Did Matthew and Luke Use the Biblical Mark? | Dr. John S. Kloppenborg

[@History-Valley]

➡📚amzn.to/3IXD9RP (Excavating Q) ➡📚amzn.to/3Tgs0jK (Q, the Earliest Gospel)

[@cristianfcao]

This was truly great. I don't think I've ever heard the arguments in favor or Mark being first and for Q so precisely and concisely! And I've learned a few other interesting things as well. Thanks!

[@levantinian]

Yes! This is the part Bart Ehrman usually glosses over in talks/interviews. He says there are “complicated reasons” for Marcan Priority but doesn’t get into them much.

[@GeorgeCostanzais10.]

Another great interview with a top notch scholar. Can’t thank you enough, Jacob!

[@seedofwonder]

Currently reading Dr. Kloppenborg's book _The Tenants in the Vineyard_. It's excellent.

[@YNWA-1]

Another great and interesting subject, Thank-you.

[@andrewclemons8619]

I learned alot from this one. The Gentleman is brilliant. I wish I was that smart. Thanks Jacob Berman

[@_.Sparky._]

Such a fascinating discussion. Speaking as a former evangelical who believed in inerrancy it was the study of NT textual criticism that led me out.

[@antonius3745]

This is the first scholar I heard who makes sense of the Q-thesis.

[@BagzAndPresident]

Q is not real

[@antonius3745]

@@BagzAndPresident I know that it is, but there something that provides his thesis some good basis.

[@geraldmeehan8942]

59:58 Thank you Dr Klop 1:00:02 penborg, thank you Jacob. Is it true early Christian scribes made far more errors than Jewish scribes?

[@BagzAndPresident]

Yes it is

[@Sportliveonline]

Brilliant ~~ok how do we know what they wrote down in the first place is true or is it up to your self to decide

[@mikewilliams235]

It's up to all of us. The Good News has been put into your lap, make of it what it will make of you.

[@antonius3745]

@@mikewilliams235 This is really evangelic rubbish.

[@antonius3745]

The Gospels are no historical records but a catechesis for the proselytes who joined Judaism. Mind Christianity as we know or see it, came not earlier into being than the 2nd century. What was before that, what we call the Jesus-movement, the Way, was still a sectarian part of Judaism.

[@mikewilliams235]

The guy asked what we are to do with it, not what you did with it. Although there is no rule as how to reply.

[@antonius3745]

@@mikewilliams235 He also didn't ask for a pious answer. That is the only level you did answer him. This channel is not about evangelization. That is exactly what y did.

[@visionaryventures12]

Throughout the interview, I was weighing his proposal against the idea that there were four writers composing propaganda, but for different audiences. Mark has been characterized to be aimed at a Roman audience. That would explain the author apparently not knowing much about Judaism. Matthew would be proselytizing to the Jews. Luke would be trying to persuade the Greeks.

[@SamKidder-yd2qo]

For me Matthew wrote the Mark gospel for Barnabas.

[@BagzAndPresident]

What?😂

[@MichaelSmith-lm5sl]

The video does indeed suggest that the Gospel of Mark was written first due to its poorer grammar and difficult elements. However, as you rightly pointed out, these characteristics could also be attributed to a different authorial style or a less polished editing process. It's important to remember that the dating and ordering of the Gospels is a complex issue with many variables to consider. The addition of extensive birth and appearance stories about Jesus in Matthew and Luke could indeed suggest that these Gospels had access to additional sources or oral traditions. This is a valid alternative interpretation to the video's suggestion that these Gospels were written later and added to Mark's narrative. The presence of clear errors in Mark that are not present in Matthew and Luke could potentially be due to copyist mistakes or misunderstandings by Mark. This is another plausible explanation that challenges the video's assertion of Mark being an earlier Gospel. The existence of the Q Source is indeed seen as a corollary of Markan priority in the video. However, as you suggested, it's also possible that the Q Source and the Gospel of Mark were written around the same time, or that the Q Source even predates Mark. This is a complex issue that requires further scholarly investigation. The video's suggestion that the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke might have come from another common source could be challenged by the idea that these narratives are the result of theological or narrative developments in the early Christian communities. This is another valid interpretation that adds depth to our understanding of the Gospels.

[@sciptick]

Inventing Q doesn't solve any problems. If 'Matthew' didn't make up his differences from Mark, somebody else would have had to make those up for 'Matthew' to copy from; let's call _that_ guy 'Matthew' instead. If 'Luke' didn't make up his differences from Mark and Matthew, somebody else would have had to make it up for 'Luke' to copy from; let's call _that_ guy 'Luke', instead. One thing we can be confident of is that literally none of it reflects any actual historical events: every last jot and tittle is there to promote doctrine as each one saw it. We have exactly zero early manuscripts, so later editors were free to doctor them however they liked. We have reams of evidence of them doing it clumsily enough to be caught; anyone reasonably skillful got away clean. It is still easy to find people defending the most ham-handed butchery as authentic.

[@jessepelaez874]

The first Error he says is a classic, funny he doesn’t mention mark puts the son as the Fathers name not just some random person, that’s why it’s seems to me to be some sort of device. Since this is a Christian text, making the father and son basically one in the same

[@singingphysics9416]

if Luke is a rewrite of Marcion then we are discussing the wrong thing! We need to compare Marcion, Mark and Matthew

[@willempasterkamp862]

Marcion = Mark = Matthew = Paul , it's all pauline scripture, he himself wrote nothing.

[@andrewclemons8619]

Ok so just starting out he says that Mark is written by a person whos greek isnt as good as Mathews and Lukes gospels. From this the gentlemen deduces that Mark must have been written first. I see no reason to believe someone couldnt have reduced matthew or lukes content and deliberately write it in such a way that seems less articilate to warrant this conclusion. Its basicslly circular reasoning because hes only looking at from 1 perspective. He makes a good point concerning Jesus mother and brothers thinking he had gone crazy is only in Mark and it's a reasonable conclusion to assume that was removed during editing in Matthew and Luke. But it couldve been added to Mark for all we know. That's why theres so many theories, many things are possible but not provable. We may never know the truth till the Good Sheppard gets back to the ol sheep pen

[@jeffreyerwin3665]

In Mark 8 Jesus is recorded as using an oath to forcefully say that no sign would be given to first century Israel. In Luke 11 Jesus said that his ministry was the only sign that would be given to first century Israel. In Matthew 12 Jesus said that the only sign would be his short duration of burial, i.e. less than 72 hours. The conclusion here is that Matthew and Luke did not use Mark when writing about a sign which would validate Jesus' authority. For a discussion about how these disparate passages about a sign may be reconciled see: "The Enigma of the Sign of Jonah," BSTS Shroud Newsletter, Summer 2023, Issue No 97.

[@glarris1]

The problem with Q document theory is that there actually is no Q document. The other problem is Matthew and Luke were not written at the same time. Increasingly scholars are realizing that Luke/ Acts was written much later than was previously believed. That being the case, the author of Luke could have just as easily created his version of the Gospel using Mark and Matthew as his primary sources. He was a superb Greek writer with his own audience and his own creative agency. A better writer than either Mark or Matthew, he was quite capable of crafting his own version of the birth of Christ. It’s not clear to me why Q scholars think the author of Luke needed more than his own imagination and skill to weave a new living Gospel for his own generation of readers. He didn’t need an imaginary Q because he had Matthew and Mark and his own imagination. He wasn’t writing history; he was telling a powerful, inspirational story that spoke to a new generation of readers promoting his belief that Romans and early Christians alike that they were going to find a way forward together. As we know, his version of the synoptic story - written far later than either Mark or Matthew, inspired by the author’s desire to compete with Greek and Roman literature - would prove to be the most prophetic gospel.

[@jeffreyerwin3665]

Luke 11's description of the Sign of Jonah is different from that found in Matthew 12. The conclusion is that either the Gospel writers made some spurious editing of "Q" or that a solution that reconciles these differences was hidden for almost 2000 years. In the New Jerusalem Bible, the editors speculated that Mark omitted the phrase, "sign of Jonah," because he was writing for a gentile audience who would not have understood the "sign of Jonah" reference. Then these same editors speculated that Luke's definition of the Sign of Jonah is nothing more that an "artificial association of originally distinct sayings." The idea that the Gospel verses of Mark 8:12 and Luke 11:30 are grossly inaccurate is, in my view, a travesty. A solution that allows the verses of Mark 8, Luke 11, and Matthew 12 to stand in harmony has been enabled by 20th century archaeology. See: "The Enigma of the Sign of Jonah," BSTS Shroud Newsletter, Summer 2023, Issue No. 97.

[@Jd-808]

This is just a ton of statements without any supporting arguments.

[@jeffreyerwin3665]

@@Jd-808 The idea is that Q accounts for the disparate definitions of the Sign of Jonah by the hypothesis that these definitions were all derived from a single source. Therefore, the differences between Luke 11, Matthew 12, and Mark 8 can legitimately be ignored. This "Q" hypothesis is falsified by the discovery that the supposedly disparate definitions of the Sign of Jonah are, in fact, harmonious.

[@BagzAndPresident]

@@jeffreyerwin3665Mark’s author also wrote about prophets whom the audience wouldn’t know 🤷

[@BagzAndPresident]

@@jeffreyerwin3665the differences cant be ignored. If you plan on calling it “the word of God” these 3 differences prove it isnt

[@jessenone3708]

Matthew and luke are god breathed words from God. god didn't consult with Mark, god breathed the words in Mark. this question above is idiotic.