Why Should We Think Mark Was the First Gospel?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 фев 2025
- Visit www.bartehrman... to shop from Bart Ehrman’s online courses and get a special discount by using code: MJPODCAST on all courses.
Knowing when something was written helps to better understand answers to other questions - like why it was written, and how it relates to other texts from that time. Unfortunately, ancient authors rarely wrote the date at the top of the page when they started writing, which makes working out when something was written a somewhat challenging process. Today, Dr. Bart Ehrman is going to guide us through how biblical scholars tackle this challenging process, and look at why it is that the Gospel of Mark is understood to be the first gospel.
The two major reasons for watching these pods
1. The glasses
2. History of Christianity
I find the glasses extremely distracting actually. I normally just listen, screen off. @@stourleykracklite7663
His or hers?
@steve10brink hers lol
My comment about finding her glasses distracting was deleted 😂 sensitive moderator s
That’s in order of importance.
The biggest clue to me that Mark is the earliest gospel is the conversation between Jesus and Pilate.
The later the gospel, the more complex and lengthy the conversation becomes.
In Mark, Jesus was mostly silent before Pilate. He says almost nothing.
By the time we get to John, the two discuss philosophy and the nature of truth.
How about John probably being the first and the other gospels editing it and reducing the conversation till it gets to Mark which portrays Jesus as being silent? I wonder if scholars have thought of it that way.
Why does simpler mean earlier?
Dr. Paul Anderson makes an excellent case that John was the first Gospel. @@kosisokingonyekweli4037
@@kosisokingonyekweli4037 Because Pilate evolves through the gospels from being uncaring and indifferent to Jesus, to believing Jesus to be innocent and washing his hands of the crucifixion. It becomes Pro-Roman over time, as the faith spread among Roman gentiles and sought the favor of Roman authorities.
@@kosisokingonyekweli4037 It's easy to see why people would embellish things. It's hard to understand why they would do the opposite.
from Ethiopia , bart you are so helpful to me. thanks so much.
Here also from Ethiopia, I love his amazing content on his blog and on RUclips. I've been following his work on social media for years and I've learned so much (especially the lecture video series about The Historical Jesus at Chapel hill). He is one of a kind biblical scholar.
And much appreciation to the amazing host, Megan.
I stumbled upon this podcast about 8 months ago and absolutely enjoy it. Thank you both for this enlightening information.
PS. My wife and I always look forward to seeing what Megan’s glasses and hair color will be. Always wonderful !
Would really like an episode on Marcion's "edits" of Luke and the possibilities of it actually being an earlier edition and that the manuscripts the proto orthodox church farhers had was actually edited to have a more Pauline philosophy
Markus Vinzent has some interesting yotube videos about it
Carbon dating works, because the only source for C14 is the atmosphere. C14 gets generated by cosmic rays hitting Nitrogen atoms (N14) and changing one proton into a neutron, turning the 7-protons-7-neutrons Nitrogen atom into a 6-protons-8-neutrons Carbon atom. To contain C14, a substance has to be generated from atmospheric Carbon a.k.a. carbon dioxide, and only plants and some bacteria can do that by photosynthesis. Because C14 decays with a half-life of 5760 years, organic matter grown in plants or bacteria 5760 years ago contains only half as much C14 than green plants today, compared to their total Carbon content, because the two other Carbon isotopes C12 (by far the most abundant) and C13 don't decay.
The problem with dating artifacts with C14 is that it gives the time that plant was doing photosynthesis, not the time the artifact was made. Wood for instance can be many centuries old before turned into beams or furniture, because a tree only grows at the outside. In its core, a tree is basically dead. You can tell from C14, when the tree ring has grown, but not, when the tree was cut down. You just know that this date was later than the youngest tree ring you find. Same with parchment. You can tell when the grass was growing the goat ate to grow new skin cells, but not, when the goat was slaughtered and skinned, and not, when the skin was turned into parchment and then being written on. That's why ink is much more important for dating manuscripts than the material of the pages.
Topic begins at 6:21
Please, make one episode about Holly Spirit in Old and New Testament, and evolution of percepction.
YES! When Bart talks about the trinity is allways like "so that's how Jesus became equal to God... and btw the Holy Spirity is also there"
this would be amazing
Me too!
Great idea. I'm genuinely clueless about the origins. Holy spirit...where did that come from?!!
Perception is not the reality
It would be great to have an episode discussing what we know about 1st century Pharisees from history.
Around 28:55 Dr Ehrman says that that Matthew and Luke didn’t use each other but from what I’ve been looking into recently I’m not entirely sure that’s true. I think Matthew didn’t use Luke, but only because Matthew came first. I think there’s a decent chance that Luke knew of Matthew and even that Luke was using later sources in the 100s/110s - Dr Mark Goodacre has done some great work on this. No one knows for sure but I personally find that Idea quite plausible, maybe even more so than the Q or even Q+ hypotheses:) Of course you both can’t tackle everything in these podcasts or they’d never end but i do think its worth mentioning (assuming you don’t go onto mentioning it in 5 minutes time!)
Thanks both for all your great work in bringing this knowledge to the masses:)
And that’s exactly what you do! Hahaha
My problem with that is the virgin birth story. Not only is Luke’s birth story not only completely different from Matthew’s, but there’s evidence to suggest it was a later edition. This leads to two problems: Either, Luke changed the story from Matthew, or Luke didn’t include the story and it was added later. Why tf would you do either thing?
@@stantorren4400 I think those are very fair questions - off the top of my head, i can say that both Matthew and Luke wanted to do their own things. That seems evident on all versions of Q or not-Q, otherwise Matthew would have just copied Mark and then Luke would have copied Mark or Matthew (or versions of them as Dr. Ehrman eludes to in this pod).
If Matthew has a narrative and OG Luke doesn't, maybe Luke felt it didn't make sense to include it, as it seems Matthew only does it for theological purposes to fulfil prophecy, as as much prophecy as possible, even when it might not be necessary (2 donkeys). Perhaps Luke felt the narrative was a bit of a stretch and decided to go with Mark's opening. Perhaps Luke initially had access to only Mark and Q and later on Matthew, perhaps Luke had a version of Matthew without the birth narrative... so many possible explanations just off the top of my head hahaha
I want to read Goodacre's book on this properly and other scholarly works on it too but my early feelings lean towards Qless. Bart's objections didn't seem to be ones that would require an outlandish explanation IMO. Though, if he is right about deskless scribes, that may change some things - i'd have to look into that.
Its such a mad topic because we may never know, but if someone does find a Q document then WOW that would be awesome
Bart, incredible!!
Proud to have you at UNC. What a convoluted mess the “word of God is?” I believe that if one doesn’t transcend literalism, they are relegated to a quagmire of contradiction. Hahaha . Thanks for living and contributing to our area!
Mark was written to a Roman audience. Both Matthew (Jewish audience) and Luke (Greek audience) used Mark as a source. John (general audience) was obviously written last
In that case why wouldn't Matthew be first as Jesus preached to jews.
@@RunesandReapersIn that instance, why isn't there any Gospel written in Hebrew? Because the writings were definitely written decades after Jesus's death mentioning events that occurred after him.
@@baonemogomotsi7138 There was a gospel written in Hebrew, supposedly by Matthew. but it hasn't survived except in quotations from church fathers.
Because the disciples - incidentally the apostles - thought Jesus was gonna come back in a few weeks -- months at the most. Then that turned into years and years became decades. They grew old and figured "He's got coming back as soon as we thought, we better write this stuff down!"
This is the received tradition, but there are genuine questions as to it’s accuracy
Barth, please talk about predestination both salvific and predestination for more specific things like wife, job and such things. It is a very interesting point to ponder even from theodicy, I think Molinism presents an interesting and balanced but radical perspective on this issue.
Thank you Bart!! & Lovely lady Megan
Majority of Christians don't even know that they are relying on 4th century Greek manuscripts which were written by unknown authors. The authors of the gospels were not the ones who were walking with Jesus according to Christian scholarship, who admit all authors of the gospels are anonymous. People were just writing about Jesus what they heard about Jesus. The authors of the gospels never claimed that they were witnesses. They never claim who they are. And they never claim any divine inspiration.
Dude, stfu and get your spam ass comments out of here
The author of The Gospel of John claims "these things written are true" and the author of Luke claims to have talked to eyewitnesses. But what many scholars ignore is that Jesus didn't speak Greek; he spoke Palestinian Aramaic, which is a dead language. So, given that fact, much is lost in translating what Jesus meant when you translate from Aramaic to Greek.
@@Really-z3s John 21:24 claims that what the witness wrote is true. He doesn’t claim to be that witness.
Luke doesn’t claim to have talked to eyewitnesses. He claims his information was “handed down” from eyewitnesses.
Thank You Dr Erhman! Thank You!!!!
Great episode
Greate one, thanks.
Bart, please do a podcast and Christian Universalism and when it first appears.
Is it possible that there were two revisions of one gospel? Like one author with three drafts?
some researchers say there are at least 3 distinct editions of John, each with its specific terminology and views...united into one gospel of John...
You know, this show inspires me to become a bible scholar;
Write six best selling books;
And then make a podcast called: Falsifieng Scripture with Arie Brons,
the other show where a six times best selling author and world renound Bible scholar shares his oppinions.
Who is the world “renound” Bible scholar?
Do any of the non-canonical gospels use Matthew, Mark, Luke or John as sources?
Great conversation, except for all the aggressive shilling for subscriptions. It's really obnoxious.
What if matthew and juke just made stuff up which more or less fit into the narrative.
As in creative writing.
That argument has been made, because the Gospel of John has a different Jesus and tells different accounts of Jesus teachings and activities. But, Dr. Paul Anderson makes excellent arguments as to why the Gospel of John was not only the first Gospel written, but the most accurate historically.
@@Really-z3s Not having read Dr. Anderson's work, I'm not sure what counts as an excellent argument in favor of the John-first thesis, but as a student of oral culture, I can't help noting that John sets forth by far the most abstract concept of Jesus in the four gospels. Unlike the other gospels, John's Jesus has existed throughout time; his historical manifestation is an embodiment of something that transcends time and space, "the Word." That's about as abstract as it gets. And studies of oral culture--assuming the stories of Jesus were orally transmitted for a while before and while they were being written down--demonstrate a pretty consistent pattern of increasing abstraction over time. It makes sense: as stories are told and retold by different people in different contexts for different purposes, the concrete elements in the story get infused with a lot of different meanings; as the person of Jesus, for example, is verbalized, it begins as a fairly straightforward attempt to represent a real character first and foremost, but gradually it accrues significances and becomes more abstract. And of course the process of rendering the story in writing is famously associated with becoming yet more abstract. All of which is a long-winded way of saying that the John-first thesis seems very unlikely to me. That's not to say that the other gospels present a Jesus totally unencrusted with abstraction: each has an argument to present about Jesus's meaning, how he became God, etc. But John's version is by far the most abstract.
@@parsonj39You make good points. John's gospel has Jesus more "devine" and super-natural while the Synoptics have him more "earthly". Jacob Berman interviews Dr. Paul Anderson a couple times, and even Jacob was impressed. It's worth watching.
@@parsonj39 But suppose that the original concept was the rather abstract Christ that Paul preaches, and then this was made more concrete to appeal to simpler minds.
You mentioned occasional bumpy language in Mark that the authors of Matthew and Luke improve on. Is it likely that Mark's author was a non-Greek writing in Greek? If so, from where?
Like Dr. Ehrman pointed out, Matthew and Luke copied from the Gospel of Mark, sometimes word for word, but they also changed things-adding, omitting, and tweaking details. The Gospel of Mark, being the first, is missing key parts and leaves out important details. With all these edits and shifts over time, how do we even get back to the original message? And why was the Holy Spirit-whose job it is to keep it straight-asleep at the wheel?
What Jesus do you prefer? The Jesus of Matthew, Mark or Luke? Or, the Jesus of John? They are all different and I prefer the Jesus portrayed in John. He tells his critics that they will not get eternal life " by diletgently studying the scriptures" but by "coming to Jesus". The Bible is written by man and has been corrupted. All a person has to do is go to him in prayer, and he will take it from there.
@@Really-z3s I prefer the real Jesus, the apocalyptic Jewish prophet, rooted in Jewish tradition, emphasizing the Law, and addressing a Jewish audience. You know, the one who says, ‘I can do nothing by myself,’ and ‘My Father and your Father, My God and your God,’ clearly stating we have the same God as him. John 17:3-no ambiguity, clear as daylight who the only true God is, and the mission is to know Him. Gentiles are stuck on the Messiah middleman when the goal is the Father: ‘This is how you should pray, Our Father who is in heaven, hallowed be THY name, not Jesus name!’ He was just the way, not the destination. He told you he was only sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel-clear as daylight, yet after some diction gymnastics, here we are. He commanded the to follow the law and don’t remove a jot or a tittle till the earth and heavens stand; a jot is very small, He warned that one will be called the least in the kingdom for dropping just a jot.-most threw the whole thing out. For those that drop just a jot he warned he will say to them on that day, ‘Get away from me, you worker of lawlessness; I never knew you.’ Do you like this Jesus?
Good question. I do like the Jesus of Matthew and Luke; especially Luke because Jesus treats women with so much respect. They are his friends and that really melts my heart. I love his parables in Matthew and the Sermon on the Mount. He curses Jerusalem at Matthew 23:37-39 and predicts Jerusalem's destruction in all three Synoptic Gospels, but does not predict Jerusalem's destruction in the Gospel of John. Yes, you are right that he came to fullfill the law; not do away with it. Do you believe we are still under the law?@moafro6524
I Will join now
Is earliest mentioning of his death is in 85 and I could get by who but he died between 71 and 85
Is bart doing online courses? How do I join them?
More importantly, why doesn't Bart change his glass too? Not sure what any of this glasses thing has to do with the subject of the video. John in Ohio
What if Q was the first draft of Mark? That would make our version of Mark a compendium, as Augustine believed it was, though a compendium of itself (so to speak), not of Matthew.
Bart says Mark knew about the destruction of the temple in AD70. To me that passage feels stylistically totally out of place and looks like a later insert. Thus Mark was first written before AD70
Which New Testament writing has the invasion of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD?
Jesus prophecied about Jerusalem's destruction in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke). Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D., and atheist scholars claim Mark wrote his gospel in 70 A.D. In fact, atheist scholars claim the Synoptic Gospels were written after 70 A.D. ( after Jerusalem's destruction) because if the Synoptic Gospels were written before 70 AD it would mean Jesus was a prophet who could see into the future and atheists don't believe that.
@@Really-z3sYou’re arguing theologically
@@stantorren4400Outside of the Synoptic Gospels no other books in the New Testament talks about Jerusalem's destruction. You do believe Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD, don't you?
If Matthew copied his own conversion story from mark then it's silly to think that he wrote Matthew.
Not necessarily. Remember, the point of the gospel story is to talk about Jesus. And there was a tradition of not bringing attention to the gospel.
Saying that, I don't know of any good reason why one would think that the disciple Matthew actually wrote the first gospel. Especially when there was an entirely different gospel that was also attributed to Matthew (the "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew").
Concerning Matthew and Mark: Maybe both authors relied on oral sources for the material they have in common? Bart's experiment in his classroom leaves out that possibility. After Bart does the various things to be remembered, someone needs to get up in front of the class and orally describe what he did. Then when the descriptions are written down, much more likely they will have that oral description in common. And if the writers were not eyewitnesses to Bart's actions, they would have only the oral description to go by. We would also expect small differences between the second hand written descriptions, because they each remember the oral description somewhat differently.
That'd be a great idea. Were Bart's students have to describe the class activities and lessons to some people/lecturers from the same uni but different faculties then they briefly write what they heard from the students, ending with a comparison of the accounts.
Wow, aftter the introduction, an entire 5 minute advertisement. Commercial television and radio don't subject us to such. Really comes across as the opposite of academic. Which is a pity, because when you're not selling your products, this becomes a great show.
What is the argument that the Gospel of Thomas was first?
Very interesting, but I'm always confused abt. WHY THAT MATTERS? We are our own worse enemy when we try to split hairs over who wrote what, when....lol
for one thing, if Jesus was not claiming to be God "originally", then perhaps that point should matter. The point is that the story has very likely been stretched and been added onto. I figure that perhaps it happened that way as the early church fathers might have desired to have a way for the Christian faith to be delegated position as being above status that other faiths would be delegated to be at
It matters if you care about understanding how early Christians’ ideas evolved and changed over time
Love from Pakistan 🇵🇰
The Synoptic problem is simply that John was a savant. It's literally that simple...
❤
Could Matthew have been first and then mark made a condensed version and then Luke had access to mark but not Matthew?
Wouldn’t that explain the same relationship between the three?
"Matthew and Luke almost never agree against Mark"
That's just factually not true. They agree against Mark HUNDREDS of times across almost every pericope
Megan, you look fetching. Were you heading to a party after filming?
No scholar here but… From my investigations the oldest existing fragments of the NT date back to the 2nd century. Without adding word salad I am not sure how anyone really knows which writings came first, how accurate they are how old any original writings might have been? Try proving the Jesus story to any honest court of law and see how far you get.
Luckily it's not a legal issue, but a historical one. I'm not sure why people bring in "the court" as if it's some kind of deciding factor in a historical investigation.
We know that Mark was first because he copied his spelling from Josephus and alternates quoting from Mathew and Luke.
Josephus wrote in the late 90's.
@@Really-z3s Yes. The presence of Josephan material in Mark suggests that Mark was written in the second century.
Why doesn't Mark 9 get more attention!?
Here we have Jesus making promises he never keeps and no one says anything about it. 😐
So, it comes down to what Jesus meant by "the kingdom of God has come with power." There are conservative Christians who argue that Jesus is referencing the events of Pentecost. They then will talk about the kingdom of God as "already, but not yet" coming, which is a key interpretive lens for most of the "last days" texts. Naturally, if you start with the presumption that the Bible is inerrant, then you find ways to interpret claims so that promises made are kept.
Naturally, this is a different interpretation than what I understand more liberal Christians or historians typically think - that Jesus was part of the apocalyptic tradition and believed that the end of the world would happen within the lifetime of those around him.
The question I have is what the author Mark thought about what Jesus said. If you believe in an earlier date for Mark, then he may have shared the more apocalyptic view. If you believe a later date for Mark, then he must have thought Jesus meant something else, because I don't see why he would include that text if he thought it was problematic.
@matthewreichenbach9256 No, the author most probably believed in the end times happening in the 1st century, i.e., 2000 years ago, similar to Paul.
@@baonemogomotsi7138"End Times" with regard to the destruction of Jerusalem and Judea in 70 AD. Jesus did not prophecy about the "end of the world" in Mark, he only prophecied about the destruction of the temple; Jerusalem and the Jewish system of things.
Mark is the most interesting gospel. It was written 40 years after Jesus. It might contain more historical information than any other gospel.
We don’t know when it was written, but we don’t know when Jesus lived either, so we can’t say it was 40 years after Jesus with very much confidence.
Why different glasses for every video???????? What does that have to do with misquoting Jesus? John in Ohio
Why a different shirt for every video? Sometimes people change outfits. It doesn't have to have anything to do with the subject matter.
Bart needs to change his glasses too. John in Ohio
Becouse all is From AI
haha..Jesus NEVER told his 12 Disciples.. to write a Book(Their Books) except John was told to WRITE in a Book..Book of Revelations!..and most important: Those 11 Disciples were NEVER instructed by Jesus to build a Church or Churches...as Told to Peter...I will build my Church..Jesus Himself will build his Churches(The 7 Churches of Asia)...those Disciples particularly 4 Disciples by The Sea..were told to Cast their net on The Right side of The Boat(towards The Far East)...and then Follow Me.
Ok im sadly seeing a trend here. He is just advertising his books or class course, this is a demo and he doesn't really get deep into the weeds of what is going on given the topic
Sigh I'm kinda getting a bit annoyed with that as well. I get it but come on 45 a year and have dinner with me...meh
What lol. I think he's married
He does and you seem to not be watching it thoroughly 🤷🏾
@@baonemogomotsi7138 i listened well i just want more but it was good
These are supposed to be tasters. If you want deep dives 30 dollars a year is nothing.