I really love this, thank you Drs 😅 I’m pretty sure by now you guys are PhD holders. Also I’m just a bit disappointed that you guys didn’t touch on the Greek word “Ginometha” because when sticking to just Corinthians, that’s the word N.T wright uses to make for his case, he believes it means to become. That would’ve helped a lot

Ian, you and Robyn Walsh and John MacDanald are so close to the actual origins of all written Christian literature, you are liable to sit on it by mistake. Thre are two euangelion's: the euangelion that Pilate transmitted to Tiberius that is cited by Tertuallian in Book V, Apology and the euangelion after Acts 10 that leds in Mark 1:1 and is the basis for the oral and writtenn traditions of the Gospels, Acts and the 19 citation in the Episltes of Paul, ' Pilate's euangelin consists of the harmonization of Mark 15:1 - 16:8 with the Gospel of Peter. The Talking Cross, which is the ratification of the unilateral covenant between the Jewish God in Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 4:2 and the centurions of the Italian Regiment represented by Cornelius, the Command Sergeant Major of Caesarea and Pilate's Chief of Staff, is the Tidings of Joy Pilate conveys to Tiberius Caesar that compels Tiberius to nominate Jesus for the Roman Pantheon. In addition, there is the harmonization of the 7 seals the Roman soldiers afix to the stone they rolled infront of the tomb with the 7 seals of Revelation being generated in the spiritual realm of Palestine as a ocnsequence of the selection of the anti-Christ and rejection of Jesus that first becomes manifest by the weather phenomena that turned noon into ight as Jesus was lingering on the cross. The connection of the 7 seals of the soldiers and the 7 seals of Revelation is something you will never make under the creative glass ceiling of the critical historic method of Post Modern Historic Deconstruction, but is a bare naked lady dancing for all to see on the stage of the critical literary method of Post Modern Literary Deconstruction of the academo of liberal arts before 1968. The eurangelion of Mark 1:1 after Acts 10 includes the confession of Peter in Acts 10:34 - 43 along with the harmonization of Pilate's euangelion.. Peter's confession becomes the narrative arc of the Synoptic Gospels that is combined with the intelligence archives of the 10th Legion generally understood to be Quelle that is not only accessed by the three Synopitic writers but also by Josephus is the writing of his accounts of the destruction of Jerusulem in the company of the 10th Legion, which occupied the Mount of Olives during the seige and patrolled the territory from there up to Capernaum during the time of Jesus, Both Jesus and Josephus grew up with the 10th Legion and Josephus probably surrendered to them after betraying his command, It is at the Acts 10 briefing that Cornlius conveys the cntent of Pilate's euangelion to Peter, which is the source of the Gospel of Peter. The Mark 1:1 euangelion becomes the existential anchor of the vetting process of Paul by Peter in Acts 15:7 and the template of the 19 citations of the euangelion in the Epistels. The Gospel of Mark was composed by Cornelius in Latin and transmitted to Theophilus in Rome by the time of Claudius' accession in 41 CE. Matthew is a polemic written in reapose to Galations and in support of Judaism by 50 CE. It should not be lost in the scholarship that Rome converted from the Egyptian 8 day work week to a 7 day work week at the same time Rome adopted the numerology of Jesus and hellenism In 50 CE, Luke begins to include a real-time eye witness record of Paul in his working medical journals as they form a partnership for infiltrating Jewish congregations. When Paul is arrested and held by Felix, Luke draws on this journalism to begin an amicus brief in support of Paul's pending defense in Rome, but, after being introduced to Cornelius, begins the research for the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles as an agent of Theophilus, the Biship of the secret Roman Church of the Legions. The 18 books of the Gospels, Acts and Epistles become Theophilus's bibliography for Hebrews, which is the military manifesto of Christianity summarized by the Apostle's Creed. The authority of the centurion in Matthew 8:9 is the necessary connection between Romans 13:1 - 7 and Hebrews 13:17. The Mithra cults whereever the Roman legion is based is the front organization for the Roman Communion of the Talking Cross. The thesis of the Jesus seminar that the Gospel of Mark is in any manner dervative of Pauline Theology is purley the consequece of the characteristic distortions of history by the Post Modern Historic Deconstruction, Whether intentional or circumstantial, the critical historic method is a mechanism of the disinformation of Project 2025 and the Pro-Life Total Depravity doctrine of Christian Nationalism. And, just for the record, Papias was padding his resume.

Great, through video. I've heard it asserted many times that Mark came first, but this is the first good explanation I've heard.

It's amazing to me how many evangelical apologists clearly lie repeatedly and generally act in a dishonest manner. I can't believe it is effective in doing anything but preaching to the choir.

My question is, supposing Luke sourced Matthew, then where did Matthew source his material? If it was a sayings Gospel, what would we call the situation where Luke had Matthew, Mark and this Matthew source to refer to? That would explain the instances in which Luke seems more primitive than Matthew but there is no parallel in Mark.

It is very possible that a document first assumed by a german 150 years ago, has no surviving copies, no mention in any source contemporary with the gospels.

Why does this feel like they're in two separate conversations? Was this just a remix?

"Q" is THE SOURCE WITHIN...THE ETERNAL ONE...💙😇💙

Very nice. The lady's voice hurts my ears badly. There's something about the pitch and modulation that makes it unbearable. I usually lower the volume to preserve my ears but then I can't hear what there are saying, which is a shame because the content is so good. If you are reading this, lady: please speak further from the mic and consider getting voice training advice

Is it just me, or is his audio atrocious?

21:24 -- I don't think this is a good example. Danker's concise lexicon says that it is context specific; BDAG notes that Plato uses it to mean a mighty windstorm. LSJ says that it can be any sort of shaking. In fact, Matthew uses the word _seismos_ a few times. He and the author of Revelation are the primary users of this word, and they both understand it as an Earthquake. Matthew specifically says that the "shaking" happens _on the sea._ But it is also true that some ancients thought that earthquakes were most common _in_ the sea, and Poseidon was linked with earthquakes because of this. (I should say, I am emphasizing _in_ and _on,_ and English is the only European language to really do this, but I am aware that _εν_ can mean either _in_ or _on;_ I am interpreting it as _on_ and asserting that.) I tend to always be biased in favour of a given author's skill, so I would prefer to say it is more likely that Mark read Matthew, thought he worded it weird and fixed it. Or to say that Matthew wanted to play around a bit and changed Mark. And I'll say this, this is subjective, but using reconstructed Palestinian Koine pronunciation, I find Matthew's sounds better than Mark's. Mt 8:24a "[cɛ iˈdu], [s̠iz̠ˈmos̠ ˈmɛ.ɣas̠ ɛˈɟɛ.nɛ.to ɛn t̬e tʰaˈla.s̠e]!" (¶ Behold, [a] massive disturbance happened on the sea!) Mk 4:37a "[cɛ ˈɟi.nɛ.tɛ ˈlɛ.la.ps̠ mɛˈɣa.le (a)ˈnɛ.mu]" (¶ [There] happened [a] massive wind-storm.)

Great content. Love it

This is just fantastic work. I've listened to a lot of lectures about this but I really like how you explained this topic the most.

Good review, cheers. I wish more people were familiar with the work.

I don't think "who would read that and decide not to include it?" is a very good argument for priority. If the author of Mark happened to be skeptical of the most fantastical claims in Matthew, he might have decided to remove them specifically to make the accouht appear more realistic.

I don't think think "who would read that and decide not to include it?" is a very good argument for priority. If the author of Mark happened to be skeptical of the most fantastical claims in Matthew, he might have decided to remove them specifically to make the accouht appear more realistic.

Very informative. Virtually all of this was new to me. Thanks!

2 Corinthians = Paul's 'apologia pro vita sua'

Thanks this is really useful.

Really appreciate this review. I am studying this book for my optional book in my New Testament course.

💜🙏

quote _Mark still believed_ No Mark is a deconverted christian. There is no single passage which shows Mark the believer, but every passage shows the reasons for Mark's deconversion.

So here is the interesting question: who is a den of thieves?

The fallacy is that because all the academics are in agreement doesn't mean it's true especially in a field that is not a hard science. Textual critism is highly subjective thus is subject to group think and especially when publishing in the literature is more difficult if it goes against the prevailing narative in academia.

😂❤this was good

Interesting chart, but I’m sure I’m not the first to note that the “Words of Jesus” & “Narrative Material” percentages are quite similar. I’m not sure exactly what’s meant by ‘miscellaneous sayings’, but that’s the location of the big disparity. The overall percentage is skewed bc the triple tradition has a much higher allocation of narrative material (lowest % in both), while double tradition has a much higher allocation of Words of Jesus (highest % in triple tradition). An obvious question it causes me to ask is why the miscellaneous sayings material is so incredibly high in the double tradition. But just at a glance, I don’t see it as inherently evidence against Q.

One thing that wasn't mentioned is that the Judean Temple Cult and by extension Judaism was a legally recognized religion under Rome. So to disrupt the proceedings of the Temple would have been tantamount to an insurrection. Add to this fact that the Temple precinct itself was immense, about 1600 feet by 900 feet, about 35 acres in area. The place where the animals and birds were sold was under the Stoa, a huge structure measuring 900 feet long at the south end. The Temple itself was midway along and against the western wall. For Jesus to wholly disrupt the Temple services would require a big disturbance with a large group of people like what happened on Capitol Hill, January 6th, 2021. Yet in Mark 15:7 we read of Barsbbas (Jesus Barabbas in some manuscripts of Matthew), a _léstés_ who had committed murder in "the insurrection". Well what insurrection? By Josephus there wasn't one between 6CE and 66CE. Tacitus wrote that under Pilate, Judea was quiet. Philo and Josephus both wrote that Pilate was a tyrant. So forget Jesus Barabbas, It's clear that what Jesus of Nazareth led _was_ the Markan insurrection!

Excellent work, Ian! You've given a concise lecture on why Mark was first and _had to be_ first. Which means Marcion was second or third because scholars of Marcion such as John Bull and Dr. Marcud Vincent are demonstrating that Luke is an expansion of Marcion.

When you talk about the parable on the vineyard tenants, you both mentioned a "different ethnos". Which translation has that word? The transitions I looked at used the word. "Laborers; tenants; husbandmen...etc. I'm not finding one the has the idea of ethnicity. Thanks!

Nah, the "prophecy therefore 70AD" anyone with two braincells would predict the temple being eventually destroyed. And the decay of rome. There's stuff there that makes no sense if the temple was already destroyed, like urging people to pray that it doesn't happen during pessach. (it doesn't) You might as well reverse the argument and say that the writing only survives because it inevitably happens. It's not only mark which is writen before the destruction of the temple, but mathew and luke as well. All that aside, this is a good theory, that it's just a warning to leave temple worship and "self-exile" which jews ultimately do, not only jewish christians. (actually, up to the last day of the temple there were christians still observing the temple, not most, but some.) But I always thought the issue was that coins were pagan idols. Also, the den of robbers were something I always knew because the pharisees and everyone else hated the sanhedrim due to their collaboration with rome. The jews in general saw the sanhedrim as thieves of their own people. Outside of samaritans, everyone hates the sanhedrim, and the only reason why the samaritans don't hate the sanhedrim is because they have another sanhedrim.

Hello! I'm hoping you are still responding to the comments. In this presentation you mentioned another video or podcast where you present the narrative technique seen in the gospel of mark where one story is introduced by mark before he finishes the present one. I can't find the video or the podcast you alluded. Thanks for your excellent work and interesting way to present them!

It's "the jews" but one must understand "the jews" as "us". And sometimes it's negatively about gentiles and it also means "us". Jesus predicts (as would anyone with two braincells at the time) what rome would do to israel, and also what would happen to rome in return. It's about that eschatology. And it's a metaphor.

I do believe in markian supremacy, but you are overstating the case. Specially in mark 6 and 10. Mathew in the end of 13 actually makes jesus vulnerable to unbelief, while mark makes it seems like it's a casual opportunity issue. And that's just one example. It's the difference between "sorry I couldn't stay long, but we had fun" to "I did not stand long because there was too many people". The second one feels less capable and the second one is mathew. For me, it's way easier to explain it all knowing that mathew is a bigger book and seems self-conscious about it.

Mark 11 records that Jesus emphatically said that no sign (from heaven) would be given to first century Israel. In the Jerusalem Bible footnotes, this quotation is alleged to be an abridgment of what Jesus originally said. However, Jesus' Markan prohibition fits nicely with Jesus' statement in Luke 11 where Jesus criticizes the crowd for asking for a sign and says that the only sign that Israel would receive is the sign of his ministry. The J.B. alleges that Jesus' statement in Luke 11 is a conflation of other verses. Something weird is going on here, and it appears to be that the editors of the J.B. are wrappped up in the tradition of Jesus' resurrection as the Sign of Jonah and therefore must falsify contradictory verses in Mark and Luke. An analysis has recently emerged which allows for the harmoney of the statements that Jesus is recorded as having made about a sign from heaven in Mark and his three defintions of the Sign of Jonah in Matthew 12/16 and Luke 11. These three defintions appear to form a trinity, and there is no way that the Gospel writers of Mark, Matthew, and Luke could have constructed this trinity on their own. There only viable hypothesis is that Jesus himself had a hand in the writing of the Gospels. See: "The Enigma of the Sign of Jonah," BSTS Shroud Newsletter, Summer, 2023.

Probably not. In Matthew 12 and 16 the descriptions of the sign of Jonah are very different from that found in Luke 11.

I have a significant problem with saying that 90+% of Mark is copied verbatim in Matthew. Looking at the topic exhaustively, Mark's narrative is significantly longer and more vividly detailed than Matthew's, and there are several pericopes which are simply absent in Matthew---particularly events where Matthew was not present but Peter, James, and John were. For example, the first miracle in the synagogue of Capernaum. Inside the house during the raising up of Jairus' daughter, etc. And others exist in greatly expanded form, such as the healing of the paralytic who was let down through the roof. It's fairly predictable that Mark will leave out the controversy among Jewish sects, the long sayings of Jesus, and anything potentially derogatory about the gentiles or unnecessary or unsuitable for the demographic (genealogy, visit by the Magi from a rival empire to give gifts to the one born "king of the Jews"). This is because it is widely accepted that Mark was written in Rome, and has many Latinisms present within it. This actually conforms to what Papias has to say about the gospel composition. Verbal agreement means very little if you can't present authoritatively "it was Matthew who borrowed from Mark" or "it was Mark who borrowed from Matthew." Had Matthew been written first, Peter could have utilized it as a memory aid and augmented it with his own experiences and testimonies. But it would be redundant to add all the long sayings of Jesus which had already been composed. As for "editorial fatigue," there is really a paucity of examples--and none, in my opinion, that are compelling--for "Matthew was borrowing from Mark." On the other hand, there is an abundance of instances (at least around 15 or so potential cases of editorial fatigue) where it could be said, "Mark was borrowing from Matthew." In other words, this kind of analysis is only insightful when examining both sides of the equation. At about 21:45 Matthew 8:24, σεισμὸς μέγας ἐγένετο ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ, "there was a great tumult at sea," the word σεισμὸς means "a shock, agitation, or commotion" (LSJ)--not "earthquake"! We translate the word contextually as "earthquake" on land contextually. In such a case, you would generally consider that the more difficult reading (as with the beheading of John the Baptist) represents the original, both of which cases favor Matthew. Also, we prefer the shorter reading. In both of these instances, Mark's gospel is longer and with greater detail.

so much BS exegesis - there is no "john-community" that would have been the author of the Gospel of John...

What should I read instead ?

Josh McDowell in Daniel in the critics den misquoted a scholar to say the opposite of what the scholars said

You may have overthought this or whoever you said you were reading

I believe the fig tree is a symbol of the nation of Israel 🇮🇱 close similar but all Israel Temple is center of Israeli life. Luke 21 and Mathew 24 are different

Thanks Ian. So does this refute the idea that the synoptics were written by three independent eye witnesses?

Thank you for making a review of this garbage. I deconverted about 3 years ago and have come to despise and have contempt for apologists. Most of what they do is an embarrassment through, often, lying; and refusing to follow probabilistic course.

Well, both Irenaeus and Eusebius (probably from Irenaeus) both say Revelations was written around the end of Domitian's reign, so 95-ish AD. So, there appears to be broad Apostolic Father (patristic) agreement here and with modern scholarship. Eusebius also doubts that the Apostle John wrote Revelations. He goes as far to say that the Greek is extremely different from the Gospel and the letters that bear John's name. Eusebius also says that the Greek of Revelations is "full of barbarisms," lol! Eusebius does say that probably some other John in Asia wrote Revelations, not the Apostle. He briefly mentioned that a "John the Elder" may have written it, but Eusebius makes no claims as to who the definitive author of Revelations was. I think John the Elder is a good guess. We know from Polycrates that this John wore the high-priestly plate on his forehead. This would mean he was an educated man and would have understood, and been familiar with, the complex imagery of apocalyptic Old Testament texts like Daniel. And we know that the influence of Daniel is pervasive in Revelations. Whoever wrote Revelations had bad and semitic influenced Greek, but his grasp of Old Testament text and imagery was very good. This reminds me of something that Papias saved from John the Elder. According to Papias, John the Elder gave the whole exposition about the expanding fruit branches, the expanding grape clusters, etc. expanding to ten thousand, etc. That imagery (other than coming from Jewish apocrypha) sounds like the imagery used in Revelations. Just MHO. I get the feeling that Revelations was written by a lifelong Hebrew and Aramaic speaker, who was very well versed in the Old Testament, who had mediocre Greek skills, and wrote Revelations with his unfiltered and unrefined hand, without the help of a scribe. Lastly, the "Alpha & Omega" title for Jesus used in Revelations doesn't seem to originate from the author of Revelations. It's in the Sator Square that, when decoded has "Pater Noster" ("Our Father" in Latin) going up and down, left and right, along with the characters for Alpha & Omega in each of the four quadrants. The Sator Square, as you should know, is old / early. It's at least as old as 79 AD since it's preserved twice at Pompeii, so it's probably earlier than that. It's not like the Sator Square was etched into a wall in Pompeii right on 79 AD during the eruption... lol!

"Qualle" is the german word for jellyfish. I think he meant Quelle.

Small nitpick: the whole point of the Western Non-Interpolations is that the shorter reading occurs in Codex Bezae, the Old Latin, the Old Syriac, and scattered other things. All the usual headline witnesses look like the Majority Text in these places. There is an argument to be advanced (which nobody ever has, because of the assumption that Luke wrote Acts) that something very interesting happens with verbs of saying in the same passages - basically the Luke of the Gospel eschews ἔφη, and the distribution of witnesses against its use in the same passages looks eerily similar - basically the Hesychian redactor couldn't help himself and betrayed that he was messing with that part of Luke. But never mind all that serious stuff. You guys are so lucky to have been in North Carolina in our own times - there's an amazing concentration of utter NT legends there.

This is just a bad reading of the situation, and the fact that even Conservative scholars feel like they have to work within this framework speaks more to peer pressure than to legitimate scholarship.

Matthew “deleted” Mark’s naming of the high priest “because” he knew he was wrong? That is badly reading into the Matthew’s motives and actions. Peter (Mark recording) often includes details in his accounts that Matthew and Luke didn’t bother to. Many times that just speaks to his having been there and having those details to offer.

It doesn’t say Jesus made a beeline north to south. It just says he went to those places in that order. Whom did he need to meet? What were the geographical features of the land He had to traverse on foot that might have made a less world-map-direct route a better plan? No questions like this are being asked by modern people who look at maps and drive cars on paved roads. What might have bee the political or safety situations that could have played into His choice of route?

If Mark could assume his audience knew Matthew’s and/or Luke’s work he wouldn’t be responsible to necessarily repeat any particular thing they’d said.