I love the action-packed, fast paced gospel of Mark, and in this video Bart actually seems inspired and excited about Mark, too. Watching this, you'd almost think Bart was a Christian or something.
beat me to making this re-mark. Bart has thrown in one more lecture than Tabor but is charging a higher price. But while on the subject of Tabor, should note that in another projec, he has come out with his own translation of Genesis. Haven't procurred it yet but there is a youtube interview where James explains his whole approach to translating the Hebrew to English, and why for those of us that like to study these text to a deeper level, that this will be especially helpful. And he hopes to lead a small translation team to keep going - with a comparable translation of the Torah the next project goal.
Yeah, nobody was saying that Jesus was the Messiah, right? Mark 8:29 - And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ. That ain't scholarship; that's bullship. He doesn't even know the source and he's gonna teach me something.
@@Slum0vsky - Christ means "anointed" without regard to how he should die. Cyrus was considered the messiah by the Jewish nation and he wasn't even Jewish himself. I'm sure Cyrus died but I'm not sure he died by crucifixion. Secondly, Peter recognized Jesus as the Christ in verse 29 and then in verse 31, Jesus tells His disciples this: Mark 8:31 - And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. It helps to know the material, which neither you nor Bart Ehrman seem to.
Mark is a fine fine book. I think the original ending works perfectly. We can all assume those women *did* eventually tell some people but only after they had delayed and probably talked amongst themselves. It also helps to build tension for the anticipation of the second coming.
@jon4574 Jesus is Nerones chrestos and past away 68 AD, he didn''t die in the thirties , born in 4 there is a time-shift of 32 yeara (4 + 32 + 32 = 68), Nero been born 36, his lifetime 'mirrored' back to create Jesus. So Mark who rejected the 'coupe détat' performed by the flavians acted almost immediate, No decades waiting to grab his pen . Mark is an underground writing and coded in some ways, he wrote for a select audience at the time (around 70) who were able to decode and understand his tail. He failed completely and unintended he wrote the best and most plagiarized bestseller of all times, beating Dan Brown with street-lenghts .
Incidentally, is that really a resurrection narrative? One unnamed guy just says he's been raised and we never see Jesus or hear him having actually been raised? It seems harsh to say they're wrong when they say there's no resurrection narrative. Resurrection claim, maybe. Not really a narrative though.
Excellent video and I really enjoyed the description of Mark’s reception history. One quibble: skeptics saying there is no resurrection story or narrative in Mark. I think Bart was a little hard on this idea. I think the language is imprecise but skeptics are not wrong. As we learn from Bart, original Mark ended with 16:8, “ the women were afraid…”. Verses 9-20 were later additions. This is what skeptics are referring too. They are saying as compared to Matthew and Luke, Mark does not have a resurrection narrative ( I.e appearances).
Steve Mason really changed my mind, or cleared up a confusion, about the word Gospel - evaggeliov. According to Dr Mason it was Paul who invented the word and it meant 'reliable message' (not good message as in happy message, but good message as opposed to fake message, Paul having derived it from the word for 'reliable messenger' which was applied to the god Hermes). In Paul's mind the reliable message was that the world was going to end soon and only those who believed in Christ were to be saved. So in this view, the opening line of GosMark would be 'The beginning of the reliable message/story about Jesus Christ, son of God'. This line sounds to me just as much like a later edition to the text, a title or heading, as does 'The Gospel according to Mark', which everyone(?) accepts as an editorial addition. If that is right, the original opening was "As it is written in the prophets ...".
The author of the Gospel of Mark presented Christ as a Sophist: From Plato's Protagoras: "Now the art of the Sophist is, as I believe, of great antiquity; but in ancient times those who practiced it, fearing the odium, veiled and disguised themselves under various names, some under that of poets, as Homer, Hesiod, and Simonides, some, of heirophants and prophets, as Orpheus and Musaeus, and some, as I observe, even under the name of gymnastic-masters, like Iccus of Tarentum, or the more recently celebrated Herodicus, now of Selymbria and formerly of Megara, who is a first-rate Sophist. Your own Agathocles pretended to be a musician, but was really an eminent Sophist; also Pythocleides the Cean; and there were many others; and all of them, as I was saying, adopted these arts as veils or disguises because they were afraid of the odium which they would incur." Mark 8:27Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, “Who do people say I am?” 28They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.” 29“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Peter answered, “You are the Messiah.” 30Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him. From Plato's Theaetetus: “In the name of the Graces, what an almighty wise man Protagoras must have been! He spoke these things in a parable to the common herd, like you and me, but told the truth, his Truth, in secret to his own disciples.” Mark 4:33-34: "With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand. 34 He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything." Mark 4:10‐12 When he (Jesus) was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, "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!'" From Plato's Sophist: "Stranger. By heaven, they are cousins! it never occurred to us. Theaetetus. Who are cousins? Stranger. The angler and the Sophist. Theaetetus. In what way are they related? Stranger. They both appear to me to be hunters." Mark 1:“And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.” From Wikipedia: "The Second Sophistic is a literary-historical term referring to the Greek writers who flourished from the reign of Nero until c. 230 AD and who were catalogued and celebrated by Philostratus in his Lives of the Sophists. However, some recent research has indicated that this Second Sophistic, which was previously thought to have very suddenly and abruptly appeared in the late 1st century, actually had its roots in the early 1st century."
@@whatwecalllife7034 But note that it appears that the Sophists were actually conmen which would mean that Christianity was also a deliberate con and by systematically deciphering their allegory this can be proven.
@@crimony3054 I heard that the Cosa Nostra wanted the pope to institute a rule that all Catholics had to drink a shot of olive oil every day during Lent.
Dr. Ehrman often states an opinion that the writer was not the companion of Peter. I would like to know the basis of this opinion (if anyone here knows it).
Mark as a companion of Peter is pure fiction, it's just a convenient church legend. It makes no sense whatsoever because Peter was a Torah observant Jew & Mark's gospel is a Gentile tract from the Pauline school!
@@ghostriders_1 Except that Peter fled to Mary, the mother of John Mark’s house (according to Acts) and that house is also where the last supper supposedly took place, according to the tradition. I think the default to zero chance is a concerning trend of cognitive dissonance. I do not personally believe that these traditions hold the weight of “certainty,” but they give enough credence that there is probably a greater than 50% chance that some part of what we know as the Gospel of Mark was written by Mark the evangelist (often considered the same person as John Mark, that accompanied Paul with Barnabus). My personal guess is that John Mark did write the sayings part of the Gospel from Peter’s teachings and some other priest later on tried to put them in the order that made sense with more narration to them. But, that’s just an unprovable guess.
@@ghostriders_1that applies both ways. Lots of assumptions on the “not Mark” line of reason and it goes against the millennia of tradition and written evidence to the contrary. Seems that 51% likelihood is more rational than the 0%.
8:55 -- So no one buys that explanation anymore, that the messianic secret is evidence that Jesus wasn't known as the Messiah during his life? That was kind of what made sense to me. Why isn't that considered plausible anymore? What is the explanation for the messianic secret? PS those glasses are dope!
Mark 8:29 - And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ. I guess Peter counts as a minor nobody in the Gospel of Mark, right? Ehrman said it, so it must be true. Hogwash!
@@adamnascent7231 - I said that Jesus was indeed recognized as the Messiah by large numbers of people. That's what ultimately cooked His bacon (if I may). Peter (hardly some trivial nobody) came out and said it, "Thou art the Christ". Ehrman obviously has not read the source material but he want's people to give him money for teaching it. Sounds like a LOT of preachers I know.
@@GizmoFromPizmo Thanks, you're right that Ehrman has made a major, easily provable error here - it's not true that 'none of the major figures get it'. At the same time, the place that you are quoting also supports his more general claim that Jesus is 'keeping it a secret' in Mark, because in response to Peter's identification of Jesus as the Messiah, 'Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him'.
It is interesting that Bart never entertains the idea that the Messianic secret is just a clever literary device to explain why nobody's grandparents had heard the story of this crucified Messiah before! It serves the same function as his low-key resurrection narrative. You didn't hear about it because the women didn't tell anybody.
I'm going to have to reread Mark in light of all this. I get the impression that from the perspective of those buying into the progressively more refined theological assertions of the later gospels (and even of the earlier writings of Paul), Mark must seem (and, historically, have seemed) VERY subversive. Rather than telling you outright why "Mark" believes his opening claim that Yeshua/Jesus was "the" ultimate Messiah, he weaves a tale in which no one - especially no "insider" - believes it and even the protagonist isn't letting on what's going on. It’s a rather counterintuitive, ambiguous story that seems to call upon the hearer/reader to come to their own interpretation of what it meant - more of a shades-of-grey, thought-provoking Denis Villeneuve film than a hagiographic "Greatest Story Ever Told"...
Don't miss this verse: Mark 8:29 - And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ. Nobody was saying that Jesus was the Christ? Nobody except everybody, I think.
@@dbarker7794 - Everybody who was anybody. 🙂 But my point is that if you have to keep telling people to not broadcast something, that it's already becoming a problem. Read John's Gospel. By chapter 6, the multitudes wanted to straight up make Him their king right then and there. Evidently, Jesus had a plan.
@@whatwecalllife7034 - Certainly, Jesus was legendary. So much so that the sign of the cross was the meme that eventually brought down the Empire. He was a cause celeb. The cross became the "mugshot" of the first century. And we know that a "mugshot" can slay ten thousand reptilian vampire monsters in government!
Bart's paying so much attention he fails to notice that Mark never says he is writing the biography of a person we should believe actually existed! He never once discusses his sources & in chpt 4 actually appears to hint, via the character of Jesus not to take this story literally.
While agreed Mark obviously believed -- as did the other "apostles" and Saul(Paul) -- that Yeshua (Jesus) was the prophesied Jewish Messiah... yet it is obvious by Mark's Gospel narrative that Yeshua, Himself, did not. 😯 For had Yeshua so believed Himself to be, He would not have tried so hard to keep it all a secret, as Mark repeatedly reveals... and as Dr. Ehrman here correctly points out. Thus, in likely truthfully recounting Yeshua's efforts at secrecy, Mark unwittingly reveals the fallacy of this foundational Christian belief in Yeshua as Messiah. Apparently, the later Gospels recognized this and, thus, removed from their respective narratives these efforts at anonymity attempted by Yeshua... and instead painted Yeshua as increasingly proclaiming to all this supposed Messianic mission. Additionally, while Matthew... perhaps in similar fashion to Mark... twice reveals Yeshua as strictly limiting His mission to none "but unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel" (Matt Ch. 15 V. 24; Ch. 10 V. 6) ... yet by Luke's and John's Gospels, we find Yeshua making no mention of His mission being so limited... thus helping further paint Yeshua not just as the prophesied Davidic Messiah but, now, as a worldwide Savior... something the later concocted "Final Commission" prior to His claimed "Ascension" would cement. There is a lot in both Mark and Matthew that foundationally contradicts this later more-developed "orthodox" view of Yeshua as Messiah, "Savior," and as the founder of the new religion of Christianity, despite Mark's apparent acceptance of all such at a more less-doctrinal level. Hopefully someday the truth of who and what Yeshua REALLY was... and the true nature of His mission here... will be revealed. In the meantime, however, I am going to point out the other aspect of who and what Yeshua was that keeps getting ignored. Yes, as also Dr. Ehrman deliberately ignores it in this video. As seen in this video, Dr. Ehrman deliberately chose NOT to fully quote the first verse of Mark's Gospel revealing that other KEY claim. As Dr. Ehrman misquotes it: "The first sentence (of Mark) is: 'The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ.' " (4:45). But... that's not Mark's complete first sentence, now is it? Here's the complete first sentence: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the SON of GOD." (Mark Ch. 1, V. 1). So... why did Dr. Ehrman choose to avoid finishing the sentence? Why avoid the OTHER key claim, entirely? Probably because Dr. Ehrman knows it contradicts the claim he considers more important: Of Yeshua as "Christ"... the Messiah. The "Son of God" part is deliberately understated for having supposedly been subsumed into the far-later heresy that is the weird concept of the "Triune God" (the "Trinity")...thus sidestepping around the "Son of God" issue entirely, as though already resolved thanks to 4th-Century orthodox thinking. Apparently and despite his scholarship that should have taught him better, he seems to still be a bit biased in favor of this Orthodox Christian view... despite all contradictory evidences for it, most notably the very words of the Gospels, themselves... most notably Mark's. Let me explain. As any good scholar of the Tanakh (Old Testament) knows, there exists a huge contradiction in claiming Yeshua as both the prophesied Davidic Messiah AND also as the begotten (in the flesh) Son of God. For as they know, it is impossible to BOTH be that Davidic Messiah... requiring having a Davidic mortal father (a patrilineal descendant of King David)... and also be the literal begotten "Son of God" having God, instead, as your father. Obviously... no one can have TWO fathers in the flesh. Thus, if Yeshua were anything ... Hecould only have been one or the other; He couldn't have been BOTH. I coined this inescapable paradox : "The "Christ" Conundrum." In one key point, Dr. Ehrman is entirely correct: The Gospel of Mark is of CRITICAL historical importance. For without it, we would not have caught a glimpse of the historical Yeshua exhibiting so many key contradictory aspects later so glaringly and deliberately whitewashed in later Gospels (most especially in Luke and John).
If only the Roman centurian gets it that Jesus is surely the son of God (and it's at the end of the gospel almost) Then doesn't that sound like an addition by a Roman editor some time around 300 CE when the Romans decided to adopt Jesus sect as Constantine rose to power? What proof is there that the Mark text predates the Roman persecution of Christianity and Judaism?
Guys, when you say, Jesus is the son of God,and therefore, has a divine nature, which I understand as not being human subject to physical death, and therefore, cannot experience death, but still he died. So which one is he? Jesus is called the son of Mary. If he is the biological son of Mary, that means Mary's genes is what makes Jesus human.Then Jesus' father, the Holy Spirit, was supposed to impregnate Mary by defying the laws of biology and science which is explained away as a miracle of conception to establish Jesus as the son of God. This maybe acceptable to people who are either ignorant or stupidly naive or superstitious and gullible. More credible would be to propose that Mary got pregnant by a man either by force or with her consent while she was alone in the temple doing he her assigned duties and God in his infinite mercy or parents of Mary and Joseph as the betrothed husband
Cont.....to prevent scandal and the possible penalty of death for Mary's infidelity all agreed to the coverup as Joseph claiming to be the father but attributing the pregnancy to be a miracu!ous and superhuman occurence in an age where ignorance andvsuperstitionnw
It's so annoying listening to someone who constantly laughs as if what they're saying is so profound or hilarious. And it just makes an interviewer have to awkwardly smile or laugh along. He sounds like a cringy Sunday School teacher. Or a grandpa who acts like everything he says in his story is something worth having a reaction to. It's okay to just talk. Good info, but annoying to listen to.
I recommend everyone to listen to Mike Winger's video, "How an Atheist Scholar Deceives Millions of People" He deconstructs the misleading claims Bart Ehrman makes regarding the Gospel of Mark. God bless you all.
I saw that video and yes, he does a very good job debunking this hack. Ehrman doesn't know the source material and he's going to teach ME??? I don't think so. Ehrman said a few times in this video that "nobody" was saying that Jesus was the Messiah. Mark 8:29 - And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ. And he wants somebody to give him money for his "expertise". I'm telling you, that's not scholarship, that's bullship.
Damn! I was over here thinking this silly Bart scholar guy was making sense with his so called scholarly consensus, I'll be sure to check out that RUclips apologist video to set the record straight! Got any videos debunking heliocentrism? My biblical cosmology is feeling anxious...
Bart Ehrman's wonderful new course: 1) Mark's gospel is a biography, not unlike other biographies. 2) Nobody was saying that Jesus was the Christ 3) Two minor nobodies get that Jesus was the Christ but none of the major characters. Mark 8:29 - And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ. Right? NOBODY understood that Jesus was the Messiah. Such a great scholar. To be honest, I find this to be true of EVERY "scholar" making money off of Jesus. They know so much that reading the source material isn't necessary. I catch people like this ALL. THE. TIME. It's too easy at this point. Ever hear of James Tabor? That dude's a drunk and a hack but paid well for his "scholarship".
@@thevulture5750 - AMEN! Jesus is Lord! And do you know that I had 2 Jehovah''s Witnesses in my apartment and it was like pulling teeth to get them to agree that Jesus is Lord. One of them finally said it, reluctantly, but the other one NEVER SAID IT. How would you like to face the Judge on that Day when you couldn't bring yourself to say the words, "Jesus is Lord"?
The Talking Cross was the Tidings of Joy Polate sent to Tiberius by the pony express of euangelion, The synthesis of Mark 15:1 - 16:8 with the Gospel of Peter defines both the oral and written record of Resurrection from literally the moment it happendl John 19:35 is the eye witness account of the splitting of Jesus as an element in the Covenant Cutting Ceremony that was ratified by the Talking Cross. All Christian literature is a footnote to Mark. Bart Ehrman's fantasy that Mark is derivative of Pauline Theology is histroic reconstruction like interpreting the Bible as if Lee had won at Gettysburg and captured Washington and took over the government. Ehrman's schlarship is excellent. His interpretation is shit. It's like Jimmy Tabor asserting that Mark is the anti Gospel, that it diverges from the genre. Mark created the genre. And Cornelisu, the centurion featured in Acts 10, was the executive editor of the staff report to Theophilus regarding what happened before and after Mark 15:1 - 16:8. The Gospel of Mark ends the way it does because it wan the last eyes-on testimony of the soldiers and centurion at the tomb who saw Mary Magdalene and other women, These soldiers had shared the Talking Cross vision,
Megan must have one of the best collections of spectacles ever. The amazing thing is that they all suit her so well. Well done Megan. Cheers
I love the action-packed, fast paced gospel of Mark, and in this video Bart actually seems inspired and excited about Mark, too. Watching this, you'd almost think Bart was a Christian or something.
A couple suggestions: 1. More ads 2. Write down you questions so you don’t forget your question as the interviewer. Good luck in the future.
Tabor is pushing his new Mark class also. It's almost as if Tabor and Ehrman are having a _Mark-off_ .
beat me to making this re-mark.
Bart has thrown in one more lecture than Tabor but is charging a higher price.
But while on the subject of Tabor, should note that in another projec, he has come out with his own translation of Genesis. Haven't procurred it yet but there is a youtube interview where James explains his whole approach to translating the Hebrew to English, and why for those of us that like to study these text to a deeper level, that this will be especially helpful. And he hopes to lead a small translation team to keep going - with a comparable translation of the Torah the next project goal.
Yeah, nobody was saying that Jesus was the Messiah, right?
Mark 8:29 - And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.
That ain't scholarship; that's bullship. He doesn't even know the source and he's gonna teach me something.
@@GizmoFromPizmo So you are saying Peter knew Yeshua was going to be crucified, as that's what Christ means? Did he read ahead in the script?
@@Slum0vsky - Christ means "anointed" without regard to how he should die. Cyrus was considered the messiah by the Jewish nation and he wasn't even Jewish himself. I'm sure Cyrus died but I'm not sure he died by crucifixion.
Secondly, Peter recognized Jesus as the Christ in verse 29 and then in verse 31, Jesus tells His disciples this:
Mark 8:31 - And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
It helps to know the material, which neither you nor Bart Ehrman seem to.
Just be happy its not a John-off.
Mark is a fine fine book. I think the original ending works perfectly. We can all assume those women *did* eventually tell some people but only after they had delayed and probably talked amongst themselves. It also helps to build tension for the anticipation of the second coming.
@jon4574 I don't think the author felt he was under any responsibility to represent every detail as he had received them.
@jon4574 Jesus is Nerones chrestos and past away 68 AD, he didn''t die in the thirties , born in 4 there is a time-shift of 32 yeara (4 + 32 + 32 = 68), Nero been born 36, his lifetime 'mirrored' back to create Jesus. So Mark who rejected the 'coupe détat' performed by the flavians acted almost immediate, No decades waiting to grab his pen . Mark is an underground writing and coded in some ways, he wrote for a select audience at the time (around 70) who were able to decode and understand his tail. He failed completely and unintended he wrote the best and most plagiarized bestseller of all times, beating Dan Brown with street-lenghts .
That is not an assumption you should make! I suspect they didn't tell anyone because they did not exist, but Mark sure told a lot of people!
Mark is my favorite gospel because of how unique it is and I find the Messianic Secret fascinating.
Love it when Bart is on. Wish I could afford his classes. Just wanted to show my support and appreciation
Excellent quality!
Incidentally, is that really a resurrection narrative? One unnamed guy just says he's been raised and we never see Jesus or hear him having actually been raised? It seems harsh to say they're wrong when they say there's no resurrection narrative.
Resurrection claim, maybe. Not really a narrative though.
Excellent video and I really enjoyed the description of Mark’s reception history.
One quibble: skeptics saying there is no resurrection story or narrative in Mark. I think Bart was a little hard on this idea. I think the language is imprecise but skeptics are not wrong. As we learn from Bart, original Mark ended with 16:8, “ the women were afraid…”. Verses 9-20 were later additions. This is what skeptics are referring too. They are saying as compared to Matthew and Luke, Mark does not have a resurrection narrative ( I.e appearances).
Steve Mason really changed my mind, or cleared up a confusion, about the word Gospel - evaggeliov. According to Dr Mason it was Paul who invented the word and it meant 'reliable message' (not good message as in happy message, but good message as opposed to fake message, Paul having derived it from the word for 'reliable messenger' which was applied to the god Hermes). In Paul's mind the reliable message was that the world was going to end soon and only those who believed in Christ were to be saved.
So in this view, the opening line of GosMark would be 'The beginning of the reliable message/story about Jesus Christ, son of God'. This line sounds to me just as much like a later edition to the text, a title or heading, as does 'The Gospel according to Mark', which everyone(?) accepts as an editorial addition. If that is right, the original opening was "As it is written in the prophets ...".
The of resurrection of Jesus was a miracle made by the same God who took the prophet Elijah to heaven.
Dr Ehrman is able to separate what the texts say from his personal beliefs. Apologists search the texts for quotes to support their personal beliefs.
Hahahahahaha! OK.
The author of the Gospel of Mark presented Christ as a Sophist:
From Plato's Protagoras:
"Now the art of the Sophist is, as I believe, of great antiquity; but in ancient times those who practiced it, fearing the odium, veiled and disguised themselves under various names, some under that of poets, as Homer, Hesiod, and Simonides, some, of heirophants and prophets, as Orpheus and Musaeus, and some, as I observe, even under the name of gymnastic-masters, like Iccus of Tarentum, or the more recently celebrated Herodicus, now of Selymbria and formerly of Megara, who is a first-rate Sophist. Your own Agathocles pretended to be a musician, but was really an eminent Sophist; also Pythocleides the Cean; and there were many others; and all of them, as I was saying, adopted these arts as veils or disguises because they were afraid of the odium which they would incur."
Mark 8:27Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, “Who do people say I am?”
28They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.”
29“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
Peter answered, “You are the Messiah.”
30Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.
From Plato's Theaetetus:
“In the name of the Graces, what an almighty wise man Protagoras must have been! He spoke these things in a parable to the common herd, like you and me, but told the truth, his Truth, in secret to his own disciples.”
Mark 4:33-34: "With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand. 34 He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything."
Mark 4:10‐12 When he (Jesus) was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the
parables. He told them, "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!'"
From Plato's Sophist:
"Stranger. By heaven, they are cousins! it never occurred to us.
Theaetetus. Who are cousins?
Stranger. The angler and the Sophist.
Theaetetus. In what way are they related?
Stranger. They both appear to me to be hunters."
Mark 1:“And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.”
From Wikipedia:
"The Second Sophistic is a literary-historical term referring to the Greek writers who flourished from the reign of Nero until c. 230 AD and who were catalogued and celebrated by Philostratus in his Lives of the Sophists. However, some recent research has indicated that this Second Sophistic, which was previously thought to have very suddenly and abruptly appeared in the late 1st century, actually had its roots in the early 1st century."
🤔 interesting indeed... Almost as if the gospel authors had extensive knowledge of prior Greek philosophy
@@whatwecalllife7034 But note that it appears that the Sophists were actually conmen which would mean that Christianity was also a deliberate con and by systematically deciphering their allegory this can be proven.
I don't find this very similar, really.
Strange. This isn't flagged as an advert
You know the only reason the Pope told Catholics to eat fish on Fridays was to save the Italian fishing industry.
@@crimony3054 I heard that the Cosa Nostra wanted the pope to institute a rule that all Catholics had to drink a shot of olive oil every day during Lent.
@@dbarker7794 Yes, and Christmas was originally a pagan holiday while Easter was a fertility rite. There's just so much you learn as a sophomore.
Dr. Ehrman often states an opinion that the writer was not the companion of Peter. I would like to know the basis of this opinion (if anyone here knows it).
Mark as a companion of Peter is pure fiction, it's just a convenient church legend. It makes no sense whatsoever because Peter was a Torah observant Jew & Mark's gospel is a Gentile tract from the Pauline school!
@@ghostriders_1 Except that Peter fled to Mary, the mother of John Mark’s house (according to Acts) and that house is also where the last supper supposedly took place, according to the tradition. I think the default to zero chance is a concerning trend of cognitive dissonance. I do not personally believe that these traditions hold the weight of “certainty,” but they give enough credence that there is probably a greater than 50% chance that some part of what we know as the Gospel of Mark was written by Mark the evangelist (often considered the same person as John Mark, that accompanied Paul with Barnabus).
My personal guess is that John Mark did write the sayings part of the Gospel from Peter’s teachings and some other priest later on tried to put them in the order that made sense with more narration to them. But, that’s just an unprovable guess.
@@avg8or speculation in = speculation out aka GIGO!
@@ghostriders_1that applies both ways. Lots of assumptions on the “not Mark” line of reason and it goes against the millennia of tradition and written evidence to the contrary. Seems that 51% likelihood is more rational than the 0%.
Also, it’s not “convenient” for Mark.
Many other people would have been far, far more convenient for the claim.
8:55 -- So no one buys that explanation anymore, that the messianic secret is evidence that Jesus wasn't known as the Messiah during his life? That was kind of what made sense to me. Why isn't that considered plausible anymore? What is the explanation for the messianic secret?
PS those glasses are dope!
Mark 8:29 - And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.
I guess Peter counts as a minor nobody in the Gospel of Mark, right? Ehrman said it, so it must be true. Hogwash!
@@GizmoFromPizmo Huh?
@@adamnascent7231 - I said that Jesus was indeed recognized as the Messiah by large numbers of people. That's what ultimately cooked His bacon (if I may).
Peter (hardly some trivial nobody) came out and said it, "Thou art the Christ". Ehrman obviously has not read the source material but he want's people to give him money for teaching it. Sounds like a LOT of preachers I know.
@@GizmoFromPizmo Huh, sorry I didn't realize you were proselytizing. Bye.
@@GizmoFromPizmo Thanks, you're right that Ehrman has made a major, easily provable error here - it's not true that 'none of the major figures get it'. At the same time, the place that you are quoting also supports his more general claim that Jesus is 'keeping it a secret' in Mark, because in response to Peter's identification of Jesus as the Messiah, 'Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him'.
It is interesting that Bart never entertains the idea that the Messianic secret is just a clever literary device to explain why nobody's grandparents had heard the story of this crucified Messiah before! It serves the same function as his low-key resurrection narrative. You didn't hear about it because the women didn't tell anybody.
First!
Bart !!!❤❤❤❤
".. the thing that's running across the bottom of your screen .."
Not here, fwiw.
I'm going to have to reread Mark in light of all this. I get the impression that from the perspective of those buying into the progressively more refined theological assertions of the later gospels (and even of the earlier writings of Paul), Mark must seem (and, historically, have seemed) VERY subversive.
Rather than telling you outright why "Mark" believes his opening claim that Yeshua/Jesus was "the" ultimate Messiah, he weaves a tale in which no one - especially no "insider" - believes it and even the protagonist isn't letting on what's going on. It’s a rather counterintuitive, ambiguous story that seems to call upon the hearer/reader to come to their own interpretation of what it meant - more of a shades-of-grey, thought-provoking Denis Villeneuve film than a hagiographic "Greatest Story Ever Told"...
Don't miss this verse:
Mark 8:29 - And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.
Nobody was saying that Jesus was the Christ? Nobody except everybody, I think.
@@GizmoFromPizmo I wonder if "everybody" was saying it, because in the next passage (30), Jesus "charged them to say nothing about him to anyone."
@@dbarker7794 - Everybody who was anybody. 🙂 But my point is that if you have to keep telling people to not broadcast something, that it's already becoming a problem.
Read John's Gospel. By chapter 6, the multitudes wanted to straight up make Him their king right then and there. Evidently, Jesus had a plan.
@@GizmoFromPizmoYou skipped a couple verses where the disciples say some call him Elijah, and some call him John the Baptist.
@@whatwecalllife7034 - Certainly, Jesus was legendary. So much so that the sign of the cross was the meme that eventually brought down the Empire. He was a cause celeb. The cross became the "mugshot" of the first century. And we know that a "mugshot" can slay ten thousand reptilian vampire monsters in government!
Bart's paying so much attention he fails to notice that Mark never says he is writing the biography of a person we should believe actually existed! He never once discusses his sources & in chpt 4 actually appears to hint, via the character of Jesus not to take this story literally.
While agreed Mark obviously believed -- as did the other "apostles" and Saul(Paul) -- that Yeshua (Jesus) was the prophesied Jewish Messiah... yet it is obvious by Mark's Gospel narrative that Yeshua, Himself, did not. 😯 For had Yeshua so believed Himself to be, He would not have tried so hard to keep it all a secret, as Mark repeatedly reveals... and as Dr. Ehrman here correctly points out. Thus, in likely truthfully recounting Yeshua's efforts at secrecy, Mark unwittingly reveals the fallacy of this foundational Christian belief in Yeshua as Messiah. Apparently, the later Gospels recognized this and, thus, removed from their respective narratives these efforts at anonymity attempted by Yeshua... and instead painted Yeshua as increasingly proclaiming to all this supposed Messianic mission.
Additionally, while Matthew... perhaps in similar fashion to Mark... twice reveals Yeshua as strictly limiting His mission to none "but unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel" (Matt Ch. 15 V. 24; Ch. 10 V. 6) ... yet by Luke's and John's Gospels, we find Yeshua making no mention of His mission being so limited... thus helping further paint Yeshua not just as the prophesied Davidic Messiah but, now, as a worldwide Savior... something the later concocted "Final Commission" prior to His claimed "Ascension" would cement.
There is a lot in both Mark and Matthew that foundationally contradicts this later more-developed "orthodox" view of Yeshua as Messiah, "Savior," and as the founder of the new religion of Christianity, despite Mark's apparent acceptance of all such at a more less-doctrinal level. Hopefully someday the truth of who and what Yeshua REALLY was... and the true nature of His mission here... will be revealed.
In the meantime, however, I am going to point out the other aspect of who and what Yeshua was that keeps getting ignored. Yes, as also Dr. Ehrman deliberately ignores it in this video. As seen in this video, Dr. Ehrman deliberately chose NOT to fully quote the first verse of Mark's Gospel revealing that other KEY claim. As Dr. Ehrman misquotes it: "The first sentence (of Mark) is: 'The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ.' " (4:45).
But... that's not Mark's complete first sentence, now is it?
Here's the complete first sentence: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the SON of GOD." (Mark Ch. 1, V. 1).
So... why did Dr. Ehrman choose to avoid finishing the sentence? Why avoid the OTHER key claim, entirely? Probably because Dr. Ehrman knows it contradicts the claim he considers more important: Of Yeshua as "Christ"... the Messiah. The "Son of God" part is deliberately understated for having supposedly been subsumed into the far-later heresy that is the weird concept of the "Triune God" (the "Trinity")...thus sidestepping around the "Son of God" issue entirely, as though already resolved thanks to 4th-Century orthodox thinking. Apparently and despite his scholarship that should have taught him better, he seems to still be a bit biased in favor of this Orthodox Christian view... despite all contradictory evidences for it, most notably the very words of the Gospels, themselves... most notably Mark's. Let me explain.
As any good scholar of the Tanakh (Old Testament) knows, there exists a huge contradiction in claiming Yeshua as both the prophesied Davidic Messiah AND also as the begotten (in the flesh) Son of God. For as they know, it is impossible to BOTH be that Davidic Messiah... requiring having a Davidic mortal father (a patrilineal descendant of King David)... and also be the literal begotten "Son of God" having God, instead, as your father. Obviously... no one can have TWO fathers in the flesh. Thus, if Yeshua were anything ... Hecould only have been one or the other; He couldn't have been BOTH. I coined this inescapable paradox : "The "Christ" Conundrum."
In one key point, Dr. Ehrman is entirely correct: The Gospel of Mark is of CRITICAL historical importance. For without it, we would not have caught a glimpse of the historical Yeshua exhibiting so many key contradictory aspects later so glaringly and deliberately whitewashed in later Gospels (most especially in Luke and John).
Megan, you could do some only fans to bring money in, to D hammurabi
Before you ask for money, you should put attention to the audio levels, the lady's volume was way too high.
If only the Roman centurian gets it that Jesus is surely the son of God (and it's at the end of the gospel almost) Then doesn't that sound like an addition by a Roman editor some time around 300 CE when the Romans decided to adopt Jesus sect as Constantine rose to power? What proof is there that the Mark text predates the Roman persecution of Christianity and Judaism?
To pay to hear nonsense. Never!
Guys, when you say, Jesus is the son of God,and therefore, has a divine nature, which I understand as not being human subject to physical death, and therefore, cannot experience death, but still he died. So which one is he? Jesus is called the son of Mary. If he is the biological son of Mary, that means Mary's genes is what makes Jesus human.Then Jesus' father, the Holy Spirit, was supposed to impregnate Mary by defying the laws of biology and science which is explained away as a miracle of conception to establish Jesus as the son of God. This maybe acceptable to people who are either ignorant or stupidly naive or superstitious
and gullible. More credible would be to propose that Mary got pregnant by a man either by force or with her consent while she was alone in the temple doing he her assigned duties and God in his infinite mercy or parents of Mary and Joseph as the betrothed husband
Cont.....to prevent scandal and the possible penalty of death for Mary's infidelity all agreed to the coverup as Joseph claiming to be the father but attributing the pregnancy to be a miracu!ous and superhuman occurence in an age where ignorance andvsuperstitionnw
Cont...and superstition walked hand in hand.
Only secret_ It's a very poor fairy tale. A shame its lead to much death and torture. Stick with the Brothers Grimm
It's so annoying listening to someone who constantly laughs as if what they're saying is so profound or hilarious. And it just makes an interviewer have to awkwardly smile or laugh along. He sounds like a cringy Sunday School teacher. Or a grandpa who acts like everything he says in his story is something worth having a reaction to. It's okay to just talk. Good info, but annoying to listen to.
I recommend everyone to listen to Mike Winger's video, "How an Atheist Scholar Deceives Millions of People" He deconstructs the misleading claims Bart Ehrman makes regarding the Gospel of Mark. God bless you all.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Yes, that amazing NT scholar Mike Winger.
I saw that video and yes, he does a very good job debunking this hack. Ehrman doesn't know the source material and he's going to teach ME??? I don't think so. Ehrman said a few times in this video that "nobody" was saying that Jesus was the Messiah.
Mark 8:29 - And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.
And he wants somebody to give him money for his "expertise". I'm telling you, that's not scholarship, that's bullship.
Damn! I was over here thinking this silly Bart scholar guy was making sense with his so called scholarly consensus, I'll be sure to check out that RUclips apologist video to set the record straight! Got any videos debunking heliocentrism? My biblical cosmology is feeling anxious...
@@GizmoFromPizmo Do you really think that Bender would approve of this?
Bart Ehrman's wonderful new course:
1) Mark's gospel is a biography, not unlike other biographies.
2) Nobody was saying that Jesus was the Christ
3) Two minor nobodies get that Jesus was the Christ but none of the major characters.
Mark 8:29 - And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.
Right? NOBODY understood that Jesus was the Messiah. Such a great scholar. To be honest, I find this to be true of EVERY "scholar" making money off of Jesus. They know so much that reading the source material isn't necessary.
I catch people like this ALL. THE. TIME. It's too easy at this point. Ever hear of James Tabor? That dude's a drunk and a hack but paid well for his "scholarship".
@@thevulture5750 - AMEN! Jesus is Lord!
And do you know that I had 2 Jehovah''s Witnesses in my apartment and it was like pulling teeth to get them to agree that Jesus is Lord. One of them finally said it, reluctantly, but the other one NEVER SAID IT. How would you like to face the Judge on that Day when you couldn't bring yourself to say the words, "Jesus is Lord"?
The Talking Cross was the Tidings of Joy Polate sent to Tiberius by the pony express of euangelion, The synthesis of Mark 15:1 - 16:8 with the Gospel of Peter defines both the oral and written record of Resurrection from literally the moment it happendl John 19:35 is the eye witness account of the splitting of Jesus as an element in the Covenant Cutting Ceremony that was ratified by the Talking Cross. All Christian literature is a footnote to Mark.
Bart Ehrman's fantasy that Mark is derivative of Pauline Theology is histroic reconstruction like interpreting the Bible as if Lee had won at Gettysburg and captured Washington and took over the government.
Ehrman's schlarship is excellent. His interpretation is shit. It's like Jimmy Tabor asserting that Mark is the anti Gospel, that it diverges from the genre.
Mark created the genre. And Cornelisu, the centurion featured in Acts 10, was the executive editor of the staff report to Theophilus regarding what happened before and after Mark 15:1 - 16:8. The Gospel of Mark ends the way it does because it wan the last eyes-on testimony of the soldiers and centurion at the tomb who saw Mary Magdalene and other women, These soldiers had shared the Talking Cross vision,