The Embarrassing Gospel of Mark

The Embarrassing Gospel of Mark | James D. Tabor PhD

Sign up for 👉 "Creating Jesus: Why Mark’s Gospel Was Forgotten?"

Gospel of Mark is the most influential piece of literature from the ancient world. Even though Paul’s letters are written earlier, they offer us no “Jesus Story.” Mark is our earliest narrative presentation of the figure of Jesus. However, it is purposely constructed as a “riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.” And even though it is now embedded in the New Testament, it is essentially lost and forgotten.

Matthew and Luke are essentially “rewritten Mark.” These writers use Mark as their main source, but utterly deconstruct and, as a result, essentially “destroy” it. Even though they incorporate up to 80% of Mark as their core story—once edited and embedded in their narrative, Mark as Mark basically ceases to exist. In that sense it has remained “unread” for the past two millennia.

Mark is in fact a kind of anti-gospel or counter-gospel. It could even be seen as “anti-Christian.” It stands in opposition to the master narrative of the Jesus Story that becomes the heart and core of the Christian Gospel—cobbled together from Matthew, Luke, and John—and the early Christian Creeds, all of whom completely lose—and even reject—Mark’s presentation.

In this course Dr. Tabor pulls Mark out of the New Testament, strips it from later forms of orthodox and dogmatic Christianity, and places it in its original historical context—as a post-War apocalyptic treatise following the destruction of Jerusalem. Its view of God, of Israel, and of the Messiah, is utterly opposite to and opposed to what emerged as early Christianity.

The focus of the course is a detailed exposition of the Mark as Mark. Mark is a skillfully constructed as a three-part drama, with clear literary motifs that move the story along in very carefully worked out directions, ending with a dead messiah, forsaken by God, his contemporary Jewish culture, and even his closest followers and disciples. The reader is left alone at the end, to try and sort out what it all means, with no direction home. And yet, embedded in the narrative, is a certain “understanding” of the message, but only for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

Dr. Tabor did his Ph.D. at the University of Chicago with three towering figures in the field of the academic study of early Christianity:

========================================================

**RECOMMENDED ONLINE COURSES HERE**

Sign up here for Dr. M. David Litwa's course - The Ancient Greek Mysteries & Christianity - -

Sign up for Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's course – Finding Moses - -

Sign up for Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's course - Other Virgin Births In Antiquity - -

========================================================

========================================================

Please consider helping support MythVision's work by joining the Patreon or contributing a one-time donation through my links below:

Cashapp: 👉 $rewiredaddiction
Venmo: 👉 @Derek-Lambert-9

======================================================

👉👉 Checkout Our Other YouTube Channel:

👉👉 Checkout MVP Courses to find new and upcoming online courses:

=======================================================

#Gospel #Mark #mythvision #MythVisionPodcast #mvp #dereklambert

[MythVisionPodcast]

This is a course you don't wanna miss! Sign up for Creating Jesus: Why The Gospel of Mark was Forgotten!

[frankrobinson]

Jesus’s rebuke of Peter was to do with Peter attempting to convince Jesus that he shouldn’t go to Jerusalem. It was nothing to do with Peter saying Jesus is the Messiah.

How can a scholar make a claim like that when it’s so clearly not the case?

Am I missing something?

[Sam-ygkv]

As an old man belonging to a family with a Jewish father and a Catholic mother, I stopped worrying about religion very early; however my grandfather (Jew) when he read the gospel of Mark told me. Rob, this is a symbol. The story of this man (Jesus) is symbolic of Israel at that time.
I always found it a beautiful interpretation and even today at fifty-four I remember it fondly.
Thank you for your videos, we enjoy them a lot here in Chile, me and my family.
A big hug.

[TSSuppository]

I went to a Catholic school in the UK and we were specifically taught the Gospel of Mark, because it is understood to be the earliest-written of the four gospels (and therefore considered in many ways to be the "most accurate"), so I have no idea what Tabor means when he says it is the "forgotten" gospel. But that is far from the worst of his transgressions in this interview. Below I list some of the main points:

1: Complaining of the final verse that the witnesses of the bare tomb “said nothing to anyone, ” he asks how there could be a Gospel if they said nothing to anyone. But *in the very prior verse*, the witnesses are told (by the young man who “is not an angel, ” although I fail to see why that matters), “But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him,  just as he told you.’” So, regardless of whether the witnesses spoke to the disciples, it is explicit in the text that Jesus went on to meet the disciples later in Galilee! THAT’S how there’s a Gospel! It really isn’t that complicated.

2: “Why are you teaching in riddles and parables to the crowds?” Tabor asserts that Jesus said, “I don’t want them to understand or be converted.” This is a COMPLETE misrepresentation of what Jesus actually says. The verses in question are Mark 4:10-12 (but the entirety of chapter 4 gives a broader context) – in it, Jesus explains that “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that,
‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’”
These three lines are delivered as a quotation within a quotation – specifically, Jesus is quoting Isaiah 6:9-10. It must be taken, then, that the FULL context of his answer must also incorporate Isaiah Chapter 6. When this full context is considered it seems rather more that Jesus is stating that the meaning of the parables will be clear to those who are ready to understand, who are willing to repent and who wish to receive forgiveness.
It is NOT that he “doesn’t want people to understand or be converted, ” it’s that the WILLINGNESS to understand and be converted is incumbent upon the listener.

3: “Why are you calling me ‘good’? There is none good but God.” - Tabor says, “if you can’t even call Jesus GOOD then you’re certainly not going to call him GOD.”
But I think this is a shallow reading of the text. According to the references on BibleGateway, the word “Good” here is translated from the Greek word agathos, which literally means “doer of great things.” “Good” is one way of interpreting this (along with brave, noble, moral, gentle and more). However, another – equally valid – interpretation might be that, rather than saying, “Good Rabbi, ” the man says something along the lines of “Oh, Great One, ” or even, “Mighty Teacher.” In which case it would make perfect sense for Jesus to reply, “Why do you call me Great (or Mighty)? There is none Great (or Mighty) but God.”
This is, as I say, an equally valid interpretation, but the sense of the reply has now shifted considerably. This is one of the primary problems of translation: capturing the essence of what is being said in the appropriate format. Even a subtle alteration of the translation can have a profound impact on the meaning (which is precisely why many scholars prefer to derive meaning from the original Hebrew or Greek texts rather than relying on English translations, as Tabor seems to have done).

4: “Peter finally gets who Jesus is… ‘You’re the Christ.’ And Jesus says, ‘Get behind me, Satan.’” No. No, no, no, no, NO! This is NOT what happens AT ALL. HERE is what happens:
Jesus asks, “Who do you say I am?” to which Peter answers, “You are the Messiah.” (verse 29)
And then, verse 30, *“Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.”*
THEN, in verse 31, Jesus explains that he will be betrayed, suffer and die before rising again.
In verse 32, Peter rebukes him (he doesn’t want his friend and master to suffer and die).
Then in verse 33, Jesus rebukes Peter right back, saying “Get behind me, Satan!”
Jesus is chastising Peter because Peter is being selfish, thinking about the loss of Jesus rather than seeing the bigger picture – God’s plan. THAT is why he says “Get behind me, Satan” – because Peter’s admonishment is born of selfishness.
So Tabor is either completely misunderstanding or misreading the Gospel here, or else he is deliberately misrepresenting it (for what reason I can only guess). He says that he teaches his students (!!!) that “Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ is a false confession inspired by Satan.”
Oh my actual God. I weep for his students, for they are being misinformed, if not outright lied to.

This is all within the first 8 minutes of the interview, and I have little appetite for watching any more of it. It staggers me that Tabor is purportedly a Biblical scholar and yet seems woefully ill-informed and lacking in any kind of knowledge or understanding of the text he is criticising. I am no scholar, I am not a Bible apologist, I’m no Evangelical or literalist - hell, I’m barely even what you could call a Catholic any more. I am still a (non-practising) Christian, though, and the fact that this Gospel – the one I grew up learning – is being so thoroughly misrepresented is infuriating to me.

Sorry for the long reply, but… GAAAH!

xx

[joetrapp]

Mark: The Gospel without Christmas or Easter.

[jimgiacomelli]

Mark 8:31-33 does not say Jesus rebuked Peter for calling him the Christ but for saying he should not suffer, die and rise from the dead 3 days later. How could Tabor be so wrong?

[PoeLemic]

Here is my viewpoint on Mark, as I read it and studied it, which woke my eyes up to how it's the first take on the Jesus Story. See, the thing about Mark that struck me, is that it is the Jesus Myth in such simplicity. Remember, it was the earliest gospel, which everyone agrees on (including religious scholars). So, basically, Mark was written first, and then Matthew & Luke used it and improved upon it. They filled in the places that Mark did not write, nor that were even an issue back then. So, if you read it alone, so much of what the "Christian Narrative" is, isn't in Mark. It's absent, so that showed me how the next gospels were just myth-making and improving on the prior formula.

[aarohelander]

That's weird. Jesus doesnt say "get behind me satan" in response to Peter's confession, but to the later comment about death not being a thing to happen to Jesus.

[robfitterer]

Mythvision will yet become a bone fide online graduate level college. Great things will come of all this Derek. Good work, dude.

[salama]

The church of Constantine likes that high Christology like the gospel of John. In Mark's gospel the context of the writer where the temple ruins are still smoking from the roman flames and the existential confusion and despair of that great clash of civilizations have left the survivors clutching for meaning to their suffering and the imminent return of Jesus...In Mark the only words from Jesus on the cross are “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?”

[scottstelle]

Then why was the gospel of Mark included in a bible?

[ScholarsUnleashed]

@4:42, when Peter declares Jesus to be the Messiah he doesn't immediately call him Satan. He just warns him not to tell anyone. It's only after another speech of Jesus about being delivered, killed and resurrected that Peter rebukes him and only then does Jesus call him Satan. The two replies from Jesus refer to different things. Tabor is reaching here.

[Loenthall]

The discussion was interesting, but his assertion that Peter's profession of faith in Jesus being the Christ being inspired by satan is a huge stretch.

[georgeflowers]

Mark was the book that opened my mind and eyes to my deconversion. Thank you, Professor Tabor and Derek, for the work you do and for this course.
I know this will be great. I have always had the same kind of ideas about Mark, and I'm happy to see that I was on the right track about Mark. Even the idea that some parts can be taken as jokes!

[tumblebugspace]

Love what you’re doing on this channel, Derek! I survived the Satanic Panic as a child in a Pentecostal household, and never accepted that I needed a “savior” in the first place, so I was persona non grata. It’s good that some are able to see that books are the work of men, and as such, they direct us to worship the ideas and work of *men.* Men have no spiritual authority over women, they’ve only claimed it by force. Women are the source of human life! Please stop hating that *fact, * those who continue to do so! ☮️❤️🐾

[boydx]

This is very interesting. I admire Dr. Tabor, but the comment connecting the Peter's confession of Jesus Christ with Jesus's statement to Peter "Get thee behind me..." seems confusing and even disingenuous. He seems to ignore Mark 8:31 which adds the context for Jesus's rebuke of Peter. Can anyone help me understand it?

[astrinymris]

I once decided to read the four gospels through the lens of reading fanfiction, or in other words "What headcanon was this story written to promote?" Yeah, I know, but while I'm not a trained biblical scholar, I have read a lot of fanfiction, so... stick with what you know you can handle? 🤣🤣🤣

It was a long time ago, but I remember concluding that Mark's gospel was written to combat the question of "If Jesus did all these miracles, then why wasn't he better known during his lifetime?" So we have Jesus warning people not to tell anyone he'd healed them or cast out their demons, and rejecting any attempts by his disciples to deify him. His power and divinity were real, he just didn't want to reveal himself while alive, because... reasons.

Why did I feel the need to say this to people who know way more about the Bible than me? Um... well, it's at least a comment for the algorithm? 😉

[Mahigrady]

I appreciate the opportunity to study Mark with Dr Tabor; however, I have a problem with his explanation of the scene he describes with Peter. According to the versions I have read, Jesus does not tell Peter "Get behind me, Satan" until after he describes the suffering he must endure and Peter's rebuke. When Peter suggests he is the Christ, Jesus tells him to not tell anyone. This distinction may seem trivial or like I am splitting hairs. But I think it is important that Peter understands Jesus to be the Messiah, but that he doesn't understand what the Messiah is by having to suffer. This a far different interpretation that should illustrate a different conclusion. Difficult for me to hop in on this ride without understanding that gap.

[pulsarstargrave]

I see MARK as a mystery story, kind of like Clint Eastwood's HIGH PLAINS DRIFTER where a mysterious Stranger emerges from the wilderness; upsets the established order; is seemingly lost then departs under mysterious circumstances, in triumph! Only at the end do the terrified people understand what was in their midst!

[religiologEng]

Amazing stuff Derek! I am working now on a video review for my channel on the difference between the 4 canonical gospels. I love Dr. Tabor and rely on his works along with other scholars. Best wishes!