed.
Make the case based on evidence. Or don't.
Klopenborg's work speaks for itself. Your proposed gradient of derivation toward Mark (from Marcions's Luke) is much harder to demonstrate on empirical grounds. Make your case.
You have to ask why Marcion was in possession of Luke, Acts and Paul’s letters. I think it was because Paul gave these writings to Marcion’s parents before his death. This suggests Paul wrote all the gospels. He dedicated them to other people but he was the author and he did it to misappropriate funds intended to support the zealots and the (now destroyed) temple.
@@carolgebert7833 Luke is not Pauline enough. It's Eucharistic material is influenced by Paul, but contains elements which do not match Paul's eucharistic formula in 1 Cor. AND the atonement theology of Mark is rejected and revised by Luke. Paul may have inspired Luke, but it is a later source which depended on other material besides Paul.
Mathew and John were Apostles which means messengers. But they were also students to Jesus whom to them was a Rabbi until His resurrection. Mark, a student of Peter and Luke a student of Paul means there maybe variations in writings. The message was always going to go to the Gentiles from Jesus. From the different approaches of Hillel and Shammai, and it was Hillel whom believed the Torah was not just for an elite number of students unlike Shammai, then to Jesus taking it further and going out of Israel to enemies like the Samaritans and then the ministry of Paul to the Gentiles.
If there were such apostles Matthew and John, and even students Mark and Luke, they can have no kind of connection to our gospels, being long dead before those were ever conceived of.
@@sciptick evidence
Josephus has never heard of Jesus, the apostles, Saint Paul and the Christians
False. Josephus discusses the death of James, and explicitly calls him "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ."
I am more and more convinced of interpolation. Girolamo Sonofrio in his "viris
illustribus" speaking of James the Less he writes "brother of the lord nicknamed/called the
Right. Origen's translators replaced the word James brother of Jesus nicknamed the
right, (as it was originally in chapter XX of Jewish antiquities) referring to James himself with
James brother of Jesus who was called the Christ referring to Jesus.
Since the distant past, the Church, in order to prove the existence of its "Savior" as a man, has
intended to support the evangelical truths with historical documentation by inventing the
“Testimonium Flavianum” and also manipulating this authentic episode referring to someone
James, brother of Jesus, the High Priest son of Damnaeus, as can be seen from the writing of
historian Joseph.
The demonstration of the alteration of the original text follows two paths:
The observation that the modification introduced varies from one manuscript to another, always on the same one
point of the sentence, vital for the "theological proof": the word "Christ". In fact, while in the "Testimonium
Flavianum", believed to have been written by the eminent Pharisee Josephus, the Christian scribes
they attested "This was the Christ", vice versa, in the passage of the Jewish historian, reported above,
coming from the ecclesiastical archives, we read "called Christ...".
I therefore reproduce a photocopy of an ancient text credited to Giuseppe himself, translated by
Greek, dating back to five centuries ago, received, needless to say, from the archives of a Bishop,
as reported on the title page:
FLAVII IOSEPHII ANTIQVITATVM IVDAICARVM
For Hier. Frobenium and Nic. Episcopium, Basileae, MDXLVIII (Lib. XX, chap. 8) see photo In it is
referred to, bottom right, as "brother of Jesus Christ named James"... not "called Christ...".
Since these translations, coming from manuscripts "edited" by Episcopi motivated to make them appear true
the doctrine that postulated the advent of the Messiah Jesus, being adulterated in different ways in
that single point of the passage, it shows that that little phrase was not original but added
subsequently, therefore, if "Christ" is eliminated, only one Jesus remains, son of Damnaeus, with a
brother named Giacomo.
And then, as you know, we have the FARSA of a man who is condemned by stoning but a strange case
he is taken and taken to the top of the temple and thrown from a pinnacle (Sic.) and then beaten. A
beautiful tragicomic. Here are my thoughts on the TRUE Giacomo. This James was Jesus' brother
son of Damnaeus, and was considered a good person in fact ..Book XX:201 But people more
fair in the city, considered the narrowest
observants of the Law felt offended by this fact.. Being of priestly caste and perhaps
as a young man, like Josephus Flavius, he was attending the "Course according to the philosophy of the
Essenes" (long hair, abstaining from food and alcoholic beverages, etc.) and in some cases will have
committed a crime together with others punishable by the Mosaic law by stoning. HERE BECAUSE
THIS CHARACTER WAS TAKEN FOR THE CREATION OF THE GOSPELS AND THE AUTHORS DRAWN A LOT
FROM THE WORKS OF GIUSEPPE FLAVIO. A greeting
James the Just excuse the translation
@pipurio looks like you just copy/pasted from some website and didn't even give credit. Pretty dirty and kind of discredits you.
@@asphilosophy2430maybe the laziest possible way to disregard an argument...