THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM AND THE TWO SOURCE HYPOTHESIS

[@terrycissell1314]

Thanks Doc, Great info.

[@askabibleprof7099]

Glad you found it helpful.

[@RebeccaOlson-lk9pb]

This is great, thank you!

[@askabibleprof7099]

Glad that you found it helpful.

[@Westrwjr]

Great summation and resource for laymen like myself. 👍🏼👍🏼

[@askabibleprof7099]

And that is what we are shooting for, good to know you found it beneficial. Thanks for watching.

[@gmac6503]

There was no resource even mentioned.

[@Westrwjr]

@@gmac6503 Seems like you totally missed the point he was making. If you're dissatisfied, first you must address his various points directly and say why they are faulty. This, importantly, does not include finding a new, novel reference demonstrating the historicity of Jesus

[@gmac6503]

@@Westrwjr typical response from an apologist. No, I didn't miss the point he was making. I was dissatisfied and I left a comment and some recommendations on what books to read to study the topic further. And your last comment is totally off the wall and has nothing to do with why I responded and what I responded with. If you don't have anything to say except that just butt out because it's over your head. You admit you're layman and you're gonna remain a layman and if you don't understand what my comment was about, others that want to study more will understand. It's over your head and you openly admit it so now go back into your hole and keep your mouth shut unless you have something to offer or refute what I said.

[@gmac6503]

@@Westrwjr you are so out of it that the more I think about it the more your comment is just plain stupid and ignorant. Quit defending a so-called professor that doesn't even mention the books I recommended

[@lcfdasoares]

thanks for the clarification

[@askabibleprof7099]

Glad you found it helpful. Thanks for taking the time to watch. Blessings.

[@jamessheffield4173]

Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem by John Wenham (Author) Proposing that Matthew, not Mark, was the first Gospel written, John Wenham offers a fresh look at an intractable problem as well as an interesting perspective on the inner workings of the early Christian church.

[@askabibleprof7099]

Glad you took the time to watch the video. While I appreciate and respect Wenham scholarship and perspective, I can't agree with his conclusion. The church's earliest history is that Matthew wrote the first Gospel, but it was written in Aramaic (that is the most natural reading of Eusebius's quotation of Papias). On this issue the church's history is consistent, Matthew wrote the first Gospel. However, I conclude that the first Gospel that was composed in Greek was Mark's Gospel. It was Mark's Gospel that Matthew primarily depended upon to write his own Greek Gospel, as well as his own personal memories of what he heard and saw from the Lord. Thus, in my opinion, our canonical Gospel from Matthew was also composed by the apostle Matthew (i.e., his second Gospel), but this Gospel was composed after Mark's Gospel. Again, thanks for taking the time to watch the video.

[@jamessheffield4173]

@@askabibleprof7099 Thanks for your kind response. Matthew being a publican, i.e., collected taxes for Rome, probably wrote in Greek, but Aramaic copies would have been made soon after. The Aramaic churches still claim their texts are from the original, how many Greek fathers would have had the interest or the time to refute them? I think that is more consistent with the evidence. I do appreciate your scholarship, but I think that Augustine 's hypothesis is correct that Mark is Peter's abridgement of Matthew. Would love to be able to continue a dialogue with you. Blessings.

[@askabibleprof7099]

@@jamessheffield4173 I understand, but to be clear, Mark is not "Peter's abridgement" of Matthew. Mark's sole source for his Gospel is Peter's oral teachings. Now, if Peter was reading from an Aramaic document, then maybe, but not likely. The literary evidence indicates that Matthew polished up and improved Mark's layman's Greek. It is not likely that Mark would mess up on purpose Matthew's better Greek. Agreed, it is a complex subject that can't be adequately discussed through KZbin's messaging. Good to chat with you, blessings.

[@jamessheffield4173]

@@askabibleprof7099 Peter was a fisherman, Matthew a publican. The tradition is that Mark recorded Peter's sermon. We have all been in a sermon when the preacher realizes that he has gone on to long and finishes up fast which fits Mark 16:9 -20. Blessings.

[@gmac6503]

92% of Mark is in Matthew.

[@flamingswordapologetics]

You putting out any more videos?

[@askabibleprof7099]

It is my great desire to do so over the summer. Life has gotten so hectic over the last year with my teaching loads. Right now I am buried with final grading and starting a new course. Are there any particular ideas that you would like covered? Blessings.

[@flamingswordapologetics]

@@askabibleprof7099 Thanks, really open to any ideas. I think the argument for undesigned coincidences is good, we'd like to have you on our Podcast, we do quick podcast, 20-24 minute audio only, after any edits, so whatever you think would be relevant if that interest you. We did some Podcast, then quit for over a year, but trying to get going again, we need more apologetics. If you got a favorite apologetic, considering our time line, that would be a good idea as well, as you could really hammer it.

[@askabibleprof7099]

@@flamingswordapologetics That sounds great. Let me get past my grading. Do you have an email I can contact you at? I would like to know a little bit about your current target audience. Just let me know. You can email me at askabibleprof and then the standard gmail suffix.

[@flamingswordapologetics]

@@askabibleprof7099 I'll make a note and get back to you with an email, thanks!

[@johnpage9667]

Spot on, Monte...great and bluntly honest explanation!! I still vibrate the time worthlessly spent studying this idiot Q speculation in seminary 57 years ago!

[@askabibleprof7099]

Good to hear from you and thanks for watching. Keep the faith!

[@gregtowle8830]

@@askabibleprof7099 I heard the music on someone elses video teachings ,

[@askabibleprof7099]

@@gregtowle8830 Hope you found the video helpful. Right, the music it free music that comes with iMovie on Macs. It's not original, but i liked it. Thanks for watching.

[@gregtowle8830]

@@askabibleprof7099 I hear the music on Brenda Weltner's vidoes as well

[@gregtowle8830]

@@askabibleprof7099 well actually I didnt hear the talking , After the music went offIwent to Brenda Weltner's station . Sorry about that.

[@LuciusClevelandensis]

I'm a R Catholic, and I am with yu in rejecting Q. My only disagreement is that I also reject Markian primacy. I admit I could be wrong, but I think it was Mt first, THEN Mk, then Lk, and lastly Jn. Mark is a readers digest version for a Roman audience IMHO. But anyway, there is no Q ( except on Star Trek).

[@askabibleprof7099]

Thanks for watching, and I regret my slow reply, I'm on vacation. I appreciate your humility about which Gospel was written first. We all should have such an approach.

[@gmac6503]

You don't have a clue man. You don't even bother reading the scholars. Let me know when you buy the books.

[@askabibleprof7099]

I've read plenty of books; in fact, I'm always reading books and I have to read books by scholars from all different points of view. Out of the many books that I have read, not one of them can point to where a manuscript of Q is kept. Can you point to a manuscript of Q? Why trust in something that isn't real? That doesn't sound very well thought out. Doesn't it bother you that scholars can't even agree about its contents. I prefer to make conclusion based upon real historical evidence instead of hypothetical conjectures. It's clear that we aren't going to agree, so why do you keep making derogatory comments. I understand that you may disagree, but it doesn't mean that you have to be demeaning.

[@gmac6503]

@@askabibleprof7099 nobody claims there is a manuscript of Q. How many times are you going to create a strawman argument? Damn! You've obviously never read Mark Goodacre or anybody else on this topic, nor listened to videos where they're discussing it among the differences of scholars' views or where they stand on whether or not there was a Q. Heck, they name it Q for a reason! You can't even find a manuscript of the gospels until decades later, where there are 'parts' of the gospels. So use the same argument against yourself! There's no evidence of who the authors are in the gospels and yet you keep avoiding dealing with this problem. Yet you want to put it on Q but nobody's saying that there's a manuscript of Q they're giving reasons and detailed reasons by the way and they agree that marken priority shows Matthew and Luke copied from Mark but since they're dealing with scholarship and the question of coming up whether Mark had a document that he was copying from is valid. What's so hard about this? Your whole reasons for not having Q have nothing to do with scholarship. It's an apologetic move on your part to just say, and claim that the gospels are infallible. But you don't even know who wrote the gospels. Then you use some stupid argument about Eusebius in another rant, which has nothing to do with what I said. You don't even know the history of it so don't tell me you're reading books on it because you haven't read the books on it because if you did you'd be quoting the books so that we can tell whether or not they're real scholars or apologists, and you would give the source pages. So stop saying that you're reading books on this topic. Nor watching the videos I recommended. You don't put the effort in and you just keep posting nonsense. You don't know about the issues nor the history. I even told you how to get the PDF from Goodacre's first book on the topic because I know you don't want to spend 50 bucks on his later book on Q and you still don't know where he stands on it. For the nth time until you read the books and know what you're talking about what is the point? You have none. Heck, his podcast on this is a nice little bits and pieces so you don't have to spend an hour or two listening to be able to get what the heck is going on with this. You don't even do that! Like I said, you should be embarrassed and you're no Bible professor just like James White is no doctor so stop the nonsense. You can fool some people, but you're not fooling anybody who knows what's going on

[@gmac6503]

@@askabibleprof7099 Goodacre is up in about 3 minutes on this 5+ hour seminar which continues tomorrow. Hurry or you'll miss it. Oh, I forgot you're not interested. Wonder why not! Hmm.

[@gmac6503]

@@askabibleprof7099 you haven't read critical scholars. You have a PhD in apologetics. Get over yourself. Do some hard word and read the scholars! I dare you! And I also hope one day you get some Huevos and actually do it.

[@gmac6503]

@@askabibleprof7099 first of all, I never said I believe in Q I never even gave my opinion on it and Mark Goodacre has a case against it. Had you read his book you know what the problems are with it. Second of all I never said there was a manuscript of it so quit erecting strawman so you can look good in front of your UNknowledgeable followers and stop the I don't think very well and I need to think and it's not thought out. And no it doesn't bother me the scholars can't agree about its contents, just like they can't agree on who wrote the gospels, and when they were written, or if the exodus happened or if there was a real flood or if it was global, and again you keep mentioning scholars, and all you mean is apologists. You need to read scholars and then you'll see real interaction between thinking people. Oh, that would include women, so you may check to see if it's OK to do that. Again you should be embarrassed. And you don't have historical evidence on most things in the Bible. Man, you are lacking in quality reading.