@Black Lesbian Poet Hi Black Lesbian Poet… I read your posts and I’m not sure I understand? Are you commenting about Myth Vision the channel… or on this particular video? It sounds like you have general criticism of Myth Vision and/or Myth Vision viewers. You also sound very passionate about your opinions. I am willing to engage in conversation and have my viewpoint challenged. Cheers!
It's amazing how the gospel of mark has been under our noses for 2000 years, yet the other gospels "cover" for it's shortcomings. Once something is elevated to the level of inspired writings, it escapes criticism. Mark was always an enigma, there really is no beginning or end to it, it's very raw and dry. The other gospels had to add the seasonings... 😂. Thank you for this!
Its Mark that deconverted me 👍. While still a christian, I tought, gonna read Mark then Acts, cos they say thats the order they were written. I did, and I went... hey.. this is cr&p 😂👍
Why would the early church not compromise all 4 gospels into 1? It seems it would have been much easier, and cheaper especially when it was being assimilated throughout the Roman Empire.
It is made up and exaggerated is what it is. We cannot rely on "unbelievers" with loaded expectations to provide a fair appraisal. You will argue that the thousands of equally well qualified scholars with faith are equally bias, maybe so, but they way outnumber these new sceptics and at the very least you should read both camps and not swallow this propaganda hook line and sinker. It all depends on a one sided approach and one sides interpretation - and the gullibility of people who want the reassurance that they don't have to address the issues of human behaviour, a creator and the rest. Follow this line if you must, but due diligence is a wiser approach.
@@hj925 We've listened to these Evangelical Scholars hours and we find that they're bumbling deceivers at best They are simply propaganda tools of their own denomination or ego
Jesus as described in Mark seems neurotic. He loses his temper a lot and belittles his followers. He even cursed a fig tree! He tried to avoid the masses of people who were ill and wanted him to heal them. I actually prefer the depiction of Jesus in Mark because he seems so human.
@@LOVEisACTIONABLE To think that your current version of Christianity is the one true form of Christianity passed down from Jesus to your pastor to you is not only ignorant of history but also ignorant of the very book you put your faith in.
i took the class. i thought the weirdest thing in Mark was Jesus said he didn't want people to understand his parables, "Lest they turn and be forgiven." a bit odd. my question though is about the ending. the women found the tomb, went away afraid, "and told no one." i wondered if the 'told no one' story could be a cover because none of this was claimed till much later. "well, why didn't anybody mention it back then? I was around and I heard nothing at all about it." it's human nature to find far-out things more believable the further in the past they are. for example, roswell wasn't really publicized till decades after the purported events. the far-out theories about kennedy's assassination became more believable the further from the events it got. is it possible all these stories about jesus' rising from the dead didn't come out till decades later and the 'told no one' line was an explanation for why no one at the time ever heard of any of this?
They obviously told at least one person, since the story eventually became known lol. It's probably just an awkward narrative cliffhanger attempt that was found distasteful or clumsy to later readers.
Sorry but that's a revision of history. After the Apollo landings in 1969 a huge chunk of the American people were lukewarm about moon landings and not at all massively into ''the greatest achievements of mankind''. Due to riots on home soil, racial confrontations and a dirty war in Vietnam..During Apollo 12 a re-run of Lucy Ball was halted in favor of Apollo tv . The complaints were huge. In the decade of the seventies a larger chunk of society didn't believe in any real moonlandings whereas in the nineties and 2000 the amount of doubters shrunk considerably.Only to recently raise some suspicion again because it's taking an awful lot of time and rehashed research to go to the moon in a manned mission with vastly superior technologies. The same applies to 9/11 . The doubters were a very, very large group in the decade right after 9/11. But nowadays the subject is suffocated a quiet death. What does happen is a constant revision of history. That's why it's very important to keep a record of old newspapers, because history is constantly altered to meet the current narrative. All newspapers had headlines that transmission of Covid19 would stop 100% after vaccination.It was scientifically proven by a new study. When i show people the headlines they already start to accuse me of fake news or some 'home made'' cooking .I do it only for myself, but people are always lying, changing, manipulating past, present and future at will. It makes truth seeking damn hard. Very good video though and i agree with many aspects.
Matthew's group want to euhemerize Jesus. Luke's group want to solidify the authority of their organizational hierarchy. If you're the earlier Mark camp, you don't care about any of that. Mark's Jesus is the Jesus of Paul. You don't care if Jesus appears to fit into an earthly narrative or not. He shows up to do one thing and he does it. The end. The narrative isn't about Jesus as a person at all. It's about conveying the ideas an evangelist would need to be able to convey all packaged in a narrative format. You also don't care about organizational hierarchy. You're still a relatively tiny group with a couple satellite groups around the sea. None much bigger than a book club. You have minimal organizational needs and the only point of rigid hierarchy is whoever Paul's successors were. Matthew is clearly dealing in apologetics. The christians have been waiting around for their apocalypse long enough by then that they're beginning to be forced to grapple with all of the criticism and mockery they receive. Can't just fall back on "They'll get theirs when the kingdom of god shows up." when you've been falling back on that for a couple of generations now. It's not particularly comforting. So they give to Jesus what other Greek heroes have, a full life's story. Cradle to grave. This group is also dealing with a change in demographics. They're trying to appeal to wealthier and more educated people. Mark is great if you're appealing to poor workers down on the docks or in the labor camps. It's practically vindictive towards elites. But now you've grown large enough that you're trying to get money from those elites. Better massage the story a bit to get them onboard. I don't think Luke's group hate Mark. They seem to have a lineage that leads back to the Mark group. They retain some phrasing and terminology which Matthew changes etc. What they do have is a need to solidify power within the group. The disparate satellite groups are getting some wacky ideas and the main group is getting so big that the whole thing is in danger of getting out of hand. We see this all the time with informal groups which grow beyond the ability of a loose authority structure to corral. But how do you cement the authority which has already been established? Do what Paul did. Claim discipleship. Then take the added step of claiming that being "of the disciples" conveys some additional authority. How to do that? Start by downplaying the apparent lack of authority the disciples have by taking out the parts where they are to stupid to live. It's all organization and apologetics. Power and money. The kinds of things Mark's Jesus had some real problems with (ignoring the context for a minute). If christians had any sense, they'd toss out everything except Mark and Paul's authentic letters. But ya know, a fool and his money are soon parted. So, subscribe and support MythVision 😈
I agree with the large strokes of your description. Especially with Luke's group being a club of the elite. But why do you think Paul was preaching to down-trodden workers and labor camps? I had the impression Paul liked the elite, too, and had only theological differences with Luke. I found more likelihood in the old tradition that Mark wrote down Peter's words: a worker speaks to workers. What did you mean with Matthew's group wanted to "euhemerize" Jesus?
Mark is a Pauline Gospel. They are all propaganda. But yeah you are right, the unknown author of Mark brings us closest to the real Jesus in comparison to the other 3
@@karenhess342 Hi Karen, I am curious---Are you familiar with Who the Nazoreans were ? (Matthew 2:23)---or the Gospel of the Nazoreans? or the Gospel of the Hebrews? or the Gospel of the Ebionites? (using their common names)>Aware of His family and original lineage of John-Jesus-James? **Sure Hope So.
Registered for the course, paid for it via paypal and was able to watch the first lesson. The next day I couldn't access it Thrive cart didn't recognize my email adress. there wasn't even an email link for some sort of Support. So I actioned a refund through Paypal. Although I know its not a scam it certainly felt like one. Please note: I did not receive any email( Checked inbox, spam and trash) asking for confirmation of my email address; one was supposed to be received within 15 minutes of payment. My guess is that purchase must be made during USA Business hours( I live in Europe) for the confirmation of email address to be sent out. I am not resubscribing to the course.
Mark is not the "original" story. The original story would be the first version of the Gospel of the Ebionites, written in Hebrew, which we do not have, and that too would be a STORY rather than an accurate historical account.
@@richman8082 Proved by? Oh yes, those same documents we don't have copies of. Like the golden plates Joseph Smith Jr. accidentally "lost" before anyone could actually examine them.
The gospels were written when the eye witnesses of Jesus' life were dying. The witnesses had testified to the new Christians about Jesus, but with their death, another form of testimony was needed. One of the early church fathers wrote that tradition in his time said that Mark wrote down the testimony of apostle Peter.
As a Muslim id require 4 witnesses for some situations. So I thought it would be interesting to apply this to the 4 gospels. Here is the summary…. 1:Jesus Begins His Ministry in Galilee 2:Jesus gives all he has, and subsequently Five Thousand people were fed 3: Jesus’ Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem 4:Jesus Foretells of a Betrayer in the Midst 5: Peter Denies Jesus 6: Pilate Pronounces Sentence Upon Jesus 7: They (The Ruling authorities) Crucified Jesus as “The King of The Jews” 8:Jesus Dies 9: Jesus is Buried in a Tomb (Sepulchre) 10:Some of his disciples Went to the Tomb (Sepulchre)and his body was not there
I as the follower of Christ never hated, ignored, overlooked, forgotten and covered. I believe the Mark the precious piece of gospel as the word of God so also the three gospels. I do not James D Tabor says the Christians do. It is baseless argument. Rather I consider the Gospel Mark as the purest and loveliest one in the Bible because of its preciseness and purity. The introduction of each gospel are the same that is Prologue. The introduction of Matthew's gospel. Matthew writes clearly who is Jesus and says 1:18 He is the child of Holy Ghost. Matthew 1:20 Mary conceived Jesus by the Holy Ghost. 1:23 Jesus is God with us. The introduction of Mark. Mark 1:1; writes Jesus the Son of God. The introduction of Luke 1:35 He is the Son of God. The Introduction of John 1:1-14 (V 14) He is the Son of God I can give the same way about Epilogue. Mark is unique because he writes in 13:31 that the words of Jesus will never pass away. I do not know how Mr. James D Tabor so chill and hot on Christians about the gospel of Mark. I never find a gospel believing hating the gospel of Mark. I share my faith through you. If you are ready than give me opportunity to dialogue with James. My email Id christodan1@rediffmail.com
I have to wonder, if they hated it why would they draw on it as a source rather than just start over and tell the story they wanted to tell? They must have seen it as authoritative somehow even if they disagreed with specific parts.
Matthew and Luke wrote for different audiences whom they wanted to convince to follow Jesus. They used the sources they had - why should they reject Mark? Especially if Mark wrote something that could convince their audience.
I imagine it was because the basic narrative backbone is still there and serviceable, and since it was Mark that the writers of Matthew and Luke were reacting to and against, it only makes sense that it'd be Mark that they alter to produce their versions of a more faithful gospel. The new and improved version would serve to both critique Mark to those familiar with it, while also functioning as its replacement for the wider Christian community with the hope of completely supplanting the inferior version some time in the future. Unfortunately for them, Mark's foothold was already to secure for it to be entirely abandoned and all three synoptic gospels were folded into a single anthology.
I really enjoy this channel and Dr. Tabor's work. However I do feel it is inappropriate to define "hate" as "really, really not wanting it to stand" 1:01. Between that absurd definition of hate and the use of hate in the video title, when in fact we really don't know the inner feelings of Matthew and Luke with regard to Mark, the title borders on clickbait. Please, let's try to keep the discussion on an academic level and away from this kind of subjectivity. Maintaining a high standard is one of the reasons this channel has become one of my top 3 favorites in the biblical history area.
I never go for clickbait and approved the title with Derek...I say here what I mean by hate. When it comes to issues of divine birth, Jesus not God, and no resurrection appearances...and all the other things they remove or absolutely change and over-write, I think the term is accurate in the way I lay it out...and then there is Jesus talking about hating wife, children, mother, father...that Matthew changes to "love less." Interesting...
@@JamesTaborVideos Regarding divine birth, Mark literally calls Jesus "...the Messiah, the Son of God" in chapter 1, verse 1. Regarding resurrection appearances, Mark includes in his account the resurrection of Jesus. Was there more to tell beyond that? Since you failed to cite any verses at all, it's hard to find what you are talking about in your comment of "Jesus talking about hating wife, children, mother, father..." I did a search for "hate" in Mark (NIV) and came up with just Mark 13:13 "Everyone will hate you because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved." Matthew uses the same wording in Matthew 10:22 "You will be hated by everyone because of me..." he does not say "loved less" (wait for it). However, it's easy enough to search for "Mother" and come up with Matthew's account, which allows me to cross reference with Luke (not Mark): Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters -- yes, even their own life -- such a person cannot be my disciple." Matthew 10:37 "Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." So are you saying Matthew hates Luke by choosing different words to convey the same basic idea? Even though he uses the word "hate" in other parts of his book? The title says "Why Matthew and Luke Hated the Gospel of Mark" so I'm having a hard time digesting your arguments here.
Didn’t you have a scholar who thought that the gospel of Mark was written by the Flavians to glorify Vespasian? Maybe the writers of Luke and Matthew did not like The Flavian gospel (mark)
What the average layman doesnt grasp, and the church is at pains to make sure they don't grasp, is that all of the gospels, canonical or otherwise were never meant to be placed together because they were all competing theologies, not complimentary ones. Each gospel was written to be the final, definitive gospel. Excluding and supplanting all others.
I studied the Gospel of Mark in a Catholic semenary and we looked at it closely as the first Gospel written. I don't know where this guy gets his ideas from but it's not my experience. Luke and Matthew "hate" Mark? Even a mediocre mind can understand that a first sourse mightn't necessarily be the most theologically thought through. It has taken us a lot of time and continues to take time to understand fully the message of Jesus in each and every age. Forgotten? Hated? Changed? The Gospel of Mark hasn't been changed, it's still in the NT unchanged (notwithstanding the last verses which we generally accept as additions). Come on! This guy's got a new "contraversy" for every show. The real truth is there is no new contraversy, all this has been carefully looked into for centuries. Of all the spoofers on your channel this guy takes first prize (just beating the scholars who pretend Paul wasn't really a Christian but some kind of Jewish missionary to the pagans). Be honest your show is for Christian Bible literalists who feel decieved that the whole Bible isn't literally true, which it was never thought to be anyway.
Strong words... wrong too... Studying ANYTHING in seminary automatically imbues it with an agenda and it's highly likely that your “guided studies” were significantly different from full time research and scholarship. That said, slamming Dr. Tabor’s position while pointing out that, as a first source, Mark was likely not thought through theologically and denying that it was altered as it was rewritten in Luke and Matthew demonstrates a VERY uninformed and shortsighted view of the matter.
Neither do you understand what I said or know anything about me. My point was that Mark is not forgotten, niether hated nor changed. This type of "strong" language is totally uncalled for and not scholarly. This is more Internet entertainment than anything else. They both know it. Somebody should really point this out. Dr. Tabor doesn't know who Mark was, who Mathew was or who Luke was. Neither can he clearly state which community supposedly each one represents. Listen carefully, he stitches together things he cannot prove into a theory full of suppositions. I am not a theologian nor a historian but I have studied Logic and Psychology. It doesn't hold water, you can take that to the bank. My statement that a sourse being taken as earlier doesn't "necessarily" make it the most reliable can be applied to all historical or philosophical research. We learn new things about the past all the time. Maybe Mathew and Luke did. If you want an example Dr. Tabor is writing 2000 years after Mathew and Luke but doesn't apply primacy to Luke and Matthew over Tabor. Indeed, Tabor doesn't even know what recourses Luke draws upon. In fact Dr. Tabor rationalises continually and uses cognitive dissonance to conform everything to what he thinks is going on. The fact that I studied Mark in a Catholic setting was not to demonstrate that Catholicism is superior but to show that Mark is studied and considered which Tabor denied. Mark is read during Mass (as the other Gospels are) and priests therefore given sermons on Mark multiple times during each and every year. If you take the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church together, you will find that the vast majority of Christians are continually exposed to the Gospel of Mark, niether hating nor changing it but rather being positive towards if. I could go on.
@@pauljosephbuggle3722 - do you mean that we can't know which community Matthew or Luke represented and which audiences they wrote for, or do you mean James Tabor doesn't know or can't point out the communities and audiences? I don't know Tabor, but I remember that theologians have made some statements about it, e.g., that Matthew writes for Jewish Christians and Luke for gentile Christians. There is less agreement on the social strata of the audience, but in general Luke wrote for elites while Mark wrote for simple folks.
Marcan priority is old news. But it is still fascinating that Matthew and Luke, although they disagree with Mark, use it as their main source of inspiration. Obviously because the oral tradition about a hypothetical Jesus was already lost and inaccessible. Logical for those who think Jesus is a myth, but hardly justifiable for historicists.
Matthew and Luke use also a common source, Q, of Jesus' sayings and other sources specific to them. Not so surprising they would use Mark, too, to write most convincingly to their audience to follow Jesus. The mythicists vs historicists question is a different topic.
@@Achill1011/ Q is a hypothetical and unknown source that is not necessary to explain the agreements between Matthew and Luke. The Farrer hypotesis explains these agreements very well. 2/ It is very surprising that Matthew and Luke follow Mark if they disagree with him on many points. But worse than these disagreements is the way Mark is written: it is an accumulation of pesharim and imitations of Old Testament stories. And most of the teachings of JESUS in Mark come from the epistles of Paul. Mark retroactively placed Paul's teachings into Jesus' mouth. The fact that Matthew and Luke refer to Mark as if it were a historical account, despite their disagreements, shows that they had nothing else. 3/ The study of the historicity of Jesus also involves the study of his biographies. The fact that Mark is an account composed from the Old Testament and Paul's epistles, and that Matthew and Luke copy Mark as if it was a historical text, is obviously very relevant for gauging the historicity of Jesus.
@@Sinouhe - the hypothesis of Q and Mark as sources for Matthew and Luke is the dominant model in scholarship today. You can state other, less likely hypotheses, ofc, but then the likelihood of your conclusions to be true diminishes, too. In any case, it's NOT obvious that there was no other common source, like Q would be, for Matthew and Luke about Jesus' life. . . . The video was about how Matthew and Luke saw Mark (whom both used as source), not about how you see Mark. The video was also not about the historicity of Jesus, about which there are plenty of other videos where your comments probably would fit better.
@@Achill101 Argument from authority is a fallacy. And again, a lost and unknown Source is not necessary to explain the agreements between luke and Matthew. And if you think that my first post is off topic when I was talking about the dependence of Matthew and Luke on Mark, then read it again. And if you still don't understand it, ignore it.
@Jeli Delo Authors with different agendas? Or just different people from different backgrounds writing to different audiences. They are all correct. God so loved the world, he sent his only son that whoever believes in him would have eternal life.
Hey great videos, love these topics and want to say thank you for creating content so educational. Ive always had this question. In the gospels after Jesus is baptized, when the spirit of God says "you are my son, in you I am well pleased", how is the word of God speaking from the heavens, to the literal word of God on Earth? Doesn't this contradict the entire word became flesh theory? Why would the word of God need to confirm anything the word of God? Also who is speaking as the word of God in this situation? I was under the impression even in old testament that an angel of God brought the word of God, not just a voice in the air. Why all of a sudden does God speak without a medium, yet even with the birth of Jesus narrative, the angel Gabriel is used to speak God's plan? This has confused me for years and I'm just wondering if I am alone in thinking this.
Mark describes the voice of God as an inner voice speaking to Jesus when he was baptized and that Jesis could have told his disciples about. . . . The other gospel authors describe it differently, maybe they had other sources, but maybe they also had a theological problem: why was Jesus baptized by John the Baptist who preached baptism after the repentence of sins? Wasn't Jesus without sin? Why would HE need a baptism? Staying silent about the baptism was probably not an option, because it was widely known, also by the still existing disciples of John who pointed to their master as superior to Jesus. The later gospel authors describe Jesus' baptism then as example we should follow, because baptism was THE important rite to become a Christian (and has stayed that way).
Hi P Clips..You raise thought provoking questions which compare Mark’s narrative of Jesus’s life with John’s exposition on the nature of God and Jesus …you also reference the Hebrew Scriptures and I think Luke(?). Reconciliation to understand the “whole picture” is emphasized in many Christian faith traditions which insist that the Bible must be read as One Book, with each part conforming and confirming and playing its role in the grand sweep of God’s plan. This approach is necessary if one seeks to understand the theology of many contemporary Christian denominations. This is not at all the approach taken by Tabor and other secular scholars (very lose term here). Secular scholars let each Gospel author speaks for himself. The point in this video is not to learn about the “real Jesus” …the point is to understand what Mark says about Jesus. This is important because Mark is copied extensively by Mathew and Luke …what those authors say and don’t say, or elaborate upon or change offers us clues about what those authors believed (or wanted to believe or needed to explain or whatever…) about Jesus. Now…what evidence does John offer regarding his thoughts on Mark’s Gospel….that’s a whole other matter…but interesting. The Gospels selected to be canonized, the order in which they were placed in one bound volume, what is and is not included in liturgical readings and rituals…these are purposeful decisions which raise questions for scholars of Church history.
@Peter T I agree with some of your thoughts, very interesting questions. I have Always wondered why Jesus would get baptized also. Another question regarding Jesus being without sin is wasn't that the same as Job? Job and Jesus have parallel stories, such as both were allowed by God to be tempted by Satan and have everything taken away. Only difference in the end Job gains everything back times 10 without losing his life yet Jesus only gains everything spiritually times 10 when losing his life. Many mysterious riddles in the new testament echo old testament narration.
@@369TP Hi P Clips …I appreciate the observation about Job and Jesus. I hadn’t thought of that before. One may argue that Jesus doesn’t really lose his life. If one believes we have eternal souls and/or that Jesus is eternal then Jesus only dies a physical death…but his life continues. We read in the Synoptics about the transfiguration “revealing” an eternal Jesus. Interesting that John offers no narrative of this event but presents an eternal nature of Jesus in the first chapter. Job experiences a whole new life following his many trials, but not eternal life, I agree. I believe most scholars consider Job written prior to Hebrew beliefs in an eternal soul or afterlife. The parallel themes between Hebrew and Christian scriptures are most easily explained as deliberately created by the authors of the New Testament. One may view Christianity as often misappropriating the Hebrew Scriptures…but from a secular viewpoint it’s all cultural construction and re-construction. Some scholars are exploring the Hellenistic influence on the Christian Scriptures, which is new to me and really interesting too.
@@369TP - I see the stories of Job and Jesus related: Job's story asks why God lets humans suffer - God answers from his creation that is good but also includes suffering. Jesus gives no explanation either but shows that God cares about the suffering by sharing their life until death and resurrection. A sympathizing God that lifts up the believers instead of a God intervening in human disputes. . . . Job is a later book of the bible, written when belief in the afterlife was still not widespread among Jews (also mentioned in the other, good reply to you). But the book of Job seems to me central in the Christian bible for the question it raises and that are answered in the person of Jesus.
They are eternal spiritual states through which all men pass. Starting with the state of Abraham - the friend, the companion of the Father who is buried with him whispers in your ear and tells you the story of redemption. He tells you that you will be enslaved as long as you wear the garment of death. Then he will bring you up to have much, much more than you had before you entered; for God’s power and his wisdom will be enhanced by reason of this challenge which God put upon himself. Then, in the end, you will turn around and see yourself as infinite love, fuse into and become one with the Everlasting Father. Everyone will turn to the Father and enter this wonderful unity of Christ. So here is diversity, and yet there is unity in diversity as there is diversity in unity.
Believe what you will people, but your choices here are the following: 1) Believe that, according to a PhD, Matthew and Luke copied most of Mark, altering ideas that offended them, removing ideas that offended them, but ended up otherwise making very different copies (despite having the original text right in front of them). They used different words, re-arranged chapters, focused on different elements and added new material. This also forces you to believe Matthew and Luke could read and write. 2) An amazing series of events occurred. Those who were there (Mark and Matthew) presented their own accounts of what happened (through their own writing or through a scribe). Still others (the author of Luke) investigated these events and made their own report. Sometimes these accounts support one another, sometimes one account includes details another does not (as you might expect from three different authors describing the same events). Remember, omission or addition does not mean contradiction. Use your brains. Regardless of whether you choose 1 or 2, it's the same Jesus presented in all of the gospels. Why not give the gospels a read and make up your own mind? You don't need a PhD to get into heaven. I grow weary of pointing out all the things PhDs get wrong on this channel, but here's a few: PhD: Jesus is accused by his enemies of breaking the sabbath by harvesting grain, even though they are just taking a little bit and eating it when they're famished. In Mark, Jesus basically says, "Well David broke the law. I guess I'm breaking the law. And... you know what, laws are for people not people for laws, so if I'm breaking the law, the Sabbath's made for people." First Jesus was not doing any harvesting or eating. His disciples were. Second, the Pharisees accused the disciples (not Jesus) of breaking the law. Actually harvesting a field would be putting in a day's work ("Thou shalt not work on the Sabbath"), but these folks were not "working", they were grabbing some food as they walked along and eating that food. The Pharisees accusing someone of breaking the law does not mean the law was broken. Despite the words of the PhD, Jesus never says he (or his disciples) are breaking the law. Jesus reminds them David was in a similar situation and ate food intended for the priests, because he and his companions needed food. Neither example is breaking the law of the Sabbath. That anyone of that day would have a problem with this reasoning is a real stretch. But apparently you can't put together a course people will pay for if it is just the simple truth available for free in the gospels.
You may want to look into the question of where the purported Gospel of Matthew and the purported Gospel of Luke got their names. (Hint: They are not named after their respective authors.)
Your misunderstanding of the story of the grain is also wildly inaccurate. Eating on Shabbat does not violate The Law - doing "work" on Shabbat violates The Law. The Disciples harvested grain on Shabbat.
If Mark was edited out, where did someone find the original writings of Mark that purport to be different than what we see in the New Testament today. How is that ‘original’ still floating around somewhere?
I find it amusing to read that anyone thinks, as some do, that Tabor is a man of Christian faith. He is the pope compared to Derek, but weighed down by often unnecessary scepticism. The switch in historical approaches from believe anything to believe nothing is partly to blame, but a plain reading of the text always works in my opinion. Once you approach it expecting flaws and differences, as Tabor clearly does, you'll convince yourself that they are there. I cannot credit the unbelief and this, again, tried to create differences that simply are not there. The Gospel does not in any sense vary between the Gospels in terms of substance, although they are not identical in all respects (and if they were Tabor would reject them for that) The clue is really in the "Synoptic" , lets see what Britannica says about that application of the word to the three Tabor seeks to divide with this deception, I quote, "the first three books of the New Testament have been called the Synoptic Gospels because they are so similar in structure, content, and wording that they can easily be set side by side to provide a synoptic comparison of their content". In addition to that the acceptance of all these three Gospels by the Church Fathers who so often quoted them shows an "on the ground" understanding that Tabor can't understand. As for nonsense about hatred, because it is rubbish, are we to believe that Apostle Levi hated Apostle Simon? Really??? Click bait atheistic propaganda that will feed the desperate and ignorant of the actual content and purpose of the words. Awful
23 One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24 The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?” 25 He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26 In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.” 27 Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” If you ready careful, Jesus did not say He broke the Law so you can break too. Read. 7 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Jesus answer the question, 8 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” Maybe this will help you to understand that Jesus is Jehovah Zac. 9:9 and John 12:15 on the earth.
One of the reasons I think Matthew and Luke hated Mark (probably Secret Mark) and tried to override him is that Mark reads like a play: immediately Jesus goes here, immediately he goes there, immediately he goes to another place. It's like breaking down one scene and setting up another. Another reason I think they hate (Secret) Mark is that it casts assertions of Jesus’s sexuality that the two probably considered sinful or at least inappropriate. Secret Mark 10:34ff has Jesus raise a young man from his grave and six days later spends the night teaching the secrets of the Kingdom of God to the young man, who is nearly naked. Likewise in Mark 14:51-52 another nearly naked youth is accompanying Jesus at Gethsemane and the authorities tried to seize him (maybe they thought he was a rent boy?), but he runs off stark naked! Both have been edited out, replaced elsewhere with the healing of the Centurion's slave boy.
@Edward Miessner, is your thinking that they didn't have words for homosexuals back then? They did, so it's weird then that they could have used the proper word if that was the impression they meant to give. Instead of you deciding to pull out a detail that isn't really there, have you maybe considered looking at the Gethsemane scene like any normal person would? Judas has led a crowd straight to Jesus. The crowd has swords and clubs. They grab Jesus, then Peter whips out his sword and attacks one of them. (I shouldn't have to mention it here, but everybody is clothed). Suddenly, it's chaos and none of the followers of Jesus want to get caught so they all flee in a panic. How panicked were they? "A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him [the young man], he fled naked leaving his garment behind." To sum up, some folks in the crowd grabbed the young man by his garment, and the young man tore away from it to get away. Get your head out of the gutter.
What Luke really hated was the crucifixion narrative and I'm surprised that Matthew kept it verbatim. Because at the end of his suffering on the _stauros_ Jesus cries out with a loud voice and breathes his last. That sort of death is congruent to a violent, sudden, and shameful death on an impaling stake (included in the LSJ definition of _stauros._ ) Jesus is lucid to the very end, something not expected from a death by hypovolemic shock, gradual asphyxiation, or fatigue from extreme torture. But on an impaling stake, Jesus would be sliding down that last millimeter and pierce or otherwise compromise a vital organ and the result would be extreme pain followed by a sudden death. Gross. No wonder Luke and John changed it.
A potential context to consider. The names of each gospel being a theme. Mark is Markus. One dedicated to the god Mars. Not saying that Mark was pagan but what does Mars stand for? War, fertility, and protector of cattle. Matthew, originally Levi, is more of a strict Jew. Perhaps an allusion to a Levite but think that his name change to gift of Yah but Nattan the root for gift and links to Levites from the exile who married foriegn wives. Each gospel is a story of a different type of believer. That type of believe dictates actions and understandings of the gospel. It’s okay for a markian believer to break certain laws. Perhaps no so much for a matthenian one.
Considering how Mark was written, if he left out much of what would be the some of the most popular stories that we associate with Jesus and Christianity, what was the purpose of Mark writing it? He doesn't seem to posit a divine Jesus. He doesn't seem to propose that Jesus is a part of the 'trinity'. What then was his reason for writing? It seems to be the polar opposite of the other gospels.
I, myself, think it is more likely that Matthew and Luke were the first Gospels. Even all the Church fathers say this. I believe this rather than the pure conjecture of modern scholars. There some are scholars that believe Mark was just a written copy of one of Peter's sermons in Rome and that Peter used Matthew and Luke as a guide. This would explain the many story omissions in Mark as Peter, speaking, wouldn't have the time to speak to every story in Matthew and Luke, including Jesus' birth and other stories may not have been as important to the Romans. This also explains the rough writing of Mark compared with Matthew and Luke. I think modern scholars see Mark and try to come up with their own ideas of what may have happened based on pure speculation. The problem is that they tend to parade it around, not as speculation or hypothesis, but as a fact. And people just believe them because they are scholars. But in examining scholars one should always determine what their presuppositions are... what they are and aren't assuming. In reality, we don't really know if Mark was written first, if Matthew or Luke revised Mark, or if Matthew or Luke hated Mark's Gospel. But common sense is that Matthew was first. Why in the world would the apostle's first Gospel be to the Romans and not the Jews?
Really cool. I just read that portion of Mark 12, and Jesus clearly says that there is only one God and there's no other, so I don't know how people can read that and think Jesus thought he was God.
Well, there is the fact that almost all modern scholars on the subject believe that the author of Mark believed Jesus was divine. Even Bart Ehrman. So it makes little sense to read the gospel in any other light. The trouble with critical scholarship is that it can't bring that recognition into the picture, by the ground rules of the discipline. So it is bound to be misinterpreted and misunderstood. It's Mark 10 BTW.
Unfortunately, the Gospel of Mark is mostly a parable for Paul. Therefore, for the most part, the only historical Jesus in Mark is the Jerusalem church's Jesus Barabbas, whom Mark overwrote with Paul and Paul's Jesus Christ.
Considering that Matthew was originally in Hebrew and was indeed the first gospel written, it is clear why Mark sounds like its bad translation/interpretation. Because it is exactly that - a poor translation of Matthew's Gospel made by Mark who was not very proficient in Greek.
Mischaracterizing the writers of the gospels in order to levy a particular view is hypocritical. Pitting one view against the other is a tactic Satan uses, "Hath God said?"... I wouldn't bother spending money on this because the premise has a bad root. Another point is that the author doesn't believe in the "long" ending of Mark. PS. The omission theory regarding Mark's ending uses an earlier text that omits the NAME of the Savior. Nobody would argue we don't know his Name because the same text omits it? The "long" ending is a record well kept.
I am a universalist. I think Jesus was also a universalist. Well, the real Jesus of history, that is. Because while I accept that the writers of Matthew and Luke may have hated some of the intentions of Mark, I more think they were making a name for themselves. I side more with Robyn Walsh that the gospel writers were not orthodox community members, but members of the greater society with its more Hellenistic influences. The apparent rivalry could, therefore, be nothing more than an effort to outdo the prior, while chaffing at the creative constraints the prior work saddled them with. Again, I say this in the context of me being a universalist. What I mean by that entails an entirely different telling of the Jesus story. A Jesus story that is more like Mark, but even more so, if you catch my drift. Because He would have had a ministry that made Him famous. The only thing those people who remembered Him had would have been word of mouth, until the gospels. The written gospels filled a market, economically speaking. They had to be close, but they could leave out the universalism. It wasn't anything anybody wanted to hear. The writers could take a side for hell, in other words, and get away with it. Who was going to stop them? There is more to why Jesus was so at odds with the religious establishment than is written, I think. It does come down to the division between self interpretation and rigid doctrinal boundaries. It does so because it is the Spirit that gives life, not the law. But words do have an impact. Jesus implied as much, when He said that His words had cleansed His disciples, so that they could receive the Holy Spirit. It's about getting at truth. It will be the same whether it comes from the law or the Spirit. Einstein, however, proved that these things are relative. It is the Spirit, therefore, whom you have to follow over the reverence of the scroll.
No one is good but God. I believe what Jesus was expressing was the inappropriate behavior of respecting of persons, and expressing himself to be the only good one, as he is God.
The variances and nuances of the gosple, despite the reasons why, was Holy spirit inspired. Not only to expess it through God's earthly ministry, but to expess the separation of who the gospels were talking to for the end times patterns, of the lamp lit, Gentile Church bride, the left behind tabulation saints/ believers and then the redeemed of Israel, when they say "blessed is He who comes in the name of thre LORD. " 3 gosples for 3 groups. That is the reason for the presupposed differences.
@@ShadeUnderTheSoul The writer of Matthew only wrote one work that we know of. Matthew copied, corrected, and omitted material from Mark. That's all we know. Maybe you don't understand what the word motive means. But it's not something "scholars" do with zero information. We don't have Matthew's mind to interrogate, question, other writings from Matthew to get more clues, etc. Maybe he "liked" Mark's gospel just fine, but wanted to put a mark of originality on his to set it apart. Maybe it was a writer's competition in a certain genre. We don't know. We can't ask him.
@@eximusic Hmmm... I get your point but Looking at WHAT was changed, HOW it was changed, and what it was changed into seems like a clear indicator of intent and motive can be inferred from that.
Just a big 'argument from silence'. There are also things in Mark that aren't in the others, but that doesn't nullify the others. At the end of the day all four gospels together are the one Gospel message. The fact that there are four different and overlapping perspectives of the same events only lends more authenticity to what is being described as being real historical events. Multiple witnesses will always have different perspectives of the same event. You only have to watch the evening news to know that.
Sure, it makes complete sense that 4 different authors would describe a whole bunch of differing oral traditions that have these similarities and differences. However, I was taught repeatedly (in various churches) that these were written by the eyewitness, and their writing was 'inspired by god' to eliminate errors. You take that away, and there isn't anything that separates the Bible form any other foundational religious texts that Christians easily dismiss as false.
Spoken like an apologist... Early proto-christian sects only had ONE gospel account available and that shaped their beliefs. Stories changed, overlapped, and intersected but, initially, each one was/is a standalone document.
@@coreyc490 "...one Gospel account available...." Which doesn't contradict the others. "Stories changed..." What stories changed? "...overlapped, and intersected but, initially, each one was/is a standalone document." Which only points to their authenticity as true eyewitness accounts. And they all give the same message. They all teach Christ.
@@leob3447 "...written by eyewitnesses, and their writing was inspired by God... You take that away..." You cannot 'take away' the fact that it is an eyewitness account. You cannot change history. It has already happened.
@@mmss3199 Of course they are eyewitnesses. They were there. "...irreconcilable contradictions." What is your strongest "irreconcilable contradiction"?
Not only is hate a much too large word, even dislike doesn't seem to describe it: Luke and Matthew want to reach different audiences, and they had additional sources like the source of sayings, Q. Especially Luke tones down every harshness in Jesus and tries to show him as good, mild-mannered man, fitting for praise and for pity about his undeserved end. Matthew wrote for Jewish Christians and wanted to emphasize the law and how Jesus had changed it. . . . About the last words of Jesus: The crucified normally died a slow and agonizing death and had much time to speak before the torture of hanging took their breath away. Jesus prays psalms in all four gospels, which he could have done for days, if he hadn't died already after a few hours, probably from being beaten. Each gospel author chooses a quote from the psalms that fits their audience best. Luke went again for the mildest and most sympathetic quote.
I’m aware that Mark references Psalm 22…which is rarely mentioned for some reason. I’m curious, What are the other allusions? Are they not as obvious or it maybe it depends on subtleties of translations? Anyone, really interesting point.
@@cipherklosenuf9242 - Mark and Matthew quote the beginning of psalm 22 while John quotes the end of it, in a passive not an active voice. Luke quotes psalm 31, not the beginning but the first half of the sixth verse. . . . From the gospels, we cannot say if Jesus prayed whole psalms or only parts of it. It was a long time to die and to pray, Jesus knew many psalms by heart, and many psalms around psalms 22 and 31describe a faithful believer in misery. . . . I read of this first in Shalom Ben Chorim's book about the Jewish Jesus. There, Ben Chorim describes how psalms could be prayed by stating the first line out loud and the following lines in mumbling voice, like readers in the ancient times read books. Even the calling for Elijah could be explained by praying the psalm IIRC: if repeating verse 22,20 as Eli atta, Eli atta, the mumbling could be heard as Elija ta, Elija ta (Elijah, come) - but I would have to find the passage by Ben Chorim again, to be sure. . . . As I wrote, we can't be sure what Jesus said, but to me it seems natural he prayed the psalms he knew and that gave him comfort until the torture took his breath and then his conscience away. (People executed on the cross couldn't shout just before they died, they could only call out earlier when they still had the energy to do so.)
@@Achill101 Thanks Peter…really interesting and makes sense. Crucifixion slowly exhausts and asphyxiates the victim…with loss of oxygen our bodies panic …this is inevitable…being naked and panicking, pretty humiliating public torture, the description of mumbling a psalm totally makes sense. I haven’t read Jewish Jesus, but I can recommend Rabbi Jesus by Bruce Chilton.
Mark I always felt was more in line to the original Jesus than the Matthew, Luke, and John; than consider that Mark was written in CE and I believe the other two were written in one or two AD. Then let's not talk about the corruption brownie could have done, and the Protestants could have further corrupted the scriptures; the only scriptures we have is the Jewish scriptures
Yes! Finally a Dr. Tabor vid introducing us to the Mark I know and hinting at the deeper foundational nature of who and what the historical Yeshua (Jesus) was... prior to Him being perverted into the false "Savior," "Redeemer" and founder of Christianity the later Synoptics portray Him to have been. As I also pointed out in an earlier critique here of a previous video by Dr. Tabor on Mark... the most critically important revelation we find in Mark, the one I hope Dr. Tabor explores deeply in his own course, is the complete lack of any mention of either a resurrection or, most telling of all, any final appearance and final commission given to the "apostles" by Yeshua to found and "preach" a new religion and thus forward its attendant Christology upon which ALL of Christianity absolutely depends. This complete absence in original Mark is the strongest evidence there is indicating, if not proving, the complete falsehood of all that is Christianity, itself. For without the resurrection and, more specifically, Yeshua's "Final Commission" for preaching a new "covenant," the "apostles" had no foundation to claim Yeshua as any sort of worldwide "Savior"... much less also having any subsequent Christological "gospel" and religion to spread so proclaiming Him. In short... as the earliest Gospel makes no mention of the resurrection and, more importantly, no mention of any Final Commission... then EVERYTHING we thought we knew of "Jesus" as a "Savior" and founder of Christianity ... is false. All of it... concocted out of thin air by the "apostles" after Yeshua's departure in a self-serving power grab to benefit themselves (e.g., Acts 4:32 - 5:11) resulting in "great fear gripp(ing) the whole church" as the "apostles" wielded dictatorial powers of life and death over their followers. But... if this is so (and it is)... where does this leave us re: who and what the historical Yeshua was... and what also was His mission here, if any? While I am doubtful Dr. Tabor will have much to say on this, yet the astounding evidences for all of this are also right there hidden in plain sight... both in the Gospel of Mark and also the Gospels of Thomas and Philip (found bound together in leather at Nag Hammadi for a reason), and found additionally mentioned throughout the Tanakh. Yet all of these glaring evidences have remained hidden in plain sight and probably will continue to remain so for quite some time to come. At least until my current 12-part TH-cam series is completed and I move on to a future such specific to the historical Yeshua.
Mark wrote his gospel, after Paul (and other apostles) had already spread the message of Jesus as resurrected savior and written letters to the new Christian communities they had founded. But the new Christians wanted to hear more about Jesus' life, and the eye witnesses were dying: hence the gospels.
The gospel of thomas and phillip in the tanach???? If the gospels were exactly identical, we would need only one. Each has more or less information on different things. The gospel of John has no mention of the last passover??? Does that mean it never happened??? I imagine your 12 part YT is complete bogus rubbish as well.
@@astutik8909 ... Where did I say the Gospels of Thomas and Philip were in the Tanakh? What I said was that both of these were found bound together in leather at Nag Hammadi for a reason. And where did I discuss anything from the Gospel of John, much less the "last Passover"? The only rubbish here is yours...as plainly manifested by your poor reading comprehension skills and inability to think. And that's not something I can do for you. Best wishes!
@@astutik8909 - IIRC the gospel of John had a slightly different timeline for the last supper (one day earlier?), and it centered around Jesus washing his disciples' feet, not the breaking of the bread. . . . Christian theology interprets many parts of the Tanach as pointing to Jesus, most famously Deutero-Isaiah's songs of God's suffering servant. Maybe there are also passages in the Tanach that could be related to Thomas etc. Historic-critical analysis it is not.
@@Achill101 yes, the new passover was a day earlier because Jesus was being crucified and died at the same time the jews were slaying the lambs for the old passover. The old passover was on 14th Abib which merges into the 15th after the sunset. Jesus and the apostles must have kept their new passover on the 13th Abib, which would have been the 14th after sunset. So, we learn different things from each of the 4 gospels. We can also learn the scarlet and purple color code from the gospels. Fascinating.
Or Neville was correct about rubble you missed with casting marks. I heard Ben Gurion the other day on “Meet the Press.” He is a grand old fellow of 80 now, who still sees the world as a history book and hasn’t the slightest idea about scripture. Oh, he can quote it from cover to cover, but he’s not alone. My sister’s maid can quote the Bible from beginning to end, but she doesn’t know a thing about life. Ben Gurion quotes the Bible beautifully, but he hasn’t the slightest concept of who Abraham really is, or Isaac, or Moses, or Jacob, or any of these who were never mortal born.
Is this a quote from long ago, when Ben Gurion still lived? It seems bit misplaced in this thread, but do you have the source? . . . I only know of Ben Gurion that he did bible study group, doubted the exodus happened as described, and liked the fifteenth(?) psalm best.
Not a bubble burst. Saying, “The Gospel Account traditionally attributed to Mark” is long and awkward. It’s a just convention…a political commentator saying “The U.S.” for The United States of America” doesn’t mean she isn’t aware …this is not a gotcha moment.
They actually, "hated..." Mark. Seriously Dude. Is there any possible way to ratchet down the hyperbole? It would be dramatic enough to say, Matthew and Luke CHANGED Mark! That's dramatic, right? And it's not a probable blatant lie. I don't see the writers of Matthew or Luke sitting reading Mark saying, "man, I HATE this shit?" Am I wrong? I could be wrong. OK, he says, hate. Heh. Well you know. Can't be right about everything.
Hated? If they hated Mark, they would have just said, "Look at this rubbish. I'm going to write what really happened." They clearly didn't do that. They took most of what Mark had to say, but they obviously did not think Mark was the inspired Word of God or they would not have changed anything. They would have added their own material, but they wouldn't have gainsaid the Word of the Lord.
“Inspired word of god” is later concept. At the time of writing the authors of the gospels were just regular Christians writing down the story of their founder. I doubt they thought of themselves (or of others authors) as vessels for the Word of God.
Your comment suggests distress. Personally, I laid down the burden of supernatural beliefs over many years. I’m available if you would like to elaborate on your reaction and I’m compassionate about the difficulty one may experience in confronting belief systems with new information that doesn’t fit.
All 4 of them are canonical. All 4 of them carry the same good news about the Kingdom and the King and his people. And all 4 of them don't hate anything about the Word of God
Matthew was taking notes and he wrote first for predominantly Hebrew communities... Later on Mark was writing for mission among pagans so he abervated Matthew to obtain only the narration about Jesus without large teaching blocks and even expanded Matthew where he had to explain sth only Hebrews were familiar with such as 'Shema' in Mt22 /Mark12... 4 canonical gospels are in harmony not in anemosity....
all your conclusions are stretching. "hate?" You are are ascribing intention to material with absolutely no proof. Could they simply just...disagree. Also because Mark was t he first doesn't mean it was the closest to the Jesus story. Again, another massive assumption.
mark jesus break sabbath but jesus exolain sabbath for men bal bla but in matthew jesus necome authoryy figure mark only god is good matyhew change mark matthew dont fully like makr matyhew taken out mark pharisees commanded law or skmetiing matthew have jesus teach on temple but take out mark pharisee mathhew taken out widow being better after doing chatity from mark mathhew revised mark he takes out matyhew dislike mark changes it revise matuhew luke rewrote mark recast them
First of all the messiah's name is not Jesus . In the first century when the Messiah walked the Earth he was given the name Yeshua Ben Yosef. The name Jesus Christ or Jesus itself didn't exist until the year 1524 when the J was introduced into the Greek alphabet. Also, Christmas is a false pagan holiday that doesn't have anything to do with the Almighty, the Messiah or the Bible
@@JamesTaborVideos I have. This does not indicate Mark was hated. Luke and Matthew added material they were familiar with. No animosity is to be presumed.
@@mistermurtad2831 Even referring to me as "this guy" and the sarcastic "magic 8 ball" comment, ignoring totally the careful method used,...says a lot. Well I can't debate this with you on YT comments but in my work I dig deeply into the details...believe me, it is much more than "adding materials," but since I have covered this thoroughly in my various YT lectures, not to mention the course, I can not offer anything more here...
@@JamesTaborVideos The Birth story is just added details. The rest is for focus on a different audience or to emphasize elements they believe were left out or needed more clarity. The ending of Mark is abrupt and is presumed lost. Matthew was most likely written to Jewish populations. All of this has been hashed out before without the animosity you project towards Mark. Do you have a book you have written. I may buy it when it hits the clearance shelves. The "Why do you call me good" has long been understood as a rhetorical question. It expects the reader to supply, "Because you are God". Remember this comes after Mark 8 where Jesus says, "of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” We see Jesus identifying himself as the Son or Man that harkens back to Daniel 7, He also associates himself with the glory of God as his Father." This comes after Peter's confession of him being the Christ.
@@tookie36 in verse 20, after Jesus asks the question in verse 18 and gives the answer to the original question of the man in verse 19, the young man calls Jesus “teacher” instead of “good teacher” like before, and Jesus does nothing, rather he focuses on the young man’s question.
@@basimali619 he diminished his praise of god/jesus which then leads to the man leaving altogether. I would say that it shows the man doesn’t understand what was said and then wasn’t able to listen to god not follow him
@@tookie36 again, wrong conclusion, as Jesus actually loved the young man after he diminished Jesus’ praise and learning that he followed the commandments, the young man ONLY left because he wanted to retain his riches, it’s plainly stated.
These writers also did not know and understand what they were writing about! However, they did not realize that they were writing abt divine meaning of Jesus life and teaching!
Let's see, you base your assertion that Matthew and Luke "hate" Mark on the assumption that they quoted from and rewrote this gospel. Now that is pure speculation. There is NO firm evidence for this theory. The first thing you mention in support is that Mark does not contain the miraculous conception. True enough, but Mark did not begin his relation that early. He begins where Jesus's MINISTRY starts. You cannot from this deduce that he either did not know about the tradition or did not believe it. He simply did not start his relation of the events that early, and that is ALL you can infer from that. As for the ending, the same applies. He mentions the resurrection and ends it there. What he does not mention and the other gospels do in this respect is totally irrelevant to whether he would have agreed (or should I say did agree, as he certainly would have learned about their accounts) with their narrative. He certainly left no testimony saying that they were in error and that his gospel was the only authoritative version. The relation of the disciples taking ears of wheat on the Sabbath and Jesus proclaiming that he is Lord of the Sabbath is a strange thing to quote in claiming that Matthew "hated" Mark. The differences in relation of the event have no such inference. It only shows two people with different recollection and perspective telling of the same event. There is hardly any point in discussing the differences when the agreement is so profound on the basics. You only do so because you have made up your mind that Matthew was using Mark as a reference to write his own gospel. The differences in fact prove the exact opposite. They were both using their own independent research on the facts and what witnesses had told them to compile the best possible relation they were capable of. In fact, the rest of your "examples" are in the exact same vein. There is nothing that isn't explained by perspective and independent witness. Differences are not only totally reconcilable and only a matter of personal perspective, but the congruence between accounts and agreement on doctrinal content is overwhelming. As I said, your conclusions are all based on the presupposition that gospels were using each other as reference. The evidence points in the exact opposite direction. Only higher critics would even consider what James Tabor says as scholarly, and that is only because they don't like the implications of Jesus being the Son of God, the Messiah, Emmanuel - God with us, died on the cross and resurrected on the third day. Your bias is a toxic potion that has corrupted all truth in you to the point that you can no longer discern the lie.
@@coreyc490 A better question is, what motivates the atheist to so actively oppose a God they profess not to believe in? Fear on the part of the believer? No, more a concern that these anti-christs will mislead others and therefore making the case as clearly and logically as possible in the hope that at least some will be able to see how insubstantial the atheist case is. If I can save even one from the atheist delusion, then all the effort is justified.
@@deniss2 Spoken like a true fanatic... Athiests don't "actively oppose a god they profess not to believe in". They actively oppose the narrow minded and dogmatic views promoted by his followers based on indoctrination. Particularly when those views are imposed on believers and non-believers alike. Unlike christians who have a mandate to spread the word I, and most atheists, don't have a de-conversion agenda to uphold.
@@coreyc490 Yes, that should be the position. However, simply listening to a missionary and saying, "well, I'm not interested. You're welcome to your God, but I don't believe a word of it." Should suffice and usually draw the response, "ok, you have the perfect right to remain in your error." Then what is THIS all about? The atheist gets one "expert" after the other, attempts to pull apart the ideas, scriptures and doctrines with false logic, lies and analysis based on nothing but conjecture, and never stops. This guest devotes his life to teaching lies about what we believe and de-converting Christians and gaining support for his idiotic views on books he doesn't believe in. And finally, when I see this and explain why it isn't a reasonable view and false conclusions and flawed logic and lies not supported by history or texts, then there are countless responses from empty headed followers shouting "amen, amen" to these people, trying to discredit me and/or my refutation of the content. Are you all so unsure of your views that you need to resort to following every person who expresses opposition to the God you don't believe in and his followers? What is the point?
@@deniss2 You seem to be assuming that there’s an “atheist agenda” and that ‘the atheist’ parades out a string of experts “to pull apart the ideas, scriptures and doctrines with false logic, lies and analysis based on nothing but conjecture”. That’s a dogmatic and cowardly position. You see, no one is “Teaching lies”. Proper (secular) scholarship approaches the gospels (and other holy writings)from a non-magical, non-mythical, historical position i.e. not trying to dabble in theological issues. It’s obvious that you don’t like this approach but the fact that you don’t like it is irrelevant. It’s irrelevant because there are at least as many people who fearlessly question the stories in a search for truth as there are who have the stories “explained” to them as theology. While I appreciate your conviction, calling Dr.Tabor a liar and to say that his scholarship is suspect is sad and a bit ridiculous. It’s sad because your dogmatism and fear permeate every word you’ve written. It’s ridiculous because Dr. Tabor’s motives and scholarship are beyond reproach in academic circles and it’s apparent from your initial post that you can’t or won’t grasp what’s being said. Ultimately, the point isn’t to “follow every person who expresses opposition to the god we don’t believe in.” It’s to learn as much as we can so that we can make up our own minds. Plugging one’s ears and stamping one’s feet while following every person who professes “the word” is the purview of the Christian.
Don't forget all of these apostle had tongues of fire land on their heads in the upper room..The Holy Ghost knew what He was doing..no need to butcher the bible for money.
0:10 Is he suggesting St. Luke didn't like the story of a woman who had ruined herself on doctors to no avail? Seriously, this nonsense is one of the issues we should have with Markan priority. Another one is, tradition says Matthean priority. This was attacked in Prussia, and during the Kulturkampf - and it so happens, St. Matthew has some of the best support for papacy.
Not sure what you are referring to...in this video over view? I don't think I even discuss Luke and the woman with the bleeding problem...The woman I referred to was the poor widow...that Matthew removes...see at 6 minutes in...
@@JamesTaborVideos We are Blessed with The Gift Of Faith... .... ( as A Child ) ... Mark 10: 13-16: (13) And they brought young children to him, that HE should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them... (14) But, when Jesus saw it, HE WAS MUCH DISPLEASED, and said unto them, " Suffer the little Children to come into ME, and forbid them NOT: For of such is the Kingdom of God"... (15) Verily I say unto you, WHOSOEVER SHALL NOT RECEIVE THE KINGDOM OF GOD AS A LITTLE "CHILD", HE SHALL NOT ENTER THEREIN .... (16) And HE took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.... ( Love❤️ is the Greatest Gift!) & Faith, .. is a very Precious Gift & Fruit... given to His Children... by His Amazing Grace & His Precious *Holy Spirit*.... & "if" Most Scholars say, The Original Text Of Mark ended with : Mark 16:8 ?? Well...Either way ..I read & I believe..Mark 16: 6!)..(6)And he saith unto them, be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: HE IS RISEN;💥HE IS NOT HERE: 💥BEHOLD THE PLACE WHERE THEY LAID HIM..(7) But, Go your way, tell his disciples & Peter, that he goeth "before" you to Galilee: there you shall find him, as HE said unto you💥... I'm open minded ...but, I'm taking heed also! & Praying for The TRUTH & GOD'S MERCY ON US ALL! I took your Online Course- on The Book of Mark...... & I'm just wondering.... Didn't you say there wasn't anything about ... "The Resurrection" in The Book of Mark??? Even "if" scholars say it ends suddenly in verse ( 8 ) ?? Well, it clearly says in verse..(6) And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: YE SEEK JESUS OF NAZARETH, WHICH WAS CRUCIFED: HE IS RISEN:💥 HE IS NOT HERE: 💥BEHOLD THE PLACE WHERE THEY LAID HIM! 💥.... SO, I DO SEE ... "A RESURRECTION" IN THE BOOK OF MARK💥 💥PRAISE OUR LOVING... ABBA FATHER & HIS SON 💥♥️💥♥️💥♥️💥♥️💥
@@karenhess342 Glad you took the course, hope you learned a lot. What I focused on was NO resurrection appearances! The abrupt ending. Also, even in Mark 16:7, the verb is not "resurrected," but "has been lifted up" same verb as in 9:27...In Mark's view Jesus has been taken up to heaven...not a revived corpse walking around, eating, showing his wounds, etc.
@@hglundahl Ha! Well I have the impression that most who comment have not watched the videos they comment on. Often they just go for the title...as for Markan priority, yes, that is bedrock for most scholars who have examined all the evidence but this course is not about that...works from there. I do have videos on that if you want to get into it. See my overview here if you are interested: th-cam.com/video/3M-EYMNcoRA/w-d-xo.html
At bible study my priest explains it very well about the disciples, this topic becomes much deeper than anyone is aware of. Much deeper! Tuborg is way off and doesn't even know it ,think of all the people who were taught from him chaotic !👎🖐😫
This is literally the opinion of some guy, 2000 years after the fact His view was not even a thing that no early church writings discussed. There is also nothing in the gospels that state or suggest that Matthew and Luke hate Mark and vise versa. None of the gospels state that the author hates this and that or loves this and that. This dude is making crap up. That's sad and stupid
Sign up for 👉 "Creating Jesus: Why Mark’s Gospel Was Forgotten?"
www.mythvisionpodcast.com/firstgospel
@blacklesbianpoet1228 I rail appreciatively FOR Mark.
Signed up paid and only had access for half a day. requested refund from Paypal.
@Black Lesbian Poet Hi Black Lesbian Poet… I read your posts and I’m not sure I understand? Are you commenting about Myth Vision the channel…
or on this particular video?
It sounds like you have general criticism of Myth Vision and/or Myth Vision viewers.
You also sound very passionate about your opinions.
I am willing to engage in conversation and have my viewpoint challenged.
Cheers!
@blacklesbianpoet1228 MMGA is railing against the pagan influence of Mathew and Luke.
It's amazing how the gospel of mark has been under our noses for 2000 years, yet the other gospels "cover" for it's shortcomings. Once something is elevated to the level of inspired writings, it escapes criticism. Mark was always an enigma, there really is no beginning or end to it, it's very raw and dry. The other gospels had to add the seasonings... 😂. Thank you for this!
Its Mark that deconverted me 👍. While still a christian, I tought, gonna read Mark then Acts, cos they say thats the order they were written. I did, and I went... hey.. this is cr&p 😂👍
Marcan priority is old news. Most scholars since the late 19th century have accepted it.
Why would the early church not compromise all 4 gospels into 1? It seems it would have been much easier, and cheaper especially when it was being assimilated throughout the Roman Empire.
@@nick7977 Totally agree.Is that not evidence they were written decades apart ?
There is no conflict - it's a magic trick and deception. Don't fall for it, he's an atheist Wizard of Oz behind a curtain
A common response would be “they all had different perspectives”. This is way more than that!
So did Mein Kampf, doesn't make it accurate or valid.
It is made up and exaggerated is what it is. We cannot rely on "unbelievers" with loaded expectations to provide a fair appraisal. You will argue that the thousands of equally well qualified scholars with faith are equally bias, maybe so, but they way outnumber these new sceptics and at the very least you should read both camps and not swallow this propaganda hook line and sinker. It all depends on a one sided approach and one sides interpretation - and the gullibility of people who want the reassurance that they don't have to address the issues of human behaviour, a creator and the rest. Follow this line if you must, but due diligence is a wiser approach.
@@hj925
We've listened to these Evangelical Scholars hours and we find that they're bumbling deceivers at best
They are simply propaganda tools of their own denomination or ego
Jesus as described in Mark seems neurotic. He loses his temper a lot and belittles his followers. He even cursed a fig tree! He tried to avoid the masses of people who were ill and wanted him to heal them. I actually prefer the depiction of Jesus in Mark because he seems so human.
Well Christ wasn’t weak. He was fierce
@@whichypoohs That's for sure!
@@RaysDad Mark’s version feels a lot like the boss's son being forced to work undercover at his dad’s business.
To think Jesus sinned and was human is blasphemy. Yall just don't know or respect him as God. Repent
@@LOVEisACTIONABLE To think that your current version of Christianity is the one true form of Christianity passed down from Jesus to your pastor to you is not only ignorant of history but also ignorant of the very book you put your faith in.
i took the class. i thought the weirdest thing in Mark was Jesus said he didn't want people to understand his parables, "Lest they turn and be forgiven." a bit odd. my question though is about the ending. the women found the tomb, went away afraid, "and told no one." i wondered if the 'told no one' story could be a cover because none of this was claimed till much later. "well, why didn't anybody mention it back then? I was around and I heard nothing at all about it." it's human nature to find far-out things more believable the further in the past they are. for example, roswell wasn't really publicized till decades after the purported events. the far-out theories about kennedy's assassination became more believable the further from the events it got. is it possible all these stories about jesus' rising from the dead didn't come out till decades later and the 'told no one' line was an explanation for why no one at the time ever heard of any of this?
Pretty much.
Same reason why you see the tomb guards in later gospels and not in Mark. To fill in plot holes and rationalize inconsistencies.
I'd recommend checking out some of Bart Ehrmans work, he'll answer alot of the questions you have
They obviously told at least one person, since the story eventually became known lol. It's probably just an awkward narrative cliffhanger attempt that was found distasteful or clumsy to later readers.
Sorry but that's a revision of history. After the Apollo landings in 1969 a huge chunk of the American people were lukewarm about moon landings and not at all massively into ''the greatest achievements of mankind''. Due to riots on home soil, racial confrontations and a dirty war in Vietnam..During Apollo 12 a re-run of Lucy Ball was halted in favor of Apollo tv . The complaints were huge. In the decade of the seventies a larger chunk of society didn't believe in any real moonlandings whereas in the nineties and 2000 the amount of doubters shrunk considerably.Only to recently raise some suspicion again because it's taking an awful lot of time and rehashed research to go to the moon in a manned mission with vastly superior technologies. The same applies to 9/11 . The doubters were a very, very large group in the decade right after 9/11. But nowadays the subject is suffocated a quiet death.
What does happen is a constant revision of history. That's why it's very important to keep a record of old newspapers, because history is constantly altered to meet the current narrative. All newspapers had headlines that transmission of Covid19 would stop 100% after vaccination.It was scientifically proven by a new study. When i show people the headlines they already start to accuse me of fake news or some 'home made'' cooking .I do it only for myself, but people are always lying, changing, manipulating past, present and future at will. It makes truth seeking damn hard.
Very good video though and i agree with many aspects.
He was talking about you.
Matthew's group want to euhemerize Jesus.
Luke's group want to solidify the authority of their organizational hierarchy.
If you're the earlier Mark camp, you don't care about any of that.
Mark's Jesus is the Jesus of Paul. You don't care if Jesus appears to fit into an earthly narrative or not. He shows up to do one thing and he does it. The end. The narrative isn't about Jesus as a person at all. It's about conveying the ideas an evangelist would need to be able to convey all packaged in a narrative format.
You also don't care about organizational hierarchy. You're still a relatively tiny group with a couple satellite groups around the sea. None much bigger than a book club. You have minimal organizational needs and the only point of rigid hierarchy is whoever Paul's successors were.
Matthew is clearly dealing in apologetics.
The christians have been waiting around for their apocalypse long enough by then that they're beginning to be forced to grapple with all of the criticism and mockery they receive. Can't just fall back on "They'll get theirs when the kingdom of god shows up." when you've been falling back on that for a couple of generations now. It's not particularly comforting.
So they give to Jesus what other Greek heroes have, a full life's story. Cradle to grave.
This group is also dealing with a change in demographics. They're trying to appeal to wealthier and more educated people. Mark is great if you're appealing to poor workers down on the docks or in the labor camps. It's practically vindictive towards elites. But now you've grown large enough that you're trying to get money from those elites. Better massage the story a bit to get them onboard.
I don't think Luke's group hate Mark. They seem to have a lineage that leads back to the Mark group. They retain some phrasing and terminology which Matthew changes etc.
What they do have is a need to solidify power within the group. The disparate satellite groups are getting some wacky ideas and the main group is getting so big that the whole thing is in danger of getting out of hand. We see this all the time with informal groups which grow beyond the ability of a loose authority structure to corral.
But how do you cement the authority which has already been established? Do what Paul did. Claim discipleship. Then take the added step of claiming that being "of the disciples" conveys some additional authority. How to do that? Start by downplaying the apparent lack of authority the disciples have by taking out the parts where they are to stupid to live.
It's all organization and apologetics. Power and money.
The kinds of things Mark's Jesus had some real problems with (ignoring the context for a minute).
If christians had any sense, they'd toss out everything except Mark and Paul's authentic letters.
But ya know, a fool and his money are soon parted.
So, subscribe and support MythVision 😈
I agree with the large strokes of your description. Especially with Luke's group being a club of the elite.
But why do you think Paul was preaching to down-trodden workers and labor camps? I had the impression Paul liked the elite, too, and had only theological differences with Luke. I found more likelihood in the old tradition that Mark wrote down Peter's words: a worker speaks to workers.
What did you mean with Matthew's group wanted to "euhemerize" Jesus?
I think Mark is Gospel that sticks closest to real story of Jesus. Matthew, Luke & John all have an agenda
You don't think Mark had an agenda? He wasn't an historian recording the facts. He just had a different agenda than the others.
Mark is a Pauline Gospel. They are all propaganda. But yeah you are right, the unknown author of Mark brings us closest to the real Jesus in comparison to the other 3
@@dwaneanderson8039 He did just not as much
It's all fkn nonsense
Real story lolol!!!
Excellent. finally someone talks about this hate for "Mark".*** the Nazoreans would have hated or called out the BS on all of the Gospels
Definitely.
James Tabor made up that "hate".
Matthew and Luke wrote for different audiences and had additional sources, like the sayings, Q, of Jesus.
Prayers!💔💔💔💔
@@karenhess342 Hi Karen, I am curious---Are you familiar with Who the Nazoreans were ? (Matthew 2:23)---or the Gospel of the Nazoreans? or the Gospel of the Hebrews? or the Gospel of the Ebionites? (using their common names)>Aware of His family and original lineage of John-Jesus-James? **Sure Hope So.
@@Achill101sayings has a name, you know that, right? Gospel of Thomas.
Registered for the course, paid for it via paypal and was able to watch the first lesson. The next day I couldn't access it Thrive cart didn't recognize my email adress. there wasn't even an email link for some sort of Support. So I actioned a refund through Paypal. Although I know its not a scam it certainly felt like one. Please note: I did not receive any email( Checked inbox, spam and trash) asking for confirmation of my email address; one was supposed to be received within 15 minutes of payment. My guess is that purchase must be made during USA Business hours( I live in Europe) for the confirmation of email address to be sent out. I am not resubscribing to the course.
Prayers!💔💔💔💔
😇😇😇😇
Mark is not the "original" story. The original story would be the first version of the Gospel of the Ebionites, written in Hebrew, which we do not have, and that too would be a STORY rather than an accurate historical account.
Ebionites followed the religion of Jesus. Paul came and made a religion about Jesus.
@@richman8082 Proved by? Oh yes, those same documents we don't have copies of. Like the golden plates Joseph Smith Jr. accidentally "lost" before anyone could actually examine them.
Christians will still say, “well!!! They were eyewitnesses, they were there🤬😡”
Lmao!
Matthew was. Luke, of course, was not.
@@poman1976 if Matthew was. What was Matthew original name. Matthew? Matthew doesn’t sound like a Jewish name at that time.🤔
@@mooshei8165 Matthew = Mattityahu. Lit. "Gift of YHWH".
The gospels were written when the eye witnesses of Jesus' life were dying. The witnesses had testified to the new Christians about Jesus, but with their death, another form of testimony was needed. One of the early church fathers wrote that tradition in his time said that Mark wrote down the testimony of apostle Peter.
@@Achill101 and then what happen?
As a Muslim id require 4 witnesses for some situations. So I thought it would be interesting to apply this to the 4 gospels.
Here is the summary….
1:Jesus Begins His Ministry in Galilee
2:Jesus gives all he has, and subsequently Five Thousand people were fed
3: Jesus’ Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem
4:Jesus Foretells of a Betrayer in the Midst
5: Peter Denies Jesus
6: Pilate Pronounces Sentence Upon Jesus
7: They (The Ruling authorities) Crucified Jesus as “The King of The Jews”
8:Jesus Dies
9: Jesus is Buried in a Tomb (Sepulchre)
10:Some of his disciples Went to the Tomb (Sepulchre)and his body was not there
I as the follower of Christ never hated, ignored, overlooked, forgotten and covered. I believe the Mark the precious piece of gospel as the word of God so also the three gospels. I do not James D Tabor says the Christians do. It is baseless argument. Rather I consider the Gospel Mark as the purest and loveliest one in the Bible because of its preciseness and purity.
The introduction of each gospel are the same that is Prologue.
The introduction of Matthew's gospel. Matthew writes clearly who is Jesus and says 1:18 He is the child of Holy Ghost. Matthew 1:20 Mary conceived Jesus by the Holy Ghost. 1:23 Jesus is God with us.
The introduction of Mark. Mark 1:1; writes Jesus the Son of God.
The introduction of Luke 1:35 He is the Son of God.
The Introduction of John 1:1-14 (V 14) He is the Son of God
I can give the same way about Epilogue.
Mark is unique because he writes in 13:31 that the words of Jesus will never pass away. I do not know how Mr. James D Tabor so chill and hot on Christians about the gospel of Mark. I never find a gospel believing hating the gospel of Mark. I share my faith through you. If you are ready than give me opportunity to dialogue with James. My email Id christodan1@rediffmail.com
I have to wonder, if they hated it why would they draw on it as a source rather than just start over and tell the story they wanted to tell? They must have seen it as authoritative somehow even if they disagreed with specific parts.
Matthew and Luke wrote for different audiences whom they wanted to convince to follow Jesus. They used the sources they had - why should they reject Mark? Especially if Mark wrote something that could convince their audience.
I believe there is a theory of a proto mark or another source of mark which Matthew and Luke used rather than the mark we have today
I imagine it was because the basic narrative backbone is still there and serviceable, and since it was Mark that the writers of Matthew and Luke were reacting to and against, it only makes sense that it'd be Mark that they alter to produce their versions of a more faithful gospel. The new and improved version would serve to both critique Mark to those familiar with it, while also functioning as its replacement for the wider Christian community with the hope of completely supplanting the inferior version some time in the future. Unfortunately for them, Mark's foothold was already to secure for it to be entirely abandoned and all three synoptic gospels were folded into a single anthology.
I really enjoy this channel and Dr. Tabor's work. However I do feel it is inappropriate to define "hate" as "really, really not wanting it to stand" 1:01. Between that absurd definition of hate and the use of hate in the video title, when in fact we really don't know the inner feelings of Matthew and Luke with regard to Mark, the title borders on clickbait. Please, let's try to keep the discussion on an academic level and away from this kind of subjectivity. Maintaining a high standard is one of the reasons this channel has become one of my top 3 favorites in the biblical history area.
I never go for clickbait and approved the title with Derek...I say here what I mean by hate. When it comes to issues of divine birth, Jesus not God, and no resurrection appearances...and all the other things they remove or absolutely change and over-write, I think the term is accurate in the way I lay it out...and then there is Jesus talking about hating wife, children, mother, father...that Matthew changes to "love less." Interesting...
@@JamesTaborVideos Regarding divine birth, Mark literally calls Jesus "...the Messiah, the Son of God" in chapter 1, verse 1.
Regarding resurrection appearances, Mark includes in his account the resurrection of Jesus. Was there more to tell beyond that?
Since you failed to cite any verses at all, it's hard to find what you are talking about in your comment of "Jesus talking about hating wife, children, mother, father..." I did a search for "hate" in Mark (NIV) and came up with just Mark 13:13 "Everyone will hate you because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved." Matthew uses the same wording in Matthew 10:22 "You will be hated by everyone because of me..." he does not say "loved less" (wait for it).
However, it's easy enough to search for "Mother" and come up with Matthew's account, which allows me to cross reference with Luke (not Mark):
Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters -- yes, even their own life -- such a person cannot be my disciple."
Matthew 10:37 "Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."
So are you saying Matthew hates Luke by choosing different words to convey the same basic idea? Even though he uses the word "hate" in other parts of his book?
The title says "Why Matthew and Luke Hated the Gospel of Mark" so I'm having a hard time digesting your arguments here.
Didn’t you have a scholar who thought that the gospel of Mark was written by the Flavians to glorify Vespasian? Maybe the writers of Luke and Matthew did not like The Flavian gospel (mark)
Not all scholars agree on everything and there are going to be a few outliers in any discipline.
What the average layman doesnt grasp, and the church is at pains to make sure they don't grasp, is that all of the gospels, canonical or otherwise were never meant to be placed together because they were all competing theologies, not complimentary ones. Each gospel was written to be the final, definitive gospel. Excluding and supplanting all others.
Quite.
And it was later theologians who brought them together and invented terms to harmonize them.
Thomas and John have to be read together. John makes way more sense if you know Thomas.
I studied the Gospel of Mark in a Catholic semenary and we looked at it closely as the first Gospel written.
I don't know where this guy gets his ideas from but it's not my experience.
Luke and Matthew "hate" Mark? Even a mediocre mind can understand that a first sourse mightn't necessarily be the most theologically thought through. It has taken us a lot of time and continues to take time to understand fully the message of Jesus in each and every age.
Forgotten? Hated? Changed? The Gospel of Mark hasn't been changed, it's still in the NT unchanged (notwithstanding the last verses which we generally accept as additions).
Come on! This guy's got a new "contraversy" for every show. The real truth is there is no new contraversy, all this has been carefully looked into for centuries.
Of all the spoofers on your channel this guy takes first prize (just beating the scholars who pretend Paul wasn't really a Christian but some kind of Jewish missionary to the pagans).
Be honest your show is for Christian Bible literalists who feel decieved that the whole Bible isn't literally true, which it was never thought to be anyway.
So, exactly which parts of the Bible are literally true?
Strong words... wrong too... Studying ANYTHING in seminary automatically imbues it with an agenda and it's highly likely that your “guided studies” were significantly different from full time research and scholarship. That said, slamming Dr. Tabor’s position while pointing out that, as a first source, Mark was likely not thought through theologically and denying that it was altered as it was rewritten in Luke and Matthew demonstrates a VERY uninformed and shortsighted view of the matter.
Neither do you understand what I said or know anything about me. My point was that Mark is not forgotten, niether hated nor changed.
This type of "strong" language is totally uncalled for and not scholarly. This is more Internet entertainment than anything else. They both know it. Somebody should really point this out.
Dr. Tabor doesn't know who Mark was, who Mathew was or who Luke was. Neither can he clearly state which community supposedly each one represents.
Listen carefully, he stitches together things he cannot prove into a theory full of suppositions.
I am not a theologian nor a historian but I have studied Logic and Psychology. It doesn't hold water, you can take that to the bank.
My statement that a sourse being taken as earlier doesn't "necessarily" make it the most reliable can be applied to all historical or philosophical research. We learn new things about the past all the time. Maybe Mathew and Luke did.
If you want an example Dr. Tabor is writing 2000 years after Mathew and Luke but doesn't apply primacy to Luke and Matthew over Tabor. Indeed, Tabor doesn't even know what recourses Luke draws upon.
In fact Dr. Tabor rationalises continually and uses cognitive dissonance to conform everything to what he thinks is going on.
The fact that I studied Mark in a Catholic setting was not to demonstrate that Catholicism is superior but to show that Mark is studied and considered which Tabor denied. Mark is read during Mass (as the other Gospels are) and priests therefore given sermons on Mark multiple times during each and every year. If you take the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church together, you will find that the vast majority of Christians are continually exposed to the Gospel of Mark, niether hating nor changing it but rather being positive towards if.
I could go on.
@@pauljosephbuggle3722 - well said.
@@pauljosephbuggle3722 - do you mean that we can't know which community Matthew or Luke represented and which audiences they wrote for, or do you mean James Tabor doesn't know or can't point out the communities and audiences? I don't know Tabor, but I remember that theologians have made some statements about it, e.g., that Matthew writes for Jewish Christians and Luke for gentile Christians. There is less agreement on the social strata of the audience, but in general Luke wrote for elites while Mark wrote for simple folks.
Marcan priority is old news. But it is still fascinating that Matthew and Luke, although they disagree with Mark, use it as their main source of inspiration. Obviously because the oral tradition about a hypothetical Jesus was already lost and inaccessible. Logical for those who think Jesus is a myth, but hardly justifiable for historicists.
Matthew and Luke use also a common source, Q, of Jesus' sayings and other sources specific to them. Not so surprising they would use Mark, too, to write most convincingly to their audience to follow Jesus.
The mythicists vs historicists question is a different topic.
@@Achill1011/ Q is a hypothetical and unknown source that is not necessary to explain the agreements between Matthew and Luke. The Farrer hypotesis explains these agreements very well.
2/ It is very surprising that Matthew and Luke follow Mark if they disagree with him on many points. But worse than these disagreements is the way Mark is written: it is an accumulation of pesharim and imitations of Old Testament stories. And most of the teachings of JESUS in Mark come from the epistles of Paul. Mark retroactively placed Paul's teachings into Jesus' mouth. The fact that Matthew and Luke refer to Mark as if it were a historical account, despite their disagreements, shows that they had nothing else.
3/ The study of the historicity of Jesus also involves the study of his biographies. The fact that Mark is an account composed from the Old Testament and Paul's epistles, and that Matthew and Luke copy Mark as if it was a historical text, is obviously very relevant for gauging the historicity of Jesus.
@@Sinouhe - the hypothesis of Q and Mark as sources for Matthew and Luke is the dominant model in scholarship today. You can state other, less likely hypotheses, ofc, but then the likelihood of your conclusions to be true diminishes, too. In any case, it's NOT obvious that there was no other common source, like Q would be, for Matthew and Luke about Jesus' life.
. . . The video was about how Matthew and Luke saw Mark (whom both used as source), not about how you see Mark. The video was also not about the historicity of Jesus, about which there are plenty of other videos where your comments probably would fit better.
@@Achill101 Argument from authority is a fallacy.
And again, a lost and unknown Source is not necessary to explain the agreements between luke and Matthew.
And if you think that my first post is off topic when I was talking about the dependence of Matthew and Luke on Mark, then read it again. And if you still don't understand it, ignore it.
All the writers about Jesus have different agenda now I don’t know who are correct. So the Bible is not inspired by God.
@Jeli Delo Authors with different agendas? Or just different people from different backgrounds writing to different audiences. They are all correct. God so loved the world, he sent his only son that whoever believes in him would have eternal life.
and the true ending of Mark with 16:8 is incredible
Hey great videos, love these topics and want to say thank you for creating content so educational.
Ive always had this question.
In the gospels after Jesus is baptized, when the spirit of God says "you are my son, in you I am well pleased", how is the word of God speaking from the heavens, to the literal word of God on Earth? Doesn't this contradict the entire word became flesh theory? Why would the word of God need to confirm anything the word of God? Also who is speaking as the word of God in this situation? I was under the impression even in old testament that an angel of God brought the word of God, not just a voice in the air. Why all of a sudden does God speak without a medium, yet even with the birth of Jesus narrative, the angel Gabriel is used to speak God's plan? This has confused me for years and I'm just wondering if I am alone in thinking this.
Mark describes the voice of God as an inner voice speaking to Jesus when he was baptized and that Jesis could have told his disciples about.
. . . The other gospel authors describe it differently, maybe they had other sources, but maybe they also had a theological problem: why was Jesus baptized by John the Baptist who preached baptism after the repentence of sins? Wasn't Jesus without sin? Why would HE need a baptism? Staying silent about the baptism was probably not an option, because it was widely known, also by the still existing disciples of John who pointed to their master as superior to Jesus. The later gospel authors describe Jesus' baptism then as example we should follow, because baptism was THE important rite to become a Christian (and has stayed that way).
Hi P Clips..You raise thought provoking questions which compare Mark’s narrative of Jesus’s life with John’s exposition on the nature of God and Jesus …you also reference the Hebrew Scriptures and I think Luke(?). Reconciliation to understand the “whole picture” is emphasized in many Christian faith traditions which insist that the Bible must be read as One Book, with each part conforming and confirming and playing its role in the grand sweep of God’s plan. This approach is necessary if one seeks to understand the theology of many contemporary Christian denominations.
This is not at all the approach taken by Tabor and other secular scholars (very lose term here).
Secular scholars let each Gospel author speaks for himself.
The point in this video is not to learn about the “real Jesus” …the point is to understand what Mark says about Jesus. This is important because Mark is copied extensively by Mathew and Luke …what those authors say and don’t say, or elaborate upon or change offers us clues about what those authors believed (or wanted to believe or needed to explain or whatever…) about Jesus.
Now…what evidence does John offer regarding his thoughts on Mark’s Gospel….that’s a whole other matter…but interesting.
The Gospels selected to be canonized, the order in which they were placed in one bound volume, what is and is not included in liturgical readings and rituals…these are purposeful decisions which raise questions for scholars of Church history.
@Peter T I agree with some of your thoughts, very interesting questions. I have Always wondered why Jesus would get baptized also. Another question regarding Jesus being without sin is wasn't that the same as Job? Job and Jesus have parallel stories, such as both were allowed by God to be tempted by Satan and have everything taken away. Only difference in the end Job gains everything back times 10 without losing his life yet Jesus only gains everything spiritually times 10 when losing his life. Many mysterious riddles in the new testament echo old testament narration.
@@369TP Hi P Clips …I appreciate the observation about Job and Jesus. I hadn’t thought of that before.
One may argue that Jesus doesn’t really lose his life. If one believes we have eternal souls and/or that Jesus is eternal then Jesus only dies a physical death…but his life continues. We read in the Synoptics about the transfiguration “revealing” an eternal Jesus. Interesting that John offers no narrative of this event but presents an eternal nature of Jesus in the first chapter.
Job experiences a whole new life following his many trials, but not eternal life, I agree.
I believe most scholars consider Job written prior to Hebrew beliefs in an eternal soul or afterlife.
The parallel themes between Hebrew and Christian scriptures are most easily explained as deliberately created by the authors of the New Testament.
One may view Christianity as often misappropriating the Hebrew Scriptures…but from a secular viewpoint it’s all cultural construction and re-construction.
Some scholars are exploring the Hellenistic influence on the Christian Scriptures, which is new to me and really interesting too.
@@369TP - I see the stories of Job and Jesus related: Job's story asks why God lets humans suffer - God answers from his creation that is good but also includes suffering. Jesus gives no explanation either but shows that God cares about the suffering by sharing their life until death and resurrection. A sympathizing God that lifts up the believers instead of a God intervening in human disputes.
. . . Job is a later book of the bible, written when belief in the afterlife was still not widespread among Jews (also mentioned in the other, good reply to you). But the book of Job seems to me central in the Christian bible for the question it raises and that are answered in the person of Jesus.
They are eternal spiritual states through which all men pass. Starting with the state of Abraham - the friend, the companion of the Father who is buried with him whispers in your ear and tells you the story of redemption. He tells you that you will be enslaved as long as you wear the garment of death. Then he will bring you up to have much, much more than you had before you entered; for God’s power and his wisdom will be enhanced by reason of this challenge which God put upon himself. Then, in the end, you will turn around and see yourself as infinite love, fuse into and become one with the Everlasting Father. Everyone will turn to the Father and enter this wonderful unity of Christ. So here is diversity, and yet there is unity in diversity as there is diversity in unity.
Greetings!
🤗
Two questions:
1.:
Was Luke Jewish?!
2.: Are the last verses Mark or not in the oldest manuscripts?!
THANK YOU. 👑
Luke was not Jewish, the common scholarship is that the author of Matthew is the most Jewish of the four gospel authors.
Believe what you will people, but your choices here are the following:
1) Believe that, according to a PhD, Matthew and Luke copied most of Mark, altering ideas that offended them, removing ideas that offended them, but ended up otherwise making very different copies (despite having the original text right in front of them). They used different words, re-arranged chapters, focused on different elements and added new material. This also forces you to believe Matthew and Luke could read and write.
2) An amazing series of events occurred. Those who were there (Mark and Matthew) presented their own accounts of what happened (through their own writing or through a scribe). Still others (the author of Luke) investigated these events and made their own report. Sometimes these accounts support one another, sometimes one account includes details another does not (as you might expect from three different authors describing the same events).
Remember, omission or addition does not mean contradiction. Use your brains. Regardless of whether you choose 1 or 2, it's the same Jesus presented in all of the gospels. Why not give the gospels a read and make up your own mind? You don't need a PhD to get into heaven.
I grow weary of pointing out all the things PhDs get wrong on this channel, but here's a few:
PhD: Jesus is accused by his enemies of breaking the sabbath by harvesting grain, even though they are just taking a little bit and eating it when they're famished. In Mark, Jesus basically says, "Well David broke the law. I guess I'm breaking the law. And... you know what, laws are for people not people for laws, so if I'm breaking the law, the Sabbath's made for people."
First Jesus was not doing any harvesting or eating. His disciples were. Second, the Pharisees accused the disciples (not Jesus) of breaking the law. Actually harvesting a field would be putting in a day's work ("Thou shalt not work on the Sabbath"), but these folks were not "working", they were grabbing some food as they walked along and eating that food. The Pharisees accusing someone of breaking the law does not mean the law was broken. Despite the words of the PhD, Jesus never says he (or his disciples) are breaking the law. Jesus reminds them David was in a similar situation and ate food intended for the priests, because he and his companions needed food. Neither example is breaking the law of the Sabbath.
That anyone of that day would have a problem with this reasoning is a real stretch. But apparently you can't put together a course people will pay for if it is just the simple truth available for free in the gospels.
😂 He really got to you huh? Conflicts with your dogma maybe?
He is correct though. 😊
You may want to look into the question of where the purported Gospel of Matthew and the purported Gospel of Luke got their names. (Hint: They are not named after their respective authors.)
Your misunderstanding of the story of the grain is also wildly inaccurate. Eating on Shabbat does not violate The Law - doing "work" on Shabbat violates The Law. The Disciples harvested grain on Shabbat.
If Mark was edited out, where did someone find the original writings of Mark that purport to be different than what we see in the New Testament today. How is that ‘original’ still floating around somewhere?
I find it amusing to read that anyone thinks, as some do, that Tabor is a man of Christian faith. He is the pope compared to Derek, but weighed down by often unnecessary scepticism. The switch in historical approaches from believe anything to believe nothing is partly to blame, but a plain reading of the text always works in my opinion. Once you approach it expecting flaws and differences, as Tabor clearly does, you'll convince yourself that they are there. I cannot credit the unbelief and this, again, tried to create differences that simply are not there. The Gospel does not in any sense vary between the Gospels in terms of substance, although they are not identical in all respects (and if they were Tabor would reject them for that) The clue is really in the "Synoptic" , lets see what Britannica says about that application of the word to the three Tabor seeks to divide with this deception, I quote, "the first three books of the New Testament have been called the Synoptic Gospels because they are so similar in structure, content, and wording that they can easily be set side by side to provide a synoptic comparison of their content". In addition to that the acceptance of all these three Gospels by the Church Fathers who so often quoted them shows an "on the ground" understanding that Tabor can't understand. As for nonsense about hatred, because it is rubbish, are we to believe that Apostle Levi hated Apostle Simon? Really??? Click bait atheistic propaganda that will feed the desperate and ignorant of the actual content and purpose of the words. Awful
Thanks for this video
I understand the Sabbath grain episode teachings as in agreement, not disagreement.
23 One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24 The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”
25 He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26 In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”
27 Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” If you ready careful, Jesus did not say He broke the Law so you can break too. Read. 7 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Jesus answer the question, 8 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” Maybe this will help you to understand that Jesus is Jehovah Zac. 9:9 and John 12:15 on the earth.
Thank you
One of the reasons I think Matthew and Luke hated Mark (probably Secret Mark) and tried to override him is that Mark reads like a play: immediately Jesus goes here, immediately he goes there, immediately he goes to another place. It's like breaking down one scene and setting up another.
Another reason I think they hate (Secret) Mark is that it casts assertions of Jesus’s sexuality that the two probably considered sinful or at least inappropriate. Secret Mark 10:34ff has Jesus raise a young man from his grave and six days later spends the night teaching the secrets of the Kingdom of God to the young man, who is nearly naked. Likewise in Mark 14:51-52 another nearly naked youth is accompanying Jesus at Gethsemane and the authorities tried to seize him (maybe they thought he was a rent boy?), but he runs off stark naked! Both have been edited out, replaced elsewhere with the healing of the Centurion's slave boy.
@Edward Miessner, is your thinking that they didn't have words for homosexuals back then? They did, so it's weird then that they could have used the proper word if that was the impression they meant to give. Instead of you deciding to pull out a detail that isn't really there, have you maybe considered looking at the Gethsemane scene like any normal person would?
Judas has led a crowd straight to Jesus. The crowd has swords and clubs. They grab Jesus, then Peter whips out his sword and attacks one of them. (I shouldn't have to mention it here, but everybody is clothed). Suddenly, it's chaos and none of the followers of Jesus want to get caught so they all flee in a panic. How panicked were they? "A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him [the young man], he fled naked leaving his garment behind." To sum up, some folks in the crowd grabbed the young man by his garment, and the young man tore away from it to get away. Get your head out of the gutter.
What Luke really hated was the crucifixion narrative and I'm surprised that Matthew kept it verbatim. Because at the end of his suffering on the _stauros_ Jesus cries out with a loud voice and breathes his last. That sort of death is congruent to a violent, sudden, and shameful death on an impaling stake (included in the LSJ definition of _stauros._ ) Jesus is lucid to the very end, something not expected from a death by hypovolemic shock, gradual asphyxiation, or fatigue from extreme torture. But on an impaling stake, Jesus would be sliding down that last millimeter and pierce or otherwise compromise a vital organ and the result would be extreme pain followed by a sudden death. Gross.
No wonder Luke and John changed it.
At the end of the day it would have been better to have a gospel of Mary, full gospel of Peter and maybe one more.
If there really was such a great hatred against the Gospel of Mark, why was it included in the canon?
All scripture is inerrant, and God breathed
Why would Matthew use another person's information if he was one of the apostles himself? 🤷🏽♂️
A potential context to consider. The names of each gospel being a theme. Mark is Markus. One dedicated to the god Mars. Not saying that Mark was pagan but what does Mars stand for? War, fertility, and protector of cattle. Matthew, originally Levi, is more of a strict Jew. Perhaps an allusion to a Levite but think that his name change to gift of Yah but Nattan the root for gift and links to Levites from the exile who married foriegn wives. Each gospel is a story of a different type of believer. That type of believe dictates actions and understandings of the gospel. It’s okay for a markian believer to break certain laws. Perhaps no so much for a matthenian one.
Thanks 👍
Considering how Mark was written, if he left out much of what would be the some of the most popular stories that we associate with Jesus and Christianity, what was the purpose of Mark writing it? He doesn't seem to posit a divine Jesus. He doesn't seem to propose that Jesus is a part of the 'trinity'. What then was his reason for writing? It seems to be the polar opposite of the other gospels.
I, myself, think it is more likely that Matthew and Luke were the first Gospels. Even all the Church fathers say this. I believe this rather than the pure conjecture of modern scholars.
There some are scholars that believe Mark was just a written copy of one of Peter's sermons in Rome and that Peter used Matthew and Luke as a guide. This would explain the many story omissions in Mark as Peter, speaking, wouldn't have the time to speak to every story in Matthew and Luke, including Jesus' birth and other stories may not have been as important to the Romans. This also explains the rough writing of Mark compared with Matthew and Luke.
I think modern scholars see Mark and try to come up with their own ideas of what may have happened based on pure speculation. The problem is that they tend to parade it around, not as speculation or hypothesis, but as a fact. And people just believe them because they are scholars. But in examining scholars one should always determine what their presuppositions are... what they are and aren't assuming. In reality, we don't really know if Mark was written first, if Matthew or Luke revised Mark, or if Matthew or Luke hated Mark's Gospel. But common sense is that Matthew was first. Why in the world would the apostle's first Gospel be to the Romans and not the Jews?
Excellent !!
Really cool. I just read that portion of Mark 12, and Jesus clearly says that there is only one God and there's no other, so I don't know how people can read that and think Jesus thought he was God.
Well, there is the fact that almost all modern scholars on the subject believe that the author of Mark believed Jesus was divine. Even Bart Ehrman. So it makes little sense to read the gospel in any other light. The trouble with critical scholarship is that it can't bring that recognition into the picture, by the ground rules of the discipline. So it is bound to be misinterpreted and misunderstood.
It's Mark 10 BTW.
Most excellent.
6:18 the “poor” widow is clearly Helena of Adiabene.
Unfortunately, the Gospel of Mark is mostly a parable for Paul. Therefore, for the most part, the only historical Jesus in Mark is the Jerusalem church's Jesus Barabbas, whom Mark overwrote with Paul and Paul's Jesus Christ.
Considering that Matthew was originally in Hebrew and was indeed the first gospel written, it is clear why Mark sounds like its bad translation/interpretation. Because it is exactly that - a poor translation of Matthew's Gospel made by Mark who was not very proficient in Greek.
Mischaracterizing the writers of the gospels in order to levy a particular view is hypocritical. Pitting one view against the other is a tactic Satan uses, "Hath God said?"...
I wouldn't bother spending money on this because the premise has a bad root. Another point is that the author doesn't believe in the "long" ending of Mark.
PS. The omission theory regarding Mark's ending uses an earlier text that omits the NAME of the Savior. Nobody would argue we don't know his Name because the same text omits it? The "long" ending is a record well kept.
Someone has wrote Mark is the Messiah
So, God inspired ALL scripture…..or just Mark? To comment as you have, I wish you well.
I am a universalist. I think Jesus was also a universalist. Well, the real Jesus of history, that is.
Because while I accept that the writers of Matthew and Luke may have hated some of the intentions of Mark, I more think they were making a name for themselves. I side more with Robyn Walsh that the gospel writers were not orthodox community members, but members of the greater society with its more Hellenistic influences. The apparent rivalry could, therefore, be nothing more than an effort to outdo the prior, while chaffing at the creative constraints the prior work saddled them with.
Again, I say this in the context of me being a universalist. What I mean by that entails an entirely different telling of the Jesus story. A Jesus story that is more like Mark, but even more so, if you catch my drift. Because He would have had a ministry that made Him famous. The only thing those people who remembered Him had would have been word of mouth, until the gospels. The written gospels filled a market, economically speaking. They had to be close, but they could leave out the universalism. It wasn't anything anybody wanted to hear. The writers could take a side for hell, in other words, and get away with it. Who was going to stop them?
There is more to why Jesus was so at odds with the religious establishment than is written, I think. It does come down to the division between self interpretation and rigid doctrinal boundaries. It does so because it is the Spirit that gives life, not the law. But words do have an impact. Jesus implied as much, when He said that His words had cleansed His disciples, so that they could receive the Holy Spirit. It's about getting at truth. It will be the same whether it comes from the law or the Spirit. Einstein, however, proved that these things are relative. It is the Spirit, therefore, whom you have to follow over the reverence of the scroll.
Very interesting information.
1:03 John does the same thing with Gospel of Thomas. I know Dr James loves him some Q source, Thomas IS Q source.
Great content!
No one is good but God. I believe what Jesus was expressing was the inappropriate behavior of respecting of persons, and expressing himself to be the only good one, as he is God.
Does MYTHVISION have another narrator/host? Like an academic?
The central idea of Christianity is that Jesus loves me and died for my sins.
But he plans to cast me into a furnace of fire !
(Matthew 13:42)
All I heard was why this person thought Matthew and Luke hated Mark. A lot of assumptions made.
The variances and nuances of the gosple, despite the reasons why, was Holy spirit inspired. Not only to expess it through God's earthly ministry, but to expess the separation of who the gospels were talking to for the end times patterns, of the lamp lit, Gentile Church bride, the left behind tabulation saints/ believers and then the redeemed of Israel, when they say "blessed is He who comes in the name of thre LORD. "
3 gosples for 3 groups. That is the reason for the presupposed differences.
Isn't it telling that Jesus allows people to call him a god but not to call him good?
Many are gods, but the Good is one.
Ascribing motives goes way outside of sound scholarship. Sensationalism at it's best.
1) the gospel writers were (re-)writing religious scripture so I think it’s fair to speculate about motives, but 2) this dude is selling a course 😬
@@TRex-fu7bt and greek myths
Ignoring clear motives is also poor scholarship. It's pretty clear that Matthew really didn't like Mark if you actually read Matthew
@@ShadeUnderTheSoul The writer of Matthew only wrote one work that we know of. Matthew copied, corrected, and omitted material from Mark. That's all we know. Maybe you don't understand what the word motive means. But it's not something "scholars" do with zero information. We don't have Matthew's mind to interrogate, question, other writings from Matthew to get more clues, etc. Maybe he "liked" Mark's gospel just fine, but wanted to put a mark of originality on his to set it apart. Maybe it was a writer's competition in a certain genre. We don't know. We can't ask him.
@@eximusic Hmmm... I get your point but Looking at WHAT was changed, HOW it was changed, and what it was changed into seems like a clear indicator of intent and motive can be inferred from that.
Just a big 'argument from silence'. There are also things in Mark that aren't in the others, but that doesn't nullify the others. At the end of the day all four gospels together are the one Gospel message. The fact that there are four different and overlapping perspectives of the same events only lends more authenticity to what is being described as being real historical events. Multiple witnesses will always have different perspectives of the same event. You only have to watch the evening news to know that.
Sure, it makes complete sense that 4 different authors would describe a whole bunch of differing oral traditions that have these similarities and differences. However, I was taught repeatedly (in various churches) that these were written by the eyewitness, and their writing was 'inspired by god' to eliminate errors. You take that away, and there isn't anything that separates the Bible form any other foundational religious texts that Christians easily dismiss as false.
Spoken like an apologist... Early proto-christian sects only had ONE gospel account available and that shaped their beliefs. Stories changed, overlapped, and intersected but, initially, each one was/is a standalone document.
@@coreyc490 "...one Gospel account available...."
Which doesn't contradict the others.
"Stories changed..."
What stories changed?
"...overlapped, and intersected but, initially, each one was/is a standalone document."
Which only points to their authenticity as true eyewitness accounts. And they all give the same message. They all teach Christ.
@@leob3447 "...written by eyewitnesses, and their writing was inspired by God... You take that away..."
You cannot 'take away' the fact that it is an eyewitness account. You cannot change history. It has already happened.
@@mmss3199 Of course they are eyewitnesses. They were there.
"...irreconcilable contradictions."
What is your strongest "irreconcilable contradiction"?
Not only is hate a much too large word, even dislike doesn't seem to describe it: Luke and Matthew want to reach different audiences, and they had additional sources like the source of sayings, Q. Especially Luke tones down every harshness in Jesus and tries to show him as good, mild-mannered man, fitting for praise and for pity about his undeserved end. Matthew wrote for Jewish Christians and wanted to emphasize the law and how Jesus had changed it.
. . . About the last words of Jesus: The crucified normally died a slow and agonizing death and had much time to speak before the torture of hanging took their breath away. Jesus prays psalms in all four gospels, which he could have done for days, if he hadn't died already after a few hours, probably from being beaten. Each gospel author chooses a quote from the psalms that fits their audience best. Luke went again for the mildest and most sympathetic quote.
I’m aware that Mark references Psalm 22…which is rarely mentioned for some reason. I’m curious, What are the other allusions? Are they not as obvious or it maybe it depends on subtleties of translations? Anyone, really interesting point.
@@cipherklosenuf9242 - Mark and Matthew quote the beginning of psalm 22 while John quotes the end of it, in a passive not an active voice. Luke quotes psalm 31, not the beginning but the first half of the sixth verse.
. . . From the gospels, we cannot say if Jesus prayed whole psalms or only parts of it. It was a long time to die and to pray, Jesus knew many psalms by heart, and many psalms around psalms 22 and 31describe a faithful believer in misery.
. . . I read of this first in Shalom Ben Chorim's book about the Jewish Jesus. There, Ben Chorim describes how psalms could be prayed by stating the first line out loud and the following lines in mumbling voice, like readers in the ancient times read books. Even the calling for Elijah could be explained by praying the psalm IIRC: if repeating verse 22,20 as Eli atta, Eli atta, the mumbling could be heard as Elija ta, Elija ta (Elijah, come) - but I would have to find the passage by Ben Chorim again, to be sure.
. . . As I wrote, we can't be sure what Jesus said, but to me it seems natural he prayed the psalms he knew and that gave him comfort until the torture took his breath and then his conscience away.
(People executed on the cross couldn't shout just before they died, they could only call out earlier when they still had the energy to do so.)
@@Achill101 Thanks Peter…really interesting and makes sense. Crucifixion slowly exhausts and asphyxiates the victim…with loss of oxygen our bodies panic …this is inevitable…being naked and panicking, pretty humiliating public torture, the description of mumbling a psalm totally makes sense.
I haven’t read Jewish Jesus, but I can recommend Rabbi Jesus by Bruce Chilton.
Mark I always felt was more in line to the original Jesus than the Matthew, Luke, and John; than consider that Mark was written in CE and I believe the other two were written in one or two AD. Then let's not talk about the corruption brownie could have done, and the Protestants could have further corrupted the scriptures; the only scriptures we have is the Jewish scriptures
More conjectures and frivolous speculations...!!!
Yes! Finally a Dr. Tabor vid introducing us to the Mark I know and hinting at the deeper foundational nature of who and what the historical Yeshua (Jesus) was... prior to Him being perverted into the false "Savior," "Redeemer" and founder of Christianity the later Synoptics portray Him to have been. As I also pointed out in an earlier critique here of a previous video by Dr. Tabor on Mark... the most critically important revelation we find in Mark, the one I hope Dr. Tabor explores deeply in his own course, is the complete lack of any mention of either a resurrection or, most telling of all, any final appearance and final commission given to the "apostles" by Yeshua to found and "preach" a new religion and thus forward its attendant Christology upon which ALL of Christianity absolutely depends.
This complete absence in original Mark is the strongest evidence there is indicating, if not proving, the complete falsehood of all that is Christianity, itself. For without the resurrection and, more specifically, Yeshua's "Final Commission" for preaching a new "covenant," the "apostles" had no foundation to claim Yeshua as any sort of worldwide "Savior"... much less also having any subsequent Christological "gospel" and religion to spread so proclaiming Him. In short... as the earliest Gospel makes no mention of the resurrection and, more importantly, no mention of any Final Commission... then EVERYTHING we thought we knew of "Jesus" as a "Savior" and founder of Christianity ... is false. All of it... concocted out of thin air by the "apostles" after Yeshua's departure in a self-serving power grab to benefit themselves (e.g., Acts 4:32 - 5:11) resulting in "great fear gripp(ing) the whole church" as the "apostles" wielded dictatorial powers of life and death over their followers.
But... if this is so (and it is)... where does this leave us re: who and what the historical Yeshua was... and what also was His mission here, if any? While I am doubtful Dr. Tabor will have much to say on this, yet the astounding evidences for all of this are also right there hidden in plain sight... both in the Gospel of Mark and also the Gospels of Thomas and Philip (found bound together in leather at Nag Hammadi for a reason), and found additionally mentioned throughout the Tanakh. Yet all of these glaring evidences have remained hidden in plain sight and probably will continue to remain so for quite some time to come. At least until my current 12-part TH-cam series is completed and I move on to a future such specific to the historical Yeshua.
Mark wrote his gospel, after Paul (and other apostles) had already spread the message of Jesus as resurrected savior and written letters to the new Christian communities they had founded. But the new Christians wanted to hear more about Jesus' life, and the eye witnesses were dying: hence the gospels.
The gospel of thomas and phillip in the tanach????
If the gospels were exactly identical, we would need only one. Each has more or less information on different things.
The gospel of John has no mention of the last passover???
Does that mean it never happened???
I imagine your 12 part YT is complete bogus rubbish as well.
@@astutik8909 ... Where did I say the Gospels of Thomas and Philip were in the Tanakh? What I said was that both of these were found bound together in leather at Nag Hammadi for a reason. And where did I discuss anything from the Gospel of John, much less the "last Passover"? The only rubbish here is yours...as plainly manifested by your poor reading comprehension skills and inability to think. And that's not something I can do for you. Best wishes!
@@astutik8909 - IIRC the gospel of John had a slightly different timeline for the last supper (one day earlier?), and it centered around Jesus washing his disciples' feet, not the breaking of the bread.
. . . Christian theology interprets many parts of the Tanach as pointing to Jesus, most famously Deutero-Isaiah's songs of God's suffering servant. Maybe there are also passages in the Tanach that could be related to Thomas etc. Historic-critical analysis it is not.
@@Achill101 yes, the new passover was a day earlier because Jesus was being crucified and died at the same time the jews were slaying the lambs for the old passover.
The old passover was on 14th Abib which merges into the 15th after the sunset. Jesus and the apostles must have kept their new passover on the 13th Abib, which would have been the 14th after sunset.
So, we learn different things from each of the 4 gospels.
We can also learn the scarlet and purple color code from the gospels. Fascinating.
Mark was written for the non jews who wouldn't have understood the references to jewish law and customs like Matthew and Luke's accounts
Or Neville was correct about rubble you missed with casting marks. I heard Ben Gurion the other day on “Meet the Press.” He is a grand old fellow of 80 now, who still sees the world as a history book and hasn’t the slightest idea about scripture. Oh, he can quote it from cover to cover, but he’s not alone. My sister’s maid can quote the Bible from beginning to end, but she doesn’t know a thing about life. Ben Gurion quotes the Bible beautifully, but he hasn’t the slightest concept of who Abraham really is, or Isaac, or Moses, or Jacob, or any of these who were never mortal born.
Is this a quote from long ago, when Ben Gurion still lived? It seems bit misplaced in this thread, but do you have the source?
. . . I only know of Ben Gurion that he did bible study group, doubted the exodus happened as described, and liked the fifteenth(?) psalm best.
"Matthew" and "Luke" weren't the writers of the Gospels named after them.
Sorry to burst your delusions.
Not a bubble burst. Saying, “The Gospel Account traditionally attributed to Mark” is long and awkward. It’s a just convention…a political commentator saying “The U.S.” for The United States of America” doesn’t mean she isn’t aware …this is not a gotcha moment.
Ok
They actually, "hated..." Mark. Seriously Dude. Is there any possible way to ratchet down the hyperbole? It would be dramatic enough to say, Matthew and Luke CHANGED Mark! That's dramatic, right? And it's not a probable blatant lie. I don't see the writers of Matthew or Luke sitting reading Mark saying, "man, I HATE this shit?" Am I wrong? I could be wrong. OK, he says, hate. Heh. Well you know. Can't be right about everything.
Disappointed might have been a better word.
Lots of dramatic assumptions made here for sure....quite ridiculous from a true skeptical position
@@enslavedbytruth Care to explain?
But remember, this stuff sells books. Just think of the way sales would plummet if there wasn't something controversial to say.
Hated? If they hated Mark, they would have just said, "Look at this rubbish. I'm going to write what really happened."
They clearly didn't do that. They took most of what Mark had to say, but they obviously did not think Mark was the inspired Word of God or they would not have changed anything. They would have added their own material, but they wouldn't have gainsaid the Word of the Lord.
“Inspired word of god” is later concept. At the time of writing the authors of the gospels were just regular Christians writing down the story of their founder. I doubt they thought of themselves (or of others authors) as vessels for the Word of God.
💔Prayers!!💔
Your comment suggests distress.
Personally, I laid down the burden of supernatural beliefs over many years. I’m available if you would like to elaborate on your reaction and I’m compassionate about the difficulty one may experience in confronting belief systems with new information that doesn’t fit.
All 4 of them are canonical. All 4 of them carry the same good news about the Kingdom and the King and his people. And all 4 of them don't hate anything about the Word of God
... and btw... Markan priority is a theory
Matthew was taking notes and he wrote first for predominantly Hebrew communities... Later on Mark was writing for mission among pagans so he abervated Matthew to obtain only the narration about Jesus without large teaching blocks and even expanded Matthew where he had to explain sth only Hebrews were familiar with such as 'Shema' in Mt22 /Mark12...
4 canonical gospels are in harmony not in anemosity....
Was just mark trying to diminish the socalled super apostle ?
This channel has turned to be an adv for the courses
Our host must have learned something from all the jews he surrounds himself with
People gotta pay the bills somehow.
all your conclusions are stretching. "hate?" You are are ascribing intention to material with absolutely no proof. Could they simply just...disagree. Also because Mark was t he first doesn't mean it was the closest to the Jesus story. Again, another massive assumption.
Without plagiarism the Bible would not exist, or any other religious book.
All written by John Does.
mark jesus break sabbath but jesus exolain sabbath for men bal bla
but in matthew jesus necome authoryy figure
mark only god is good
matyhew change mark
matthew dont fully like makr
matyhew taken out mark pharisees commanded law or skmetiing matthew have jesus teach on temple but take out mark pharisee
mathhew taken out widow being better after doing chatity from mark
mathhew revised mark
he takes out
matyhew dislike mark
changes it
revise
matuhew luke rewrote mark
recast them
First of all the messiah's name is not Jesus . In the first century when the Messiah walked the Earth he was given the name Yeshua Ben Yosef. The name Jesus Christ or Jesus itself didn't exist until the year 1524 when the J was introduced into the Greek alphabet. Also, Christmas is a false pagan holiday that doesn't have anything to do with the Almighty, the Messiah or the Bible
I guess this guy has a magic 8 ball to be able to discern the opinion of Matthey and Luke.
Or, you could just read the texts and see what is there...in plain sight? Side by side...
@@JamesTaborVideos I have. This does not indicate Mark was hated. Luke and Matthew added material they were familiar with. No animosity is to be presumed.
@@mistermurtad2831 Even referring to me as "this guy" and the sarcastic "magic 8 ball" comment, ignoring totally the careful method used,...says a lot. Well I can't debate this with you on YT comments but in my work I dig deeply into the details...believe me, it is much more than "adding materials," but since I have covered this thoroughly in my various YT lectures, not to mention the course, I can not offer anything more here...
@@JamesTaborVideos The Birth story is just added details. The rest is for focus on a different audience or to emphasize elements they believe were left out or needed more clarity. The ending of Mark is abrupt and is presumed lost. Matthew was most likely written to Jewish populations.
All of this has been hashed out before without the animosity you project towards Mark.
Do you have a book you have written. I may buy it when it hits the clearance shelves.
The "Why do you call me good" has long been understood as a rhetorical question. It expects the reader to supply, "Because you are God". Remember this comes after Mark 8 where Jesus says, "of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” We see Jesus identifying himself as the Son or Man that harkens back to Daniel 7, He also associates himself with the glory of God as his Father." This comes after Peter's confession of him being the Christ.
Pretty clear that Mark was calling Jesus God incarnated :)
Mark 10:17-20
@@basimali619 exactly. why call him good. Only god is good. You can be righteous but unless you follow god you’ll never enter the kingdom of heaven
@@tookie36 in verse 20, after Jesus asks the question in verse 18 and gives the answer to the original question of the man in verse 19, the young man calls Jesus “teacher” instead of “good teacher” like before, and Jesus does nothing, rather he focuses on the young man’s question.
@@basimali619 he diminished his praise of god/jesus which then leads to the man leaving altogether. I would say that it shows the man doesn’t understand what was said and then wasn’t able to listen to god not follow him
@@tookie36 again, wrong conclusion, as Jesus actually loved the young man after he diminished Jesus’ praise and learning that he followed the commandments, the young man ONLY left because he wanted to retain his riches, it’s plainly stated.
These writers also did not know and understand what they were writing about! However, they did not realize that they were writing abt divine meaning of Jesus life and teaching!
Let's see, you base your assertion that Matthew and Luke "hate" Mark on the assumption that they quoted from and rewrote this gospel. Now that is pure speculation. There is NO firm evidence for this theory.
The first thing you mention in support is that Mark does not contain the miraculous conception. True enough, but Mark did not begin his relation that early. He begins where Jesus's MINISTRY starts. You cannot from this deduce that he either did not know about the tradition or did not believe it. He simply did not start his relation of the events that early, and that is ALL you can infer from that.
As for the ending, the same applies. He mentions the resurrection and ends it there. What he does not mention and the other gospels do in this respect is totally irrelevant to whether he would have agreed (or should I say did agree, as he certainly would have learned about their accounts) with their narrative. He certainly left no testimony saying that they were in error and that his gospel was the only authoritative version.
The relation of the disciples taking ears of wheat on the Sabbath and Jesus proclaiming that he is Lord of the Sabbath is a strange thing to quote in claiming that Matthew "hated" Mark. The differences in relation of the event have no such inference. It only shows two people with different recollection and perspective telling of the same event. There is hardly any point in discussing the differences when the agreement is so profound on the basics. You only do so because you have made up your mind that Matthew was using Mark as a reference to write his own gospel. The differences in fact prove the exact opposite. They were both using their own independent research on the facts and what witnesses had told them to compile the best possible relation they were capable of.
In fact, the rest of your "examples" are in the exact same vein. There is nothing that isn't explained by perspective and independent witness. Differences are not only totally reconcilable and only a matter of personal perspective, but the congruence between accounts and agreement on doctrinal content is overwhelming.
As I said, your conclusions are all based on the presupposition that gospels were using each other as reference. The evidence points in the exact opposite direction. Only higher critics would even consider what James Tabor says as scholarly, and that is only because they don't like the implications of Jesus being the Son of God, the Messiah, Emmanuel - God with us, died on the cross and resurrected on the third day. Your bias is a toxic potion that has corrupted all truth in you to the point that you can no longer discern the lie.
Spoken like an apologist. Why is it some folks feel the need to paint non-christian scholars in such a bad light? What fear motivates you?
@@coreyc490 A better question is, what motivates the atheist to so actively oppose a God they profess not to believe in? Fear on the part of the believer? No, more a concern that these anti-christs will mislead others and therefore making the case as clearly and logically as possible in the hope that at least some will be able to see how insubstantial the atheist case is. If I can save even one from the atheist delusion, then all the effort is justified.
@@deniss2 Spoken like a true fanatic... Athiests don't "actively oppose a god they profess not to believe in". They actively oppose the narrow minded and dogmatic views promoted by his followers based on indoctrination. Particularly when those views are imposed on believers and non-believers alike. Unlike christians who have a mandate to spread the word I, and most atheists, don't have a de-conversion agenda to uphold.
@@coreyc490 Yes, that should be the position. However, simply listening to a missionary and saying, "well, I'm not interested. You're welcome to your God, but I don't believe a word of it." Should suffice and usually draw the response, "ok, you have the perfect right to remain in your error." Then what is THIS all about? The atheist gets one "expert" after the other, attempts to pull apart the ideas, scriptures and doctrines with false logic, lies and analysis based on nothing but conjecture, and never stops. This guest devotes his life to teaching lies about what we believe and de-converting Christians and gaining support for his idiotic views on books he doesn't believe in. And finally, when I see this and explain why it isn't a reasonable view and false conclusions and flawed logic and lies not supported by history or texts, then there are countless responses from empty headed followers shouting "amen, amen" to these people, trying to discredit me and/or my refutation of the content. Are you all so unsure of your views that you need to resort to following every person who expresses opposition to the God you don't believe in and his followers? What is the point?
@@deniss2 You seem to be assuming that there’s an “atheist agenda” and that ‘the atheist’ parades out a string of experts “to pull apart the ideas, scriptures and doctrines with false logic, lies and analysis based on nothing but conjecture”.
That’s a dogmatic and cowardly position. You see, no one is “Teaching lies”. Proper (secular) scholarship approaches the gospels (and other holy writings)from a non-magical, non-mythical, historical position i.e. not trying to dabble in theological issues. It’s obvious that you don’t like this approach but the fact that you don’t like it is irrelevant. It’s irrelevant because there are at least as many people who fearlessly question the stories in a search for truth as there are who have the stories “explained” to them as theology.
While I appreciate your conviction, calling Dr.Tabor a liar and to say that his scholarship is suspect is sad and a bit ridiculous. It’s sad because your dogmatism and fear permeate every word you’ve written. It’s ridiculous because Dr. Tabor’s motives and scholarship are beyond reproach in academic circles and it’s apparent from your initial post that you can’t or won’t grasp what’s being said.
Ultimately, the point isn’t to “follow every person who expresses opposition to the god we don’t believe in.” It’s to learn as much as we can so that we can make up our own minds. Plugging one’s ears and stamping one’s feet while following every person who professes “the word” is the purview of the Christian.
More whisper down the line.
Don't forget all of these apostle had tongues of fire land on their heads in the upper room..The Holy Ghost knew what He was doing..no need to butcher the bible for money.
this is dreadfully unimpressive, as almost all of your guests are
LMAO
0:10 Is he suggesting St. Luke didn't like the story of a woman who had ruined herself on doctors to no avail?
Seriously, this nonsense is one of the issues we should have with Markan priority.
Another one is, tradition says Matthean priority. This was attacked in Prussia, and during the Kulturkampf - and it so happens, St. Matthew has some of the best support for papacy.
Not sure what you are referring to...in this video over view? I don't think I even discuss Luke and the woman with the bleeding problem...The woman I referred to was the poor widow...that Matthew removes...see at 6 minutes in...
@@JamesTaborVideos I actually didn't watch much before commenting.
My main point was, you prefer Markan priority.
@@JamesTaborVideos
We are Blessed with
The Gift Of Faith...
.... ( as A Child ) ...
Mark 10: 13-16:
(13) And they brought
young children to him,
that HE should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them...
(14) But, when Jesus
saw it, HE WAS MUCH DISPLEASED, and said unto them, " Suffer the little Children to come into ME, and forbid them NOT:
For of such is the Kingdom of God"...
(15) Verily I say unto you, WHOSOEVER SHALL NOT RECEIVE THE KINGDOM OF GOD AS A LITTLE "CHILD", HE SHALL
NOT ENTER THEREIN ....
(16) And HE took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed
them....
( Love❤️ is the Greatest
Gift!)
& Faith, .. is a very Precious Gift & Fruit... given to His Children...
by His Amazing Grace
& His Precious
*Holy Spirit*....
& "if" Most Scholars say,
The Original Text Of Mark ended with : Mark 16:8 ??
Well...Either way ..I read
& I believe..Mark 16: 6!)..(6)And he saith unto them, be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified:
HE IS RISEN;💥HE IS NOT HERE: 💥BEHOLD THE PLACE WHERE THEY
LAID HIM..(7) But, Go
your way, tell his disciples & Peter, that he goeth "before" you to Galilee: there you shall find him, as HE said unto you💥...
I'm open minded ...but,
I'm taking heed also! & Praying for The TRUTH & GOD'S MERCY ON US ALL!
I took your Online
Course- on
The Book of Mark......
& I'm just wondering....
Didn't you say there
wasn't anything about ...
"The Resurrection" in
The Book of Mark???
Even "if" scholars say
it ends suddenly in verse ( 8 ) ?? Well, it clearly says in verse..(6) And he
saith unto them, Be not affrighted: YE SEEK JESUS OF NAZARETH, WHICH WAS CRUCIFED:
HE IS RISEN:💥 HE IS
NOT HERE: 💥BEHOLD
THE PLACE WHERE
THEY LAID HIM! 💥....
SO, I DO SEE ...
"A RESURRECTION" IN THE BOOK OF MARK💥
💥PRAISE OUR LOVING...
ABBA FATHER & HIS SON
💥♥️💥♥️💥♥️💥♥️💥
@@karenhess342 Glad you took the course, hope you learned a lot. What I focused on was NO resurrection appearances! The abrupt ending. Also, even in Mark 16:7, the verb is not "resurrected," but "has been lifted up" same verb as in 9:27...In Mark's view Jesus has been taken up to heaven...not a revived corpse walking around, eating, showing his wounds, etc.
@@hglundahl Ha! Well I have the impression that most who comment have not watched the videos they comment on. Often they just go for the title...as for Markan priority, yes, that is bedrock for most scholars who have examined all the evidence but this course is not about that...works from there. I do have videos on that if you want to get into it. See my overview here if you are interested: th-cam.com/video/3M-EYMNcoRA/w-d-xo.html
At bible study my priest explains it
very well about the disciples, this
topic becomes much deeper than
anyone is aware of. Much deeper!
Tuborg is way off and doesn't even
know it ,think of all the people who
were taught from him chaotic !👎🖐😫
This is literally the opinion of some guy, 2000 years after the fact
His view was not even a thing that no early church writings discussed.
There is also nothing in the gospels that state or suggest that Matthew and Luke hate Mark and vise versa.
None of the gospels state that the author hates this and that or loves this and that.
This dude is making crap up. That's sad and stupid