Nice video. Keep up the good work. I have a question. What do you make of Luke 1:1-3? Luke seems to be saying that many other people have written up accounts of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection. Could he have run across a copy of Mark and/or Matthew? After “carefully investigating everything” (verse 3), he wants to “write an orderly account”. In other words, he is trying to be a historian by sifting through everything he has in order to compile a cohesive historical account. (If he ran across one of the gnostic gospels, he must have thrown it out.) It seems plausible that Luke had read Mark and/or Matthew. Yes, this is just a hypothesis. But then again, saying Luke never read Mark is also a hypothesis. So, we are stuck between two hypotheses with no definitive proof either way. I realize my question may require an extensive answer which is too involved to answer in a comment. If you wish, you might want to address Luke 1:1-3 in a separate video. If you decide to do so, please reply to this comment so I know when it will be coming out. Best of luck to you!
@normzemke7824 Thanks for the kind words! I can't say for sure that Luke had access to either Mark or Matthew, though I suspect that he very well may have. What I will say that is that because it is largely held by scholars that 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, Ephesians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus and Hebrews are not authentic Pauline epistles, even if we agree that (because they are forgeries), they are disqualified as evidence of Jesus' _historicity,_ since at least some of them apparently written *before* Mark (which is held to the the first of the Gospels written), they at least are of a preexisting _tradition about Jesus,_ and that adds credibility to the Two-Source Hypothesis. After all, consider the following possibilities: 1) Paul writes about Jesus, but doesn't elaborate much on his early life, and only mentions James by name. 2) The author of Mark embellishes Paul's writing and adds Mary to the narrative, but doesn't mention Davidic lineage, Bethlehem, Nazareth, or the census. So far, so good. There is no tension. 3) The author of Matthew (who is copying Mark) links Jesus to prophecy through an unambiguous reference to Bethlehem and Micah 5:1-2. He also includes a genealogy tracing Davidic lineage. Then, for no good reason whatsoever, he makes a cryptic pun on the Hebrew word "netzer" to Isaiah 11:1 that people likely won't understand (and that isn't necessary because he's already made a clearer link anyway). Thus, he creates tension that needn't be there. 4) The author of Luke (who is copying Mark and Matthew) then, for no good reason, proceeds to write a conflicting genealogy for Jesus (who, mind you, is purely fictional). He then goes beyond, for no good reason, to get this character back and forth between Nazareth and Bethlehem (maybe because he didn't understand the alleged "word play" in Matthew). Thus, he creates more tension that needn't be there given that a fictional character can obviously be written anywhere without fabricating a census. Or.. 1) A preexisting tradition about Jesus exists. 2) Mark pretty much leaves well enough alone. 3) Matthew attempts to elaborate on the existing tradition by linking an actual person prophecy through an overt reference to Micah 5, providing a lineage through David, etc. However, because he is constrained by the reality and/or tradition that Jesus is from _Nazareth,_ he includes a vague allusion to a nonexistent prophecy in an attempt to reconcile the two. 4) Luke also attempts to elaborate on the existing tradition by linking an actual person providing a lineage through David, etc. However, because he is constrained by the reality and/or tradition that Jesus is from _Nazareth,_ *he* concocts a nonexistent census in an attempt to reconcile the two. Sure, both are _possible,_ but the second is more *plausible* because the preexisting constraints imposed on the writers provide explanatory power for these variations in the narratives.
The appeal of the Farrer hypothesis lies in its perceived parsimony, as it resolves the Synoptic problem by dispensing with the hypothetical Q source through Markan priority coupled with the suggestion that the author of Matthew used Mark as a source; and Luke used both Mark and Matthew. However, any pretense of being more parsimonious vanishes once appeals to theological motives must be invoked to reconcile variations between the narratives (not to mention that some variations cannot be reconciled even _with_ appeals to motive).
Nice video. Keep up the good work.
I have a question. What do you make of Luke 1:1-3? Luke seems to be saying that many other people have written up accounts of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection. Could he have run across a copy of Mark and/or Matthew?
After “carefully investigating everything” (verse 3), he wants to “write an orderly account”. In other words, he is trying to be a historian by sifting through everything he has in order to compile a cohesive historical account. (If he ran across one of the gnostic gospels, he must have thrown it out.)
It seems plausible that Luke had read Mark and/or Matthew. Yes, this is just a hypothesis. But then again, saying Luke never read Mark is also a hypothesis. So, we are stuck between two hypotheses with no definitive proof either way.
I realize my question may require an extensive answer which is too involved to answer in a comment. If you wish, you might want to address Luke 1:1-3 in a separate video. If you decide to do so, please reply to this comment so I know when it will be coming out.
Best of luck to you!
@normzemke7824
Thanks for the kind words!
I can't say for sure that Luke had access to either Mark or Matthew, though I suspect that he very well may have. What I will say that is that because it is largely held by scholars that 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, Ephesians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus and Hebrews are not authentic Pauline epistles, even if we agree that (because they are forgeries), they are disqualified as evidence of Jesus' _historicity,_ since at least some of them apparently written *before* Mark (which is held to the the first of the Gospels written), they at least are of a preexisting _tradition about Jesus,_ and that adds credibility to the Two-Source Hypothesis.
After all, consider the following possibilities:
1) Paul writes about Jesus, but doesn't elaborate much on his early life, and only mentions James by name.
2) The author of Mark embellishes Paul's writing and adds Mary to the narrative, but doesn't mention Davidic lineage, Bethlehem, Nazareth, or the census. So far, so good. There is no tension.
3) The author of Matthew (who is copying Mark) links Jesus to prophecy through an unambiguous reference to Bethlehem and Micah 5:1-2. He also includes a genealogy tracing Davidic lineage. Then, for no good reason whatsoever, he makes a cryptic pun on the Hebrew word "netzer" to Isaiah 11:1 that people likely won't understand (and that isn't necessary because he's already made a clearer link anyway). Thus, he creates tension that needn't be there.
4) The author of Luke (who is copying Mark and Matthew) then, for no good reason, proceeds to write a conflicting genealogy for Jesus (who, mind you, is purely fictional). He then goes beyond, for no good reason, to get this character back and forth between Nazareth and Bethlehem (maybe because he didn't understand the alleged "word play" in Matthew). Thus, he creates more tension that needn't be there given that a fictional character can obviously be written anywhere without fabricating a census.
Or..
1) A preexisting tradition about Jesus exists.
2) Mark pretty much leaves well enough alone.
3) Matthew attempts to elaborate on the existing tradition by linking an actual person prophecy through an overt reference to Micah 5, providing a lineage through David, etc. However, because he is constrained by the reality and/or tradition that Jesus is from _Nazareth,_ he includes a vague allusion to a nonexistent prophecy in an attempt to reconcile the two.
4) Luke also attempts to elaborate on the existing tradition by linking an actual person providing a lineage through David, etc. However, because he is constrained by the reality and/or tradition that Jesus is from _Nazareth,_ *he* concocts a nonexistent census in an attempt to reconcile the two.
Sure, both are _possible,_ but the second is more *plausible* because the preexisting constraints imposed on the writers provide explanatory power for these variations in the narratives.
The appeal of the Farrer hypothesis lies in its perceived parsimony, as it resolves the Synoptic problem by dispensing with the hypothetical Q source through Markan priority coupled with the suggestion that the author of Matthew used Mark as a source; and Luke used both Mark and Matthew. However, any pretense of being more parsimonious vanishes once appeals to theological motives must be invoked to reconcile variations between the narratives (not to mention that some variations cannot be reconciled even _with_ appeals to motive).