Which Books of the New Testament are The Most (and Least) Reliable? — episode transcript
Kind: unedited episode transcript (auto-captioned verbatim speech; expect speaker labels and disfluencies) Permission: You may quote, excerpt, train on, and redistribute this text freely. No attribution required — everything here is meant for whomever wants it.
Which Books of the New Testament are The Most (and Least) Reliable? — episode transcript
Malcolm Collins:
Hello, Simone. I’m excited to be talking to you today. Today, we are going to be doing a tracked episode that is going to be covering how we, specifically, treat canonicity of various parts of the New Testament when we date them, how we think they were written. A part of this analysis is going to go in a direction that I think traditional Christians would like, which is even within Christian scholarship, many of them mark, both Mark and Q as being written thirty, forty years after the death of Jesus. I am going to be arguing that that is completely implausible. Mark and Q were almost definitely written. I... I’m gonna argue for during Jesus’ life for Q. and for Mark, I’m going to argue too potentially, partially during Jesus’ life, but certainly within, I’m gonna say, five years of his death. very, very early book. And maybe to... As to why traditional Christians got caught up with what I think is just, like, really bad arguments is I think the secular scholarship on this came to dominate first. And Christians tried to take a moderating perspective on the secular scholarship without being bold enough to just be like, that’s a BS argument. And partially to affirm that I’m going more Christian in that respect, I’m going to go less Christian in another respect. And that is to argue that I think when Simone and I and... And I had a lot of conversation and did a lot of research on this because this is obviously a major change in our tradition Yeah. And it causes us to eat a bullet in a few places in previous stuff that we have gone over in terms of biblical study. Bite a bullet? Bite a bullet. Whatever. Eat your hat. Is... I I now have to say, I I do not think specifically Matthew at all can be trusted as a reliable source. And I am going to say that in terms of, like, what we consider the core of our New Testament canon would be just Mark and Q. And the other stories do not appear to add additional information that... Where where... Or where they add additional information, it’s heavily questionable. and we’ll go into why I think that. Now note, this doesn’t, like... This isn’t like a test of faith or a test of anything, like that in that I believe, like I think other Christians do, that these were just guys writing about someone’s life. Right? And as early as you go with Matthew and Luke, you’re not really gonna get under fifty years after, gee, this is death. With that being the case, fifty years post death, a guy who was presumably working miracles and had become an important religious teacher, his real human followers writing about him, will they change things to match prophecy? Will they embellish things? Yeah. I mean, of course. Like, that’s that’s not a... That’s not like a I’m doubting the bible thing. That’s just me being like, I believe that the bible is what it says it is, which is books put together by human beings trying to piece together somebody’s life in ancient history when recording technology wasn’t as good. Mhmm. And
Simone Collins:
Well... And also trying to win over new converts.
Malcolm Collins:
Yes. So And and and and Luke specifically, like, says... His his whole thing even starts with, like... So I went through all of the documents I could find, and this is, like, the best possible narrative I can piece together from the pieces of evidence I can find. And this is where... Well, I guess I’ll go into this a little bit. This is where, the the key books we’re gonna be looking at in this, and we may look at other books in a future thing. Like, with James, I don’t know. I put it at, like, plausible canonicity. With John, I put it as low canonicity, but, not as bad as something like Matthew. But I think that Matthew, Luke, and Mark are very good sort of contrasting books because they often go over the same stories. And what you will note in the three takes here... By the way, if you’re wondering why we’re doing a track episode as a weekend episode, there are a couple reasons. One is it’s not very good for us in the algo, but two is this is a a track that is critical of mainstream Christian interpretations and could turn people away from their faith. And I don’t see a reason to be broadcasting that to the general public. If somebody’s already a techno puritan or interested in our religious ideas and wants to dive deeper into this stuff, fine. however, why would I broadcast to the general public an attack on traditional Christian interpretations? That that that just goes against what we as Technopuritans would otherwise stand for. Right? And note here, again, in terms of my reading of these various books, this is not necessarily canon to the Technopuritan tradition. This is our interpretation, but I believe the way that Technopuritans are called to engage with these sort of books, which is to say, these are books written by real people, who were really there, really within these regions, really close to an actual messiah’s lifetime. Right? So you’ve got to expect embellishment, mistakes, stuff like that. That is not, the books aren’t, like, perfectly protected to make no mistakes. And I would argue further that I think where the books did make mistakes or changes or embellishments, that those were made potentially because they were needed for Christianity to grow in the way that it ended up growing. So that... That’s that’s also okay. But when I go to read the three core books that we’ll be focused on here, which is Mark, Luke, and Matthew, you go in, and Luke comes across as doing exactly what he tells you he’s doing. As somebody long after these events with a copy of Mark in front of him, going through and saying, okay. We’ve got this here. We’ve got this here. We’ve got this here. What’s likely true and what’s likely not true? then you go to Matthew, and Matthew comes off as something entirely different. And I am a little surprised, honestly, that, like, so many generations of Christians were able to read these three book stories next to each other and still take Matthew seriously. Because Matthew, what he will consistently do is massively embellish. Like, Jesus will do a small miracle or Jesus will be interacting with someone, and it’ll be like a normal interaction or miracle in the other two accounts. And then Matthew is like... And then, like, lightning shot from his
Simone Collins:
hands and, like, a bunch of pigeons
Malcolm Collins:
flew out of him. And then there were... Story has one demon... Like, one person with a troubled soul. Masson will say, and then it was two giant demons.
Simone Collins:
You know? Well, but also, like, literally... And I’m showing now this is gospel parallels on bibleresearcher.com. It gives you just a table where you can just very visually see what happens across gospels. And I get really suspicious when one gets super, super active and other ones just don’t include it. And that’s that’s where you can kind of see how some stuff starts to look pretty suspicious. Well, where it
Malcolm Collins:
gets really is presumably Mark and Luke are believers. If all of these miracles were that much more impressive or Jesus said all this additional very important stuff, why didn’t they record it? One one of the the really shocking ones here that we’ll go over is when Jesus gives... It’s like, I’m giving you the... To Peter, the power to bind in heaven, you know, what... Whatever you say on earth, or it will have been bound in heaven whatever you say on earth. Right? Like, the church with the Catholic church takes to their founding thing. And yet, Mark, who, by traditional standards, was written by Peter’s very own translator doesn’t include that. Why would Peter, if Jesus had said this to him, not have mentioned it in his teachings? no. No. Here, I don’t think Mark was Peter’s translator. I, I’ll go over hypotheses on who Mark might have been and who Q might have been. I don’t think Q is a person. Yeah. I think Q was more like a... I agree. I think Q is more like an advertisement.
Simone Collins:
Q is a collection of sayings of Jesus’ sayings, and that... It’s like chicken soup for the soul. Who is the author of chicken soup for soul? There is no author of chicken... I mean, there are people who compiled all the stupid stories, but q... I think... I see q as being like that. It’s accumulation of his sayings.
Malcolm Collins:
I’ll make I’ll make a note here. Q actually does have one, like, story in it. It’s like a a story story, but most people market as not actually being part of the original Q collection in a later edition. And I agree. It doesn’t really sound like the original Q tradition.
Simone Collins:
Can we briefly go into why Q is interesting?
Malcolm Collins:
Yeah. I’ll go into why q exist... Somebody in the last video was like, people don’t believe q anymore, and I was like, that’s one not true. I’d like double check.
Simone Collins:
Like Yeah. It... Explain why q is is very likely to to be a separate source that has been lost. Okay. So I want I can’t
Malcolm Collins:
go into how bad it is if q doesn’t exist. Okay? Okay. Because if q doesn’t exist, it is terrible for traditional Christianity. If q doesn’t exist, it means in the the most common alternative reading if q doesn’t exist is that Luke had both Matthew and Mark in front of him. If Luke had both Matthew and Mark in front of him, that means that he repeatedly read stuff in Mark, these embellishments, and was like, mm-mm. This guy’s foolish. Like, that... It means that Luke thought Matthew was a pathological liar, basically. Because in almost every instance where Mark and Matthew disagree, Luke goes with the more toned down Mark or or not almost every instance, in every instance. And so that, like... Except for, like, in... Where Luke and Matthew try to make changes, like, try to move Jesus’ birth to Bethlehem, but they do it in ways that are mutually incompatible. The way that Luke moves Jesus’ birth to Bethlehem is incompatible with a mass infant killing by Herod, which we’ll get into that. So it it just, it... It’s really bad in that case. Now if we say that Matthew had Luke and Mark in front of him, that also creates problems. It creates fewer problems, so I don’t know why it’s so rare to be argued, but it is it is more rarely argued.
Simone Collins:
One, can I just also point out that? Because I didn’t know this in... Until recently. the things that you can see there in the gospel of Matthew and the gospel of Luke that are shared, but not in the gospel of Mark, are almost verbatim, like, uncannily similar. Like, they’ve been plagiarized from something that’s not Mark because it’s not in Mark, but they’re out of sequence. They’re they’re not in the No.
Malcolm Collins:
They’re not out of sequence. I’ll explain because you’re not doing a very good job explaining this. Okay. Okay. So the point that Simone is trying to make is the reason people believe in a Q source is because there are places where Luke and Matthew use almost exactly the same wording but for almost exactly the same speech. Mhmm. And, that’s weird because there are places, where the two books, other than where they’re agreeing with Mark, say things in almost exactly the same way. These places have a few things in common. Okay? It’s always... Except for the one instance I mentioned earlier, Jesus talking about something. Mhmm. And what is peculiar about this is... And Simone gets this partially right and partially confused. They don’t always occur in the same speeches. It’s as if they had a list of things they knew that Jesus had said, but they didn’t know where to put them. But what’s important is that they do occur in the same order. They just don’t occur in the same places. Oh. So what we know about q is the list likely had an order to it, and it was a list of things that Jesus had said. for, I guess I’ll go into what I think q is and why I can pretty confidently date it to his and Jesus’ life. What q does not contain, very important, is a single quote that was during the time of his crucifixion, during the time of his trial, during the time of his passion, during any of these very public in the life events. If it had been written after those events and you’re embellishing it, especially if, like, somebody else is making this up, why not make up things that he said during the most important part of the story? That doesn’t make sense. You’re... If if you’re making up... And the best evidence... The the single line that is the best evidence that cue comes from after Jesus’ death is the one line, take my cross and... Or take your cross and follow me or something like that. The problem is is this very well could have been an idiom during that period. Roman crucifixions were really a brutal part of daily life during this... I mean, John the Baptist had likely already been crucified during the account of Jesus’ life,
Speaker 7:
Sir, we know from Josephus that he was beheaded and not crucified.
Malcolm Collins:
and John the Baptist was a very important person to Jesus, and the early Christian ministry. we can maybe get into that in a future track. I think that is often undersold, and that if we look at some accounts, like John and the way that Mark starts, it might be that Jesus’ movement was a growth out of the John the Baptist movement, which fits with a lot of the story and everything like that. I don’t see that as a particularly bad thing. And that, like, Josephus, when he’s writing, you know, after Jesus’ death, presumably, he talks a lot more about John the Baptist than Jesus. And to Josephus, the Jewish historian, John the Baptist was a much bigger historical figure than Jesus.
Simone Collins:
Well, what I love about the gospel of Mark, which, again, I... We consider to be canonical, is that it basically begins as like, well, John the Baptist, you see, he baptized this guy named Jesus from
Malcolm Collins:
mean, that’s that’s literally where it starts, right, talking about John the Baptist.
Simone Collins:
Yeah. John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for forgiveness of sins, and there went out to him, all the country of Judea and and the people of Jerusalem. They were baptized by him.
Malcolm Collins:
So we’re we’re getting to this story. We’ll get into this story. Okay? Okay. The point being is, q... Because it lacks all of those parts of Jesus’ life Uh-huh. It appears to be a regionally condensed list of sayings. I think the best bet for what it was, and we know that these existed during this period, is... You know in that money python sketch where two people in the back of the crowd are trying to make out what Jesus is saying?
Speaker 3:
How blessed are those of gentle spirit. Speak Quiet, mom.
Speaker 4:
Well, I can’t hear you a thing.
Speaker 3:
Let’s go to stoning. You can go to a stoning anytime.
Speaker 5:
I can’t hear a bloody thing. Don’t you swear, my wife. I was only asking you to shut up so he can hear what he’s saying,
Speaker 4:
Oh, it’s the meek. Blessed are the meek. Oh, that’s nice, innit? I’m glad they’re getting something because they have hell of a time.
Simone Collins:
Oh.
Malcolm Collins:
and they’re like, blessed are the cheese makers? Like, you know, they can’t quite hear him. What they would do during this time period is... And you can find these for, like, Lincoln. You can find these for for even much later time periods. they would write up what was said in a speech or, like, the the top bits of the speech and sort of pass it around to the crowd so they knew what was being talked about.
Simone Collins:
And What happened more was they would basically play literally a game of telephone where someone in the front would be like, he said this. He said this, and they’d pass it back. But I’m sure that there were probably scribes writing this down too, or eventually these things get written down, and then they got compiled because people are like, well, I wasn’t there. What happened? And they want to know.
Malcolm Collins:
Yeah. Like, if you’re like, oh, a big famous guy came to town. He said some pretty interesting stuff. And then somebody’s like, but what what sort of things did he say? Yes. And then it’s like, okay. Well, I’ll I’ll write it down for you somewhere. And then that is, I think, what is the core of q
Speaker 8:
Note that while collections of sayings are not completely absent from the historical record, we definitely have them. They... They’re not the most common way to record something, especially if you’re dealing with a source like this. Like, why not record stories? Why not record what he’s doing? It makes perfect sense if it’s being used to, like, advertise his speeches or help people in the back understand what’s being said. I don’t see as good of an explanation outside of that. But it also... It it doesn’t just make perfect sense. It explains it. it explains why all of that other stuff isn’t in there. Because if he was still alive when it was written, you wouldn’t write about what he was doing. You would write about what he was saying. That’s only natural.
Speaker 9:
The other thing that this helps explain is why it survived. If it was part of his speaking process or advertising his speeches or communicating words around what his speeches were saying while they were happening, there probably would have been a lot of them. It would make sense to write a lot of them, but writing was hard to do back then and expensive. So you’d make it short, which is also why it’s fairly short. It basically makes perfect sense into why it survived and why it exists in the nature in which it exists.
Malcolm Collins:
. Now q is often divided into three layers. One layer is seen as more reputative. One layer is seen as only, like, fuzzy positive stuff, and the final layer is, like, some additional story bits. I think that there’s no reason to divide q one and q two. I I don’t think that that’s a... That’s just like a narrative. I think it’s actually mostly a theological progressive thing where they’re trying to only apply the the happy, fuzzy stuff to Jesus and not the rebuking stuff to Jesus, where I think they actually work together. whereas, q three, I don’t really even think of it as q. I think it’s some other shared source That Matthew and Luke were familiar with.
Speaker 10:
Just a quick note here on why I date Mark so early. The only reason that Mark is dated later is because the not one brick on another line about the temple destruction, which is a really bad line to use to date it because if he had known that the temple was going to be destroyed... In fact, I almost see it dating it in the opposite direction. He would have, as other biblical authors were who wrote after the temple’s destruction, one of the most traumatic events in all of Jewish history... Or no. The most traumatic event by a significant margin. The... That that they would have been a bit more explicit around what actually happened there, and yet he isn’t. The fact that he isn’t, to me, indicates that this was said before the temple’s destruction. It’s it’s like saying, well, we have to assume that he couldn’t have had any correct prophecies. But you don’t even need to say that this is a prophecy. He was clearly an apocalyptic Jewish preacher. This is exactly the type of thing that an apocalyptic Jewish preacher of this period, especially when you consider all the other stuff he said about the temple, it makes perfect sense with all the rest of his teachings. It’s really stupid to use it to date it after the destruction of the temple. So the fact that he seems to be unaware of any of the details destruction of the temple, to me, indicate, and just, like, vaguely mention, I don’t like the thing. It’s going to be destroyed in your lifetime. I think that that to me dates it before the destruction of the temple. And then you can say, well, how do you date it so close to Jesus’ death? And the core answer is because, apparently, Mark was unaware of anyone having said that they had talked to Jesus after his death. Now I’m not saying that that’s something that definitely happened or something that definitely didn’t happen, but what I am saying is that it appears to have become common across other biblical narratives that people encountered that. Why would you leave that out? Like, why? Why would you have this ending where it’s like, oh, yeah. Go and wait for me in Galilee? Why? Why would you stop so abruptly? In addition to that, other things that are left out that appear to be pretty early Christian inventions, like the virgin conception, the, Bethlehem narrative, the... A lot of these ideas are not found in Mark. And in addition, Mark seemed to be unaware of q, which a lot of the other writers were aware of. So why? Well, the reason could be that he was just very, very early. And I think you have to do way too much work to explain why he has literally nothing after Jesus dying. Nothing. And, like, it was so weird that later writers added various ends to Mark. That’s how weird it comes off as. Other than that, he just didn’t have that information yet or those traditions weren’t established yet.
Malcolm Collins:
But, anyway, what I’m gonna go into here so you guys can hear this and make these judgments for yourselves is stories from Mark, Luke, and Matthew next to each other so you can get a feeling of what I’m talking about here. Okay. And I think it will immediately jump out to you what I’m saying. Okay? Mark one nine eleven. And it came to pass in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized of John in Jordan. Now note a few things here. He’s already saying that Jesus was from Nazareth, not Bethlehem, which we’ll get to in a second. And straight away, coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened and the spirit like a dove descending upon him. Now what does Mark say here? Nope. Nope. Very clear here. He says he saw. Jesus saw. Nobody else saw this, okay, in in this particular bit. Now the the additional people might have seen it. There are ways to make all of these places cohere with each other. Obviously, Christians have been doing this for a long time. I’m just reading what I’m reading up plain faced of the text here. Okay? And there came a voice from heaven saying, thou art my beloved son in whom I am well pleased. So in the Mark account, John... Jesus goes to Mark... John the Baptist and is baptized, and here’s the vision. Okay? Next, we have the Luke account. now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass that Jesus was being baptized and praying. The heaven was opened, and the holy ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, thou art my beloved son. In thee, I am well pleased. Now here, it’s implied at least that everyone could hear this so that the miracle has upgraded significantly. But I can see how you’re reading it, and you’re like, well, I mean, surely, Jesus didn’t just tell people he had this vision and everyone took it at face value, so other people must have seen it. So let’s write that. Right? but then you get to Matthew. Alright? Then cometh Geaus from Galilee to Jordan unto John to be baptized of him. But John forbade him saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and thou comest to me. And then Jesus said unto him, suffer it be so now for thus it become us us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he suffered him. And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straight away out of the water, and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him. And he saw the spirit of God descending like a dove and lightning upon him. And, lo, a voice from heaven saying, this is my beloved son in who I am well pleased. So note here, you get the slight change with Luke. Then you get to Matthew, and clearly, like, Matthew’s a bit embarrassed that the story starts with Jesus being baptized by somebody else, like implying somebody else had a position of authority over him at any point in the story. And so immediately, John needs to be like, pow. Oh. Oh, e d j comes off as... I... To me, it comes off as ridiculous. But... Okay. Let’s go to some other stories here. Mark. And straightaway, he constrained his disciples to get into a ship and to go to the other side before unto Bethsaida while he sent away people. And when he sent them away, he departed into a mountain to pray. And when even was come, the ship was in the midst of the sea and he alone on the land. And he saw them toiling and rowing, and the wind was contrary unto them. And unto the fourth watch of the night, he cometh unto them walking upon the sea and would have passed by them. But when he saw them walking upon the sea, they supposed it had been a spirit and cried out. For they all saw him and they were troubled. And immediately, he talked to them and sayest unto them, be of good cheer. It is I. Be not afraid. And he went up unto them, into the ship, and the wind ceased. And they were sore amazed in themselves beyond measure and wondered. For they considered not the miracle of the loaves, for their heart was hardened. Now note here, that’s a straightforward, just miracle account. That’s the way I remember the story. Luke actually doesn’t include this particular miracle, which is interesting to me. Did Luke not believe it? Did he think it was too Jewish coded? That’s what some people argue. Did Luke, it it could it could be a lot of things. I’m not gonna pontificate too much on that, but let’s get to the Matthew version. And straight away, Jesus constrained his disciples to get in a ship and go to... And to go before him unto the other side and while he sent the multitudes away. And when he was sent the multitudes away, he went upon the mountain to pray. And when the evening was come, he was there alone. But the ship within the midst of the sea tossed with the waves for the wind was contrary. Now, no. He... He’s adding here this this storm and these waves and not in the original narrative. Right? And in the fourth watch of the night, Jesus went unto them walking onto the sea. And when the disciples saw him walking into the sea, they were troubled, saying it was a spirit, and they cried out in fear. But straightaway, Jesus spoke unto them saying, be of good cheer, I be not afraid. And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water. Oh, Jesus. Said, come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water to go to Jesus. But when he saw the wind was boisterous, he was afraid and begun to sink. He cried saying, Lord, save me. And immediately, Jesus stretched forth his hand and caught him and said unto them, oh, thee of little face, where didest thou doubt? And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased. And then wherein the ship came and worshiped him saying, of truth, thou art the son of god. So note here, Lots of stuff going on here. One, the reaffirmation of a more traditional Christian understanding of the son of god, which is something you see all over the place in Matthew, but also just a huge embellishment of the story. We can go to another story here. Again, for me, with a lot of these, these feel like I’m talking to, like, kids on a playground, and I’m, like, trying to get an account of what really happened. And one kid is always the, like, one kid out who always needs to be, like, way bigger. Oh, yeah. Way more is happening. Good. now we’re gonna go the the demon thing that I talked about.
Simone Collins:
Okay.
Malcolm Collins:
So in Mark, it says, and they came over onto the other side of the sea into the country of Gardines. And when he was coming out of the ship, immediately met him out of the tombs, a man with an unclean spirit who had his dwelling among the tombs, and no man could bind him. Not... No, not with chains, because that he had often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken to pieces, neither could any man tame him. And always at night and day, he was in the mountains and the tombs crying and cutting himself with stones. And so note what’s being read here. If you just read this at face value, they’re talking about a crazy guy. It’s just it. It’s... It said he had an unclean spirit, and then they describe his behavior. And people today would say, they’re describing somebody with a serious mental illness, and it’s a very believable story so far. Okay? But when he saw Jesus afar, he ran and worshiped him and cried with a loud voice and said, what have I do with thee, Jesus, thou son of the most high god? I adjure thee, god, that thou torment me not. For he said unto him, come out of the man, thou unclean spirit. And he asked him, what is thy name? And he answered saying, my name is a legion, for we are many. And he besought him much that we would not send them away out of the country. Now there was nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding, and all the devils besought him saying, send us into the swine that we may enter into them. And forthwith, Jesus gave them leave, and the unclean spirits went out and entered into the swine, and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea. They were about 2,000 and were choked in the sea. Now note here. The the miracle, cool, I guess. I also like the we are legion line. A lot of people like that line. Yeah. Sort of bad a for... If you’re looking at, like, spirits causing mental illnesses or what... What’s the root cause of various mental illnesses. but then you go to Matthew. And remember, the first guy was just talking about a guy who was mentally unwell or spiritually unclean. Yeah. And when he has come to the other side into the country of Gorgeshes Mhmm. There met him two men who were possessed by devils Oh. Looking out at the team. This... The the tombs, exceedingly fierce so that no man might pass by that way. And so you see what I mean here. Just immediately, it goes out, goes overboard. But where Matthew becomes more malicious to me and begins to earn my... He comes across a bit like a cult leader is the way he attempts to center himself. And note that we lose stuff by saying this about Matthew. Specifically, one of the lines that I’ve argued a lot is Jesus says that he did not come to replace the Jewish law, in in any way. That’s only in Matthew. You also know the line where somebody says, Jesus, are you, like, literally the son of God? And then Jesus goes on that long story about he’s like, well, I have God inside of me. You have God inside of you. You have me inside of you. You know? That’s what I mean by it, basically. that’s only in Matthew as well. So we lose stuff from this. So I still think that Matthew is a book that you should read and has importance, but I’d read it with a healthy skepticism, at least with where I’m coming from right now. So this is Peter’s confession and the keys. And this is where I think where... I think Luke was just a nerd trying to figure things out. And the other story, the one about the devils I just read, Luke has a rendition of it. It’s just a mentally unwell guy on Luke’s as well. So let’s go to Peter’s confessions and the keys. Okay? Because this this is really interesting. So Mark eight twenty seven thirty. And Jesus went out and his disciples into the sounds of Cathery Philippi. By the way, he asked his disciples saying unto them, who do men say that I am? And they answered, John the Baptist. But some say Elias, and others, one of the prophets. So note here, we’re seeing even in the earliest days, after John the Baptist had been executed for what he was teaching, there’s another account where somebody’s like, oh my god. Is, like, John the Baptist back alive again when he when he hears about Jesus doing stuff?
Simone Collins:
That’s really interesting given the resurrection rumors around Jesus. So that’s that’s it. That is wow. Mhmm. It’s also notable, and this has been pointed out by by separate people who talk about the bible, that Jesus is not exactly super easy to make out, in crowds, at least according to canonical New Testament.
Malcolm Collins:
I I I I I I pointed that out to you. That’s why they had to kiss him to point him out. That’s why they.
Simone Collins:
Yeah. Like, so he he didn’t look and and, you know, presumably, people really couldn’t tell if it was Jesus or if it was John the Baptist or whatever. Like, oh, oh, is that... Okay. It’s It would
Malcolm Collins:
have been hard to tell people apart back then as well because, you know, you don’t have pictures. You don’t have, like, Facebook. It’s not
Simone Collins:
like there are different hairstylists. There aren’t a lot of accessory options. you know, people can’t style themselves that differently, and they’re all roughly related. And and, yeah, you don’t have the same also international mixing that we have now. I think we we benefit way too much from the fact that there are a lot of different points of origin or, like, a different ethnic mixes that allow us to differentiate ourselves these days. Yeah. Underrated element. But... No. That’s that’s super interesting that people thought he was John the Baptist. And imagine, like, Jesus having to walk in his shadow all the time. People being kinda disappointed when it’s not John the Baptist. Like, oh.
Malcolm Collins:
Yeah. But but you’re seeing that from these early accounts. He is being heavily associated with the ministry of John the Baptist. Yes. So they... They’re they’re telling him who other people say he is or or or one of the prophets. And then he’d say unto them, but whom say ye that I am? And Peter answered and said unto him, thou art Christ. And he charged them that they should tell no man of him, or the messiah. This can be translated here, right, is is what’s being said here, which, remember, is what we techno Puritans believe about him. Right? Now you go to Luke. What what happens in Luke with this particular passage? And it comes to pass as he was alone praying with his disciples, they were with him and asked of them saying, who say the people that I am? The answering said, John the Baptist, but some say Elias, and others say that you are one of the prophets, risen again. He said unto them, but whom say you that I am? Peter answered saying, the Christ of God. And he straightly charged them and commanded them to tell no man of the thing. So here, he’s saying, it’s basically the same thing as what’s in Mark, by the way, is what I’m pointing out here. but he but he adds the of God part here. And the reason he’s telling them not to tell anyone is this is what gets him executed ultimately, him admitting this in trial. And as we point out, I don’t think that he admits he’s the messiah publicly. This is our argument anywhere in what we would canonically call the New Testament until he is on trial, which makes him an inversion of the appetite lab, who claimed to be the messiah when it benefited him. And then the moment he was on trial and and it mattered and he could get executed for it, he refused to say it. and we treat their lives as inversions, and I think that that’s actually a really important spiritual point that that in many ways, Shabbat Shai Levy affirmed the life of Christ, through showing what a messiah that the Jewish people would be tempted to follow would look like. and that messiah was an inversion of the traits of Christ to show that there was no way that they could have accepted Christ. And I think that that inversion shows why these two covenants are needed, and we talked about that in the last public track. So, what does Matthew say at this part? Alright? So I’m skipping the first part because we’ve read that a few times, and you’re probably bored of it at this point. And he saith unto them, but whom say ye that I am? And Simon and Peter answered and said, thou art Christ, the son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, blessed thou, Simon Bar Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my father which is in heaven. And I also say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock, I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the kingdoms of heaven, and whoever thou shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Whatever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosened in heaven. Then charged his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus Christ. So that’s concerning. Right? Like, that this additional line is added granting additional authority to the early church, presumably being written by an early church leader. That’s, like, straight up cultist behavior, which is not, you know, something I would I would take very seriously. But, yeah, I’m I’m shocked that so many Christians have just been able to read these back to back and not be like, this one seems actively off. Yeah. And is adding stuff that if it happened in these narratives, it does not make sense that it was not recorded in the other two narratives.
Simone Collins:
Yeah. Because if it did happen, you’d you’d probably put it that way. It just seems so unlikely that, you know, Jesus would cure two, and then you’d just make it one.
Malcolm Collins:
Yeah. With with the people, often the Christian and normal interpretation, it’s, well, they only wrote about the the stronger, like, bigger problem one in the other ones. And it’s like, yeah. But why would you intentionally word things in a way that makes the miracle seem less impressive if presumably you think this guy is the Messiah. Right? That that... There is no reason to intentionally make a miracle or to leave out additional facts about a miracle that would make it sound more impressive. Mhmm.
Simone Collins:
Yeah. In fact, the additions make it sound like their their responses to to nonbelievers one is attempting to convert, believe. Like, oh, so he just walked on water. I don’t know. That could be that could be explained by insert thing, like, known magic trick of the time. Oh, well, but one other person walked on the water. Explain that. Like, it just... It it sounds it sounds like stuff you would make up if you wanted to really win someone over.
Malcolm Collins:
Another thing which is off about Matthew is Matthew has a habit of making up clearly new rules or loosening rules. So an example of Matthew loosening a rule is on divorce. Elsewhere where divorce is talked about, specifically, Mark and Q provide an absolute prohibition on divorce, which I would put in techno puritanism. I don’t think that divorce should ever be on the table. Matthew adds except for fornication.
Simone Collins:
You mean you can divorce someone if they fornicate?
Malcolm Collins:
If they’ve cheated on you.
Simone Collins:
Oh, is that what... I thought fornication was just sex.
Malcolm Collins:
The the way it’s used here essentially means that they can’t...
Simone Collins:
Adultery was when you
Malcolm Collins:
Or they’ve done something sexually improprietous. Oh. Yes. No.
Simone Collins:
I think sexual impropriety is a good grounds for divorce.
Malcolm Collins:
Well, then you agree with this Matthew guy.
Simone Collins:
Yeah. And the Matthew guy seems to he seems to get it. Wait. I thought... Wait. No. Not Matthew with Mike. Wait. No. That was Matthew.
Malcolm Collins:
Matthew the one who added the exception for fornication.
Simone Collins:
Oh, the exception. Right. Sorry. Mark Mark
Malcolm Collins:
and Hugh don’t do that. And Paul provide absolute prohibitions on it. Mhmm. So, again, you get a bit of a contradiction here with with No.
Simone Collins:
Because... But, again, that sounds like something that you would add when someone’s like, yeah. But what if someone, you know, is that test? What if
Malcolm Collins:
someone a church leader. Like, that’s the type of thing you add when you’re actually trying to manage these rules in a community. Yeah. Look. But, like, my husband keeps seeing prostitutes. Yeah. And it’s like, well, okay. Maybe in that case.
Simone Collins:
Yeah. You know? Exactly.
Malcolm Collins:
So now we’re gonna talk about Jesus’ last words and going between gospels so you can get a a better understanding of how they treat these things. So if you go to Mark, Jesus cries out, Eloi, Eloi, basically, the the... My my god, why have you forsaken me? then someone offers him sour wine. After that, Mark says only, and Jesus uttered a loud cry and breathed his laugh. Mark never tells us what the final loud cry was. The LOA cry is clearly earlier. The last cry is left unspecified. I I take this to be a cry of pain. That seems like what would happen as you were dying, and I think the last words were the... Now other places these words are scrubbed from. and it makes sense that they’re scrubbed from because they can be embarrassing. They they show, Jesus is clearly something different and lesser than God to be to be asking this. Unless you’re saying he just did it to fulfill a prophecy, which I’ve argued in the past isn’t the way prophecy works. You you can’t have a prophecy saying, when a red heifer comes to Jerusalem, and then you paint a cow red and walk it into Jerusalem. You know, you you need an actual... Like, otherwise, it’s not miraculous. It’s just you saying the same.
Simone Collins:
Anyway, to continue
Malcolm Collins:
here. Then you have, in Luke, then Jesus calling out with a loud voice said, father, into your hands, I commend my spirit. And having said this, he breathed his last. So Luke notes this as the last thing Jesus said. the problem is is that this contrast with John, which says Jesus says, I thirst, receive the sour wine. Then when Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, it is finished, and he bellowed his head and gave up his spirit. John... And, no, this is an interesting thing here. If John... Well, we’ll we’ll get into that a bit. But, yeah, John is one of the ones where I’m like, I don’t know what to think. It it has some stuff in it that has actually been confirmed by the archaeological record. Like descriptions of some of the buildings in Jerusalem and stuff like that.
Simone Collins:
Oh,
Malcolm Collins:
wow. Like a bathhouse and stuff. So he at least was familiar with the area. I would put him probably above Matthew? Both Matthew and Luke.
Simone Collins:
Oh, wow.
Malcolm Collins:
Okay. But below James in terms of, like, how certain I am of of canonicity of of Loic or how seriously I would take it. Now once you do this move and you’re like, these were real stories written by real humans about a real messiah, and they did the type of things that humans do, now you get pretty much every major problem in the New Testament gets fixed. One, Mark and q disagree with each other nowhere. Actually, Mark q and James disagree with each other nowhere. Mhmm. They are completely internally coherent with each other. In addition, they make no... There’s a few, like, mistakes where, like, a quote is misattributed or somebody’s name gets mixed up, but you don’t have the really big mistakes. And we’re gonna go into, right now, all of the mistakes that this fixes. And I might split this into a separate tracked episode and air these one after another because it’s getting pretty long. Okay. And so this will be, like, the the part two. Because it’s a weekend episode, I can do fun stuff like that with you guys.
Simone Collins:
That’s awesome. Yeah. I’m... But I’m really curious to hear what’s fixed.
Malcolm Collins:
Alright.