Why are Matthew, Mark, and Luke are so similar to each other and yet have so many differences, lots of them minor but some of them significant?
In my previous posts I’ve given “Nutshell” explanations of each of these Gospels. Before moving on to John – which is remarkably different in many ways from these three, both individually and as group – I want to devote a series of posts to their relationship to one another. How could they be so alike – often word for word the same – without some copying going on? And how do we account for the (sometimes serious) differences?
This has long been known as the “Synoptic Problem.” It is not a problem connected with John because the features that create the problem for Mathew, Mark, and Luke (their extensive similarities often in extensive verbatim agreements) do not apply to John.
I have just reread my explanation of the problem in my textbook The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings 7th ed. (Oxford University Press) and have decided that I simply am not able to explain the problem or its most widely held solution any better than I do there. So a good bit of this thread will be drawn from there, including this post.
When I look at 4 source, I keep wondering why M and L can’t be accounted for by different “selections” of material from Q? Could this explain away at least part of the M or L material?
It’s possible but it usually is thought a bit unlikely. That’s because if Q had a lot of stories, it’s strange that almost none of them were copied by both Matthew and Luke, but only by one of them, whereas tons of sayings were copied by both. Also, if the stories came from Q, it’s odd that sayings connected with the stories in the alleged narrative framework of Q (note almost always the stories about Jesus in ojr sources include sayinsg) were put in different places in Matthew and Luke rather in roughly the same places
The true Messiah has arrived.
The arrival of the true Messiah proves that Jesus was a scammer, and the prophecies in Isaiah 53 and later parts of Daniel were fabricated and added by early Christians.
So a new question arises, where have the original versions of Isaiah and Daniel, which were not been added, gone? Have they all been destroyed?
I always wonder how old the apostles are during the beginning of Jesus‘s mission. Sounds like they’re quite immature and young 16 years old? some of them little older a little bit younger perhaps. Certainly would explain the actions of certain apostles like Peter for example. When these books start to get written, I wonder what they realized since that time in between, I wonder if their actions were far worse than they were claiming at the time of the writing. What role do you think age and immaturity had to do with their actions in the very beginning? How young do you think these boys were?
I wouldn’t say there is any evidence they were teenagers. Peter, for example, is said to be married, and normally that would put him in his ealry 30s.
30? Wow, most people of that time married as soon as after puberty depending on the arrangement. When I was in Afghanistan they were still doing this. Some men were too poor to get married until 40, 50, 70. Unless a brother died but they would still need money, unless the brother owed him money.
Nope,not in Greek, Roman, and Jewish antiquity.. Women married when they could bear children (13 or so?); men usually waited till they were settled.
Dr Ehrman; Have you written or can you recommend books on the early church fathers? Book or books for the beginner or lay person.
Thanks, Randy
YOu might check out my book After the New Testament for openers. It’s an anthology of texts from the writings of early church fathers organized topically, with introductions that discuss both the writer and tthe writing quoted, with bibliography at the end of each topic.
Off topic question: What is your view of Jason Staples’ 2018 paper, “‘Lord LORD: Jesus as YHWH in Matthew and Luke”?
In your 2015 debate with Justin Bass, he surprised you with the claim that for Paul Jesus is YHWH. You responded, “He [Jesus] is definitely not Yahweh for any author of the New Testament.” You emphasized that this claim has been deemed a heresy since the 3rd century.
Now Staples argues that Jesus IS Yahweh for two gospel writers. His paper claims that you had provided feedback for it. What are your thoughts?
I don’t recall what he argues, but I recall I didn’t find it persuasive. 🙂 (He did his PhD with me) The early Christian writers all understood that Jesus was the son of the Old Testament God, and that God was named YHWH.
My question is if Q actually existed and really was that significant, why is there no direct mention or preservation of it in early Christian writings or traditions? 🤔
I suppose for the same reason there is no mention of the “many Gospels” that Luke refers to in 1:1-4, or the hundreds of letters that Paul wrote in additoin to the seven we have, or … or why there is no mention of 99% of the writings produced in the first century, Christian and non-Christian.
NT scholars assume without good evidence that the authors of the four Gospels were honest people who told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Ridiculous. People with an agenda LIE! That is what cumulative human history tells us.
We don’t know who wrote these four books! So, there is no way to know the authors’ motivation. What we do know is that the authors of Matthew and Luke heavily plagiarized “Mark”. And if “Luke” had access to “Matthew”, there is no need for the hypothetical “Q”. The shared material in Luke and Matthew exists because Luke plagiarized Matthew. Luke then added his own tales. John didn’t plagiarize anyone but surely had heard the content of the Synoptics. Christianity has zero undisputed corroboration of the overwhelming majority of the Jesus Story!
I don’t need to prove that Mark invented his Jesus from the little Paul tells us about the historical Jesus. Occam’s Razor tells us that this is probably what happened. I know you don’t buy it, Dr. E, but unless you can prove it false, rational people need look no further. The real Jesus was a minor historical footnote until “Mark” made him a superstar!
We all have an agenda.
I always find this particular topic fascinating. It may be a silly question, Dr Ehrman, but what were Mark’s sources? Mark is generally given as a ‘source’ for Matthew and Luke but he must have had sources of his own, given that he was writing around 40-50 years after Jesus’s death.
Not a silly question at all. But we don’t have any evidence to indicate whether he had any written sources of information. He certainly had oral sources (that is, he had heard tons of stories).
Evidence? Maybe the only stories “Mark” had heard were from Paul. He copied Paul’s Last Supper Story almost word for word. The rest of his Gospel came from his imagination?
Question. You may have addressed this before, so forgive me if you have. But is there any evidence the writers of three synoptic gospels and the Q source actually knew each other or communicated with one another? I don’t mean if they knew of each others writing, but actually met, wrote, or crossed paths during their lifetime.
The answer is no, there is no evidence one way or the other. We actually don’t have any evidence of who they actually were and figuring out where they were writing is just guess work.