Dr. Richard Bauckham has made a valuable contribution to our understanding of the origin of the written Gospels. The concepts about Mark, Matthew and Luke that I learned while studying for my MDiv degree left me with as many questions as answers. Then, in 2006 when I ran across Bauckham's book, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, it was like someone handed me a golden key that opened up the windows. The eyewitness testimony was there to be beheld, if only we understood how it was passed from Peter to Mark and thus to Matthew and Luke. Now, this video about the geography in Mark adds further to the credibility and genius in Backham's insights.If you would like more on this topic, you may wish to read my historical novel, Mark's Passion, which tells the story of Mark the Evangelist and the challenges he faced as he put the Gospel in writing. Gene Vanderzanden, author of Mark's Passion.
while studying for my MDiv at New York Theological Seminary, we also studied the three gospels, along with Q. However, I am again studying in-depth the revolutionary historical Jesus, in the gospel of Mark. Thank you for your recommendation of Dr. Richard Baukham on the gospel of Mark. I will try to locate Dr. Baukham's writing on Mark. I welcome any further knowledge or input you may have concerning Mark..
Excellent discourse on geography of Mark that counters Form critics attestation that the Gospel Mark couldn't be a knowledgeable account since geography seems confused.
Regarding Mark 7:31, topographical map solves the problem. In the direct line between Tyre and Galilee is Mt. Merton, which rises to almost 4000 feet above sea level. Near Sidon is a pass through the mountain range into a valley east of the mountain, and there is ample fresh water on the route to Caperneum. It would make more sense for poodle on foot in the first century to take the easier route rather than walking up the mountain.
Page 1129 sockeye = n a Pacific salmon having red flesh and valued as a food fish. Also called red salmon. [by folk etymology from sukkegh, of Amerind origin]
Yes, Nazareth is mentioned in scripture, but nowhere else. Josephus doesn't mention it in his list of settlements of the Galilee. Origen couldn't find it, and Helen found a well. Archaeology can find no remains of the correct age and the current town doesn't fit the gospel description. I think this is a problem.
gamesbok Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Archeological evidence is far from complete, however, the general trend is that the more we unearth the more evidence supporting the Biblical narrative emerge and the more apochryphical and sceptic claims are discredited. A recent example is the discovery of the pool of Bethesda. Until it was discovered it was not discovered, you see. In other words there was only a mention of it in the Bible, therefore it did not exist and the Bible was wrong. Now that it is discovered it is not that the Bible was right all along but rather the Bible is wrong for something else that hasn't been discovered yet... I'm no historian myself but I never saw this kind of bias applied to any writing form antiquity. Only to the Bible. Imagine if we treat Egyptology the same way and say unless we find evidence from outside of Egypt we won't accept that there was a Ramsis or a Tut... You simply cannot say a place must not exist because it's only mentioned in the Bible. Whether you believe in Devine inspiration is irrelevant. It is a historical documents from antiquity, that's an established fact. It has been shown by a variety of evidence to be reliable, another established fact. Therefore, what it says should be taken with a great deal of benefit of doubt until there's evidence to the contrary. Much the same way you would deal with any reliable literature from antiquity. Otherwise you are being a blindly dogmatic bigot, which I'm sure you aren't. www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/history-and-civilisation/2017/11/what-archaeology-telling-us-about-real-jesus
You are correct if speaking Hebrew, but Jesus is simply a transliteration from Greek that the Hebrews, apostles, including Hebrew Paul, used in the New Testament epistles they actually wrote by the Holy Spirit per GOD'S WILL, words called GOD BREATHED. Do you give the Hebrew word for everything in the new testament that is first mentioned and or originates in the Hebrew scriptures? The Greek for Jesus is Iisou ( I don't have actual Greek letters on this device). I speak HGP (HISTORICAL GREEK PRONOUNCIATION) not Erasmian, the kind taught in English seminaries.
It is possible that tales about Jesus started out in small fishing villages in northern Galilee, and that Mark spoke with some people who had some knowledge of that region and of tales about Jesus, probably some fishermen, but that doesn't mean he necessarily had direct access to tales from Jesus's most intimate and close followers like Peter. Might one not suggest that Mark, living decades later had heard all sorts of stories about Jesus from different sources coming out of Palestine, and also would have added his own artistry and edits to his composition, which was written in order to try and convert people to his beliefs? All that Bauckham's has done in this lecture is admit that the geography of Jesus's journeys in the earliest Gospel is hazy and second hand. He has not demonstrated that tales of miracles in Mark and later Gospels are fully inspired and authentic. Nor has Bauckham's view that the earliest Gospel goes back to Peter's sermons won as wide scholarly approval as he hopes. In fact Peter in Mark seems like an archetypical apostle in LACKING understanding, even denying Jesus. Ironically, in Mark the people who understand Jesus are not his own apostles, whom Jesus is constantly castigating for.their lack of understanding, but instead the folks who understand Jesus are the woman who anoints him before he is captured, and the Roman centurion who watches him expire on the cross, not the apostles, not even the female disciples who visit the tomb to anoint Jesus after he is dead, since they run away afraid, and do not tell anyone anything. Also, why didn't God see fit to ensure the preservation of "Peter's sermons?" We have Paul's letters, yet he never met the earthlyJesus of Nazareth. I guess God couldn't be bothered to ensure the preservation of Peter's sermons, or Q (i.e., if a separate document Q did once exist). But God did know we would discover the Dead Sea Scrolls, documents that suggest early Christians were like some other sects, expecting a soon judgment of the world. Why indeed do Paul's letters fill the New Testament, while letters from the pillars, Peter and James, are so rare and short, and even of questionable authenticity? I think Bauckham NEEDS Mark to be derived primarily from Peter, to try and relieve some of the cognitive dissonance due to the utter lack of undeniable Petrine materials elsewhere in the New Testament.
I do find ironic that those who claim a Petrine source to Mark don’t seem to mind that the author of Mark basically depicts Peter as a total idiot. But as a literary convention, the character of Peter serves a great purpose much like the Ananda character in the Buddha stories or more recently like a sort of Dr. Watson character where he is always wrong in his interpretation in order for the main character in this case Jesus to step in set him straight all for the benefit of the reader.
Edward T. Babinski Incredible, Edward. A pathetic rant on Bauckham’s “dissonance” without ever giving any reason to suggest he’s wrong. That’s very compelling. Though Bauckham’s claims aren’t currently consensus, they’ve put the scholarly case for such a claim decades past what they were before him.
God did not do things the way you think God should have done them? If Mark was only positive about Peter and made the fisherman look brilliant, I think you would still not believe.
@@antiherognome6703 that's probably because Peter & the early apostles looked with in dumb-founded amazement (in post-easter retrospect) at how much of a strange maverick Jesus was and how they had no choice but to be idiots compared with Jesus who kept doing strange things they couldn't understand or grasp until after the resurrection (such as being willing to get killed by enemies without making the right physical arrangements for physical visible victory)
This was a fascinating lecture! Mental maps as opposed to actual physical ones. Makes a lot of sense.
Dr. Richard Bauckham has made a valuable contribution to our understanding of the origin of the written Gospels. The concepts about Mark, Matthew and Luke that I learned while studying for my MDiv degree left me with as many questions as answers. Then, in 2006 when I ran across Bauckham's book, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, it was like someone handed me a golden key that opened up the windows. The eyewitness testimony was there to be beheld, if only we understood how it was passed from Peter to Mark and thus to Matthew and Luke. Now, this video about the geography in Mark adds further to the credibility and genius in Backham's insights.If you would like more on this topic, you may wish to read my historical novel, Mark's Passion, which tells the story of Mark the Evangelist and the challenges he faced as he put the Gospel in writing. Gene Vanderzanden, author of Mark's Passion.
while studying for my MDiv at New York Theological Seminary, we also studied the three gospels, along with Q. However, I am again studying in-depth the revolutionary historical Jesus, in the gospel of Mark. Thank you for your recommendation of Dr. Richard Baukham on the gospel of Mark. I will try to locate Dr. Baukham's writing on Mark. I welcome any further knowledge or input you may have concerning Mark..
Excellent discourse on geography of Mark that counters Form critics attestation that the Gospel Mark couldn't be a knowledgeable account since geography seems confused.
Regarding Mark 7:31, topographical map solves the problem. In the direct line between Tyre and Galilee is Mt. Merton, which rises to almost 4000 feet above sea level. Near Sidon is a pass through the mountain range into a valley east of the mountain, and there is ample fresh water on the route to Caperneum. It would make more sense for poodle on foot in the first century to take the easier route rather than walking up the mountain.
But they go to Decapolis, not Capernaum, from Tyre
Thank you. Great lecture with real akribeia!
Good stuff.
Mike Winger go away
Akim Oetam nah
Mike Winger no young earth creationist allowed
Pueden agregarle los subtítulos de UA-cam por favor.
Please can you add subtitle function?
Page 1129
sockeye = n a Pacific salmon having red flesh and valued as a food fish. Also called red salmon. [by folk etymology from sukkegh, of Amerind origin]
The Roman church found various writings claiming a lot stuff about Jesus and put this an a book called the bible. So what? proves nothing.
Laidlaw College formerly known as Bible college of New Zealand, I am sure this will be an objective examination of the facts.
You don’t understand how bias works
Micah Matthew if you think I don’t understand bias perhaps you don’t understand sarcasm.
Gary Stavropoulos wow, you also don’t know how the internet works
The prof is clearly not a fisherman or a sailor!!
Doesn't need to be.
He seems to have Nazareth on his map, and I think this is a bit of a problem.
Well, Nazareth is mentioned in scriptures, so he can probably approximate it's position.
Yes, Nazareth is mentioned in scripture, but nowhere else. Josephus doesn't mention it in his list of settlements of the Galilee. Origen couldn't find it, and Helen found a well. Archaeology can find no remains of the correct age and the current town doesn't fit the gospel description.
I think this is a problem.
gamesbok Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Archeological evidence is far from complete, however, the general trend is that the more we unearth the more evidence supporting the Biblical narrative emerge and the more apochryphical and sceptic claims are discredited. A recent example is the discovery of the pool of Bethesda. Until it was discovered it was not discovered, you see. In other words there was only a mention of it in the Bible, therefore it did not exist and the Bible was wrong. Now that it is discovered it is not that the Bible was right all along but rather the Bible is wrong for something else that hasn't been discovered yet... I'm no historian myself but I never saw this kind of bias applied to any writing form antiquity. Only to the Bible. Imagine if we treat Egyptology the same way and say unless we find evidence from outside of Egypt we won't accept that there was a Ramsis or a Tut... You simply cannot say a place must not exist because it's only mentioned in the Bible. Whether you believe in Devine inspiration is irrelevant. It is a historical documents from antiquity, that's an established fact. It has been shown by a variety of evidence to be reliable, another established fact. Therefore, what it says should be taken with a great deal of benefit of doubt until there's evidence to the contrary. Much the same way you would deal with any reliable literature from antiquity. Otherwise you are being a blindly dogmatic bigot, which I'm sure you aren't.
www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/history-and-civilisation/2017/11/what-archaeology-telling-us-about-real-jesus
his name was yahshua not Jesus
Peter and Mark's name are different too.
You are correct if speaking Hebrew, but Jesus is simply a transliteration from Greek that the Hebrews, apostles, including Hebrew Paul, used in the New Testament epistles they actually wrote by the Holy Spirit per GOD'S WILL, words called GOD BREATHED. Do you give the Hebrew word for everything in the new testament that is first mentioned and or originates in the Hebrew scriptures? The Greek for Jesus is Iisou ( I don't have actual Greek letters on this device). I speak HGP (HISTORICAL GREEK PRONOUNCIATION) not Erasmian, the kind taught in English seminaries.
@@Rightlydividing-wx1xb you are so correct. I was about to type the same comments to Brian Thompson. Sometimes, people fail to realize translations.
It is possible that tales about Jesus started out in small fishing villages in northern Galilee, and that Mark spoke with some people who had some knowledge of that region and of tales about Jesus, probably some fishermen, but that doesn't mean he necessarily had direct access to tales from Jesus's most intimate and close followers like Peter. Might one not suggest that Mark, living decades later had heard all sorts of stories about Jesus from different sources coming out of Palestine, and also would have added his own artistry and edits to his composition, which was written in order to try and convert people to his beliefs? All that Bauckham's has done in this lecture is admit that the geography of Jesus's journeys in the earliest Gospel is hazy and second hand. He has not demonstrated that tales of miracles in Mark and later Gospels are fully inspired and authentic. Nor has Bauckham's view that the earliest Gospel goes back to Peter's sermons won as wide scholarly approval as he hopes. In fact Peter in Mark seems like an archetypical apostle in LACKING understanding, even denying Jesus. Ironically, in Mark the people who understand Jesus are not his own apostles, whom Jesus is constantly castigating for.their lack of understanding, but instead the folks who understand Jesus are the woman who anoints him before he is captured, and the Roman centurion who watches him expire on the cross, not the apostles, not even the female disciples who visit the tomb to anoint Jesus after he is dead, since they run away afraid, and do not tell anyone anything. Also, why didn't God see fit to ensure the preservation of "Peter's sermons?" We have Paul's letters, yet he never met the earthlyJesus of Nazareth. I guess God couldn't be bothered to ensure the preservation of Peter's sermons, or Q (i.e., if a separate document Q did once exist). But God did know we would discover the Dead Sea Scrolls, documents that suggest early Christians were like some other sects, expecting a soon judgment of the world. Why indeed do Paul's letters fill the New Testament, while letters from the pillars, Peter and James, are so rare and short, and even of questionable authenticity? I think Bauckham NEEDS Mark to be derived primarily from Peter, to try and relieve some of the cognitive dissonance due to the utter lack of undeniable Petrine materials elsewhere in the New Testament.
I do find ironic that those who claim a Petrine source to Mark don’t seem to mind that the author of Mark basically depicts Peter as a total idiot. But as a literary convention, the character of Peter serves a great purpose much like the Ananda character in the Buddha stories or more recently like a sort of Dr. Watson character where he is always wrong in his interpretation in order for the main character in this case Jesus to step in set him straight all for the benefit of the reader.
Edward T. Babinski Incredible, Edward. A pathetic rant on Bauckham’s “dissonance” without ever giving any reason to suggest he’s wrong. That’s very compelling. Though Bauckham’s claims aren’t currently consensus, they’ve put the scholarly case for such a claim decades past what they were before him.
God did not do things the way you think God should have done them? If Mark was only positive about Peter and made the fisherman look brilliant, I think you would still not believe.
@@antiherognome6703 that's probably because Peter & the early apostles looked with in dumb-founded amazement (in post-easter retrospect) at how much of a strange maverick Jesus was and how they had no choice but to be idiots compared with Jesus who kept doing strange things they couldn't understand or grasp until after the resurrection (such as being willing to get killed by enemies without making the right physical arrangements for physical visible victory)