Does Mark Have a Vendetta against the Twelve Disciples?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 лют 2025
- Visit www.bartehrman... to shop from Bart Ehrman’s online courses and get a special discount by using code: MJPODCAST on all courses.
The disciples were Jesus’ closest companions during his ministry, the collective Robins to his Batman. As such we might expect them to be more enlightened, more intelligent, more attuned to God’s divine plan than other people Jesus’ came across. The Gospel of Mark, however, seems to defy that expectation. Today, we talk about how the author of Mark portrays the disciples, how that treatment advances his aims for the gospel, and whether this portrayal is representative of a personal vendetta.
Mark is the most interesting Gospel. One of the most important things I've learned from Bart is try to read each gospel as a standalone book.
I agree, I find Mark and John the most interesting
I too love the giant jesus, talking cross and jesus with one butt cheek on 2 donkeys. @@pebystroll
@@GameTimeWhy I've always wondered why the tombs of the saints opening and their occupants being restored to life in Matthew 27:52 was something that wasn't important enough for the other gospels to bother mentioning, but as you say, if Jesus' miraculous butt could runneth over two donkeys at once, I suppose I shouldn't be asking such silly questions.
We really only have one gospel, everyone else either made it up or copied off Mark. Q,M,L,J are about as real as Spiderman is.
@@isiahs9312 Why would you say that Mark is the only gospel and every other one some kinder of lesser version? What places Mark in a position of superiority?
This is such a wonderful podcast. Extremely interesting and enriching. Thank you, Bart and Megan!
By the way, the video quality is great. Just letting you two know. Very clear.
Here is a third explanation: Mark is very pro-Paul. Mark wanted to make the 12 look like fools in order to boost Paul as the authority.
Interesting. Would like to hear more about that theory.
Or the same dude who wrote Mark is/wrote/copied from Paul.
Steve Mason's idea, as far as I understand it, is that Paul invented the christian concept of the "euangelion". Mark's title is "The origin of the euangelion". Is this a reference to Paul's use of that word? Even Mark's abrupt ending seems to imply that it was Paul that got the whole religion going, because the disciples were too afraid. True or not.
I was just thinking that
They have accounts from Judes grand children which would argue against this but idk if they are reliable, i think there is also Evidende that James continued the church in Jerusalem but im not sure if thats reliable either @oledavidostli
Mark was my favorite gospel to read. In addition to being the shortest, Jesus actually has some personality, unlike the nonthreatening and perfect bot Christians often portray him as.
Also: Him crying out “my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me!” doesn’t really jibe with the notion that he meant to meet his fate.
Many say that "my god my god" was a reference to a psalm, specifically, to imply that he's fulfilling whatever it says in that psalm.
I think it's more likely that he's referencing something to express his pain and suffering, the way we might recall song lyrics that reflect a moment when we are suffering (like from heartbreak or whatever).
I also think it could be a genuine cry because he believed he'd be able to get through it better, with God as his support. Maybe he was surprised how badly it hurt, and felt sad that all his belief in his specialness was wrong.
That's the most tragic interpretation, I know. But as an atheist I have to consider it. What if Jesus realized, in the last moments of his life, that he really wasn't God after all, and his entire ministry was based on a mistake?
@@Marialla.That’s great analysis. Yeah, in addition to the excruciating physical pain, he was also recognizing that he wasn’t actually the messiah, and that everything he did was for nothing. The feelings of failure and anguish must have been horrible. Viewed from a secular lens, Jesus’ life truly was tragic.
@@brettstarks1846 Plus there was the tragic aftermath that a devote Jew would come to be worshipped as a God by gentiles. Had he been cognizant of that happening, he would been horrified.
I agree, that phrase always confused me, since I thought he was supposed to be on the cross anyway. I heard some people try to rationalize it away by saying that God was repulsed by the sin that Jesus absorbed on the cross, but nowhere in the text would we know that is the case.
@@brettstarks1846 _"he was also recognizing that he wasn’t actually the messiah, and that everything he did was for nothing."_
The Gospel writer must not have realized that until he got to the ending.
Pathetic.
Consider that the gospel stories were preserved through an oral tradition for 40 years before Mark was written. These stories were used to spread the word to non-Christians, and the listeners would have asked questions like, "Why didn't I hear this when Jesus was alive?" or "How did they know it was really Jesus (after the resurrection)?" The responses to these questions then became part of the stories and were preserved in the oral tradition.
Yes! This is something I just thought! Mark may have been a response to disbelief on the grounds that anyone so miraculous or great would have naturally caused a stir, and nobody had really heard about him much until after his death.
We don't actually know that the "gospel stories" were preserved, at least at any level of detail. If we look at what relatively little commonality there is even between the gospels, it's very difficult to reconstruct with any degree of reliability what the original participants might have thought. How much is a remnant of an original belief or incident and how much is a subsequent invention is probably impossible to determine for most practical purposes.
@@GaiusSonofGermanicus _"If we look at what relatively little commonality there is even between the gospels…"_
The synoptic Gospels are designated as such for a compelling reason.
@@John.Flower.Productions Perhaps that "compelling reason" was that they, among the very large potential list of candidates, best fit a particular theological line in favour at the time the "canon" was being selected. Even if they represent the "pick of the crop" in terms of a version of Christianity, doesn't it seem at least a little surprising that, for instance, Matthew 27:52 has the tombs of the saints opening and them being raised from the dead while his (or her) fellow synoptic authors never mentioned this? That's a pretty miraculous thing to omit, if Mark was talking about something real as opposed to something fabricated for theological or evangelical purposes.
Where is the evidence for this oral tradition of gospel stories? I am open to the idea of an oral tradition of sayings attributed to Jesus (similar to Hadith) but I see no good reason to think that there was a strong tradition of telling stories about J’s life.
Weird that Mark would be writing on Peter's behalf while also making him look like a buffoon 😆
Well, Mark didn't write it, so...
The humbleness at the heart of Christianity - the way of Suffering- and all the Apostles suffered
@@mikemeade741 Humility. And the alleged suffering of the Apostles has very little substance. (According to Acts, they found preaching was a nice little earner.)
Alleged? Good evidence for the Martyrdom of Peter - ‘nice little earner’ your bias and bigotry are oozing from your comment
🤣🤣🤣 I have never thought of that but your point makes sense. Why would Peter narrate himself as a buffoon to his secretary Mark? 🤣🤣🤣
I remember having an argument with my father about Mark 4:12. I said that Jesus used parables to obfuscate his message; he insisted on the old Sunday school interpretation that Jesus used parables to help the masses understand his message. How can someone read Mark 4:12 and come to the opposite conclusion regarding its meaning? That is a question that could be left to the psychologists.
The people considered 'outside' may not only be outsiders but also enemies. In this case Jesus could have been obfuscating his message to avoid religious law. There's also another alternative explanation that a parable lets someone find their own interpretation that satisfies them personally, so they understand (not disagree with) the parable. Plenty of possible meanings.
@@davegold it says clearly “lest they be saved”
Jesus quotes Isaiah 6:8-10 > the voice of the Lord said, ''Go and make their hearts calloused and their minds confused so they will not understand, otherwise they could repent and forgiven,'' In other words, Jesus knows that the Lord wants some sinners to be punished rather than forgiven (e.g., those who sin against the Holy Spirit).
@@macroman52 No, it is Luke who changes the ורפא / ιασομαι (healed) from Isaiah 6:10 to σωθωσιν (saved). Mark changes it to αφεθη (forgiven). Both are operating under their own agendas when misquoting Isaiah 6:10.
It is the most baffling piece of writing
The Irony, he is in England, and she is in the States. Gotta love your random world!
And he's using the word 'thick,' which is not much used in the US.
18:50 Some people (like Goodacre) say that the Roman centurion in Mark was meant to be sarcastic. Since there is no explicit reason why he should testify that Jesus is the Son of God, and it seems to fit with the use of irony in the rest of the passion (in which people proclaim true things about Jesus while mocking him, ironically).
I say this so people know.
I think also in the rest of the gospel
Sir, just want to say I’m a big fan. Love your stuff.
In addition to the suggestion some others have made that "Mark" is tacitly coming down on Paul's side in his conflict with the Jerusalem-based movement, which seems like a plausible speculation, I'll float this: A time-tested rhetorical tactic in philosophical dialogues stretching back to the ancient world is to anticipate objections the reader is likely to have to the author's position, and put them in the mouths of characters who are made to look foolish. The reader is invited to feel smugly superior to the fool who just doesn't get it... which, of course, turns out to be a decent psychological trick for predisposing that reader to agree with the author. (You don't want to be like that guy you were just mentally laughing at, do you?) Perhaps something like that is going on in Mark. Getting the reader to shake their head at these obtuse disciples who can't recognize what's right in front of them serves to dispel or inoculate against any doubts the reader might themselves entertain.
And the reason the Jews rejected the notion that the Messiah was going to die and rise again is because there is NOTHING in the Old Testament that says the Messiah is going to die and rise again! It's not there!
Jesus was saved according to Quran.
Well the Ebionites believed Jesus death was a martyrdom . We see him say take up the cross and follow me. This lines up with the suffering servant showing those who follow God “Israel” will suffer. But it also says messiah would conquer death so him rising from the dead is that.
Jonah 3 days in the whale
@@mikemeade741it’s just…. A thing that happened in Jonah. That’s not a prophecy.
@@hassanmirza2392 No, according to the Qur’an, the Jews did not kill Jesus and he was not crucified. That’s it.
Always I joy this incredible informative show
I'm relatively new to this channel. I'm a single, working, parent of two young children, so my leisure time is limited. 😊
Anyways, I'm a Christian but have gone back and forth with my faith during the course of my lifetime (aged 51). Again, I very much enjoy this channel and these discussions.
Thank you for reading. 😊
I think they call it dramatic irony, when the audience/reader knows something that the characters do not.
To me, this is possibly a persuasive device, where the audience members feel their own doubts assuaged about the identity of Jesus as Messiah because the story is presented to them in a way that they know (through the narrator’s special knowledge) that he is the Messiah, but the characters in the story do not. Thus we, the audience, reconcile our own doubts by having the feeling of secret information and understandings that the characters don’t have.
In other words, the doubtful disciples represent our own doubts, but because we are in the position of the detached audience with the hidden insights given to us by the narrator, we feel superior to those doubtful and ignorant characters and wind up believing in the Jesus story because of that.
Yes, totally agree with that! The gospels are literary texts, and are best understood in terms of the literary devices they employ. I also think that the disciples act as foils to Jesus, and their confusion provides an opportunity for teaching moments.
Good analysis. I would also add, from my reading, that the authority is telling us something about who the author is and is not. For me, I think this author is a Roman, possibly ethnically Jewish, with a high understanding of Jewish religious text. I don't believe in the historical Jesus, but I think the Proto-Christians were possibly Romanized Jews.
@@Adam_Elyon Yes, I think a kind of forensic case can be made about the origins and authors, seen both historically, philosophically, politically, and spiritually. The story seems to draw from many potentially sources and is quite fascinating to me
Another explanation could be that the disciples didn't believe in the concept of a crucified and resurrected Messiah, that salvation was only achievable when you believe in Jesus as the Messiah who died as an atonement for sins and was resurrected. This, of course, is Paul's model and if the disciples of Jesus did not subscribe to this view of Jesus, it could be that Mark was engaged in a polemic against the disciples, aiming to show that they, in contrast to Paul, did not understand despite the very clear signs. In short, Mark could have negatively presented the disciples as an explanation for their divergent views from Paul.
I love this show. 🎉
You ever heard of u-ziq?
I am intrigued by the point Bart raises at the end -- that there were possibly some disciples and other followers who *never* believed or saw any evidence that Jesus was resurrected. From that perspective, Mark's portrayal of people just not understanding makes a lot of sense. It also makes it seem unlikely that so many of the followers would have been so incredulous, unless there were only a few ardent folks who thought they saw him and the rest knew it was just wish fulfillment, the way so many fans thought they saw Elvis in the months after he died. I think it's the same process, though reversed, for those of us raised in the faith, hearing all the stories, all the sermons, to give real credence to our questions and doubts and to even entertain the possibility of deconstructing our belief system.
Had never before heard or thought of the explanation offered here for the abrupt end to Mark's Gospel, without the risen Jesus meeting the disciples. I had assumed that there must have been a longer ending that had somehow been lost.
With respect, Mr. Bart Verman, sir, there is so much to this. That's been locked out which I understand so much the book of mark. It was very interesting, then studying on my own with the Greek for over a year. That's all I read just the book of mark, but Judas escariat betrays Jesus. Peter betrays Jesus. Then God himself betrays Jesus, but there's so much more. Thank you. It's always great to hear from you and learn
The demons immediately understand who Jesus is in Mark. His disciples, not so much.
Which is very interesting, especially considering he’s accused of working with them or that he’s possessed
Curious what kind of tea Megan is sipping during podcast (and if Bart enjoys warm beer while in England)? I actually oversteeped my Irish Breakfast this morning because I got into this podcast. Love the passion both of you bring to your careers and the community. Would love to sit down with either (or both) of you with a good cup of tea or pint (cold!)-- and a good conversation. Thank you again for your passion and knowledge.
Usually breakfast tea, but I also have a selection of herbal teas for when I want something different! I've been enjoying pomegranate tea and raspberry tea recently :)
Topic you should cover in this series, and forgive me if you have already. "Did Jesus think he was divine, or something more then human?"
I have listened to the professor many times before. I have studied the bible for over thirty years. I have been a Roman Catholic priest and pastor for over twenty five years. So I have studied and preached the Gospel. I love your critical thinking and reflection.
I have a question about the Gospel of Mark. Who do you think are those "helpers" of Jesus, who appear throughout the Gospel but never have a name attached to them? They seemed to have totally understood not only who Jesus was but they seem to have also accepted his mission. Could they possibly be the women who were part of his community of disciples? (Mk 1, 31; "they told him"; Mk 1, 32, "they brought to him"; Mk 7, 31-37, "And they brought to him a deaf and blind man..."; etc who was this group, "they" (Jerusalem Bible, Ed. 1966)
Could they be the women? Who I believe we're eventually "written out" of the bible.
Thank you!
Rather than asking why some of the disciples may not have believed in Jesus’ resurrection, perhaps it’s better to ask why Mark was so convinced of it that he wrote his gospel.
Hope to catch up to you today!
At 33:01, the hard part about "raised from the dead" for Jesus to prove to the Disciples while spending 40 days with them would NOT be the "raised" part; it would be the "died" part. A skeptic would consider that his short time on the cross, plus a spear wound in his side, might not have been fatal.
On top of Megan's base intelligence score of 12 plus her cuteness score of 9, I'm adding a +5 bonus modifier for those rad glasses
Happy Chinese New Year of the Snake
The Roman soldier in Mark being the only true believer rings strange to me. I may be missing something, but wouldn't a Roman pagan think son of God could be any god and not specifically Hashem? It's an interesting detail that also drives the author had a narrative and wasn't documenting the actual events.
I have similar thoughts.
Well have been documented that some Roman soldiers brought the Christian belief from Judea to Rome and in some case mixed it with Mitraic beliefs. Well might be a speculative to said that probably Mark was referring to that case.
@gusduenasArt I don't disagree that there were Roman christians in the first century, however the likelihood that this Roman soldier was a follower of Jesus seems unlikely. At least in this instance we would have to dissect what this Roman soldiers understanding of God would have been. I have my doubts that a Roman wouldn't have their preconceptions and ideas about divinity that wouldn't necessarily mesh with Christian theology of the time. And if it did mesh with contemporary pagan thought, what does that say about Christianity?
One translation says "truly this man was righteous which may make more sense.*
@@algoenespanol well maybe was the author putting that into perspective since they were Roman Christians in the first century. But we don't know that for sure. The bart theory about that is like a demo like He, Yeshua was rejected by his own people but embraced by the goyim or gentiles. But to be true we have proof that some Roman soldiers were in fact followers of some sort of Christianity sometimes mixed with Mitraic beliefs. You can check religion for breakfast to see something about it. About how Jesus got some sol or mitras characteristics....
In Mark the disciples witnessed Jesus' miracles - healing the sick, freeing people from demons etc. and yet they doubt him. How do you explain this without going to speculative extremes?
Was the statement made by Jesus "You have to take up your cross" something that people of that time would say? If this is the only time its being said would the disciples not say, "what are you taking about?!?" . I have always found this statement very strange. It's like me saying you have to sit in the electric chair to follow me :) what??
Ride the lightning. 😂
In several places in the Gospels, including Mark, Jesus is reputed to refer to "the cross" before he was crucified--in some cases, apparently long before he was crucified. One would expect that Jesus would have felt obliged to explain, on the spot, what he meant by that, but he didn't. Imagine a street preacher going around today proclaiming that people should take up their electric chair and follow him. What kind of gibberish would that be? No wonder the disciples were confused!
Matthew 10:38
And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
Matthew 16:24
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
Mark 8:34
And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
Mark 10:21
Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor ... and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
Luke 9:23
And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
Luke 14:27
And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.
If he knew he was going to die, why then why does he say "my God my god, why have you forsaken me "
Here is one interpretation: he is refetencing psalm 22 to indicate that this (his crucifixion) is the fulfillment of the prophecy. The final words, "He has done it!" Seem to indicate that something is finished now.
The very fact that some disciples doubted the resurrection is a confirmation that there has to be some resurrection experience. Paul, way before Mark, wrote the twelve saw the resurrected christ but still some doubted according to the gospels. This shows that at least the resurrection encounter they had came outside of themselves and is not their own making. It’s an experience foreign even to them which in turn confirms that they had encountered a weird and unexpected experience of the resurrected christ.
What about the recent explaination that the disciples were portrayed as less believing because of friction between the Pauline/Markene communities the James/Peter led Jerusalem communities. Paul barely mentions the 12 disciples, and when he does it is most often to oppose them.
Growing up in Germany it was always Matthäus Markus Lukas Johannes. Can you do an episode on 19th century German bible Exegese and also how we got from Apostelgeschichte to Acts, and from Jakobus to James? Is is all from Martin Luther in the 16th century?
I’ve actually really been leaning towards the apostles not accepting the story of the resurrection because you Peter and his brother Andrew started churches after Jesus’ death. Then you have Peter’s disciple as well as James the Just who wasn’t even one of the twelve. So why don’t any of the others go out and found churches? I was really starting to think most of them didn’t continue to believe in Jesus and this would make a lot of sense.
We don't know what they did. Acts is... spotty.
There is one theory that Joseph of Arimathea and Mother Mary recovered a badly wounded Jesus nursing him back to health. Later, he appeared to the apostles, perhaps going underground to teach or traveling out of the area to India. 🎉
So if its clear that the disciples don't get it, why then do they follow him? What does Jesus have to offer the disciples?
Mark's "announcement" is an apology for Paul's view. Mark even uses Paul's words.
Why were there so many ads on this episode. And why were they virtually all ads for products most skeptics would be disinclined to be interested in, they mostly seem to be scams.
Thanks
I wonder if “Mark” was aware of Paul’s letters, and had an influence on his gospel.
It just demonstrates at a fundamental level that the Gospels are best understood as works of fiction. The author of Mark uses the disciples as a supporting cast of characters to make whatever version of the story he/she chose to write work. The other gospels feel equally at liberty to do other things with the cast. I don't doubt that the writers of these accounts had a theological purpose in mind as they each put their particular spin of the bare bones of the story, but like all fan fiction, the extent to which it reflects any reality is extremely difficult to discern.
It's not fiction. it's not fan fiction. I'm an atheist for info, but that's a modern tag. This wasn't made up for fun, and for people's amusement. It might be "fiction" but was not expressly written as such.
Writing _"he/she"_ makes it quite easy to discern your level of understanding.
Ridiculous.
@@John.Flower.Productions On what evidence do you reject the possibility that the author of Mark could have been a female? If you are about to say "well, Mark is a boy's name", I have some bad news for you, and your general level of scholarship.
@@kencreten7308 Fiction isn't always made up for fun or amusement. Have you, for instance, read any of George Orwell's fictional works? Fiction can and does deal with and convey weighty issues and not just provide light relief. I use the tag "fan fiction" to reflect the fact that the gospels involve retellings of stories by different authors which weren't "canonical" when they were written. Perhaps you have a better portmanteau for the process that that lead to four pre-canonical gospels being written (alongside a lot of others that didn't get past the editorial committee centuries later), but I'm content with "fan fiction" until a better proposal comes along.
@@John.Flower.Productions Of course, asking an apologist about evidence is like asking a shrimp to whistle, but for those genuinely interested in discussing the issues, referring as we are to Mark, the idea that it was actually written by an uneducated, provincial companion of Christ is completely at odd with its literary style and its unfamiliarity with both the geography of the region (impossible for someone who is supposed to have actually walked with Jesus) and its unfamiliarity with Jewish customs of the locus in quo. There's a great deal of really interesting scholarship about who this "Mark "really was, but if someone's only goal is to uncritically repeat old and disproven dogma like a magic spell to make the real world go away, then it will fly well above their intellectual level.
Maybe not all the disciples believed!! That's the first new idea that I have heard for years!
Brilliant!!!!!
What about "Kingdom in your midst"? Step right in. Luke's portrayal of the church is living it.
Rene Girard talks about the origin of sacrifice
Does the Abraham/Isaac story say that human sacrifice is not required.?
*SURPRISING !*
Yet Jesus said that (ALL) the prophets before him had already written and preached that the messiah is to come and suffer and died for the sins of mankind. IF this alleged claim of Jesus is TRUE, why would the disciples still express shock and disbelief when Jesus first mentioned such prophecy to them ???? Something is NOT adding up here in the whole narrative !!!
18:55 I've read some commentaries saying that the centurion was actually mocking Jesus.
Why?! Why didn’t Jesus want people to know who he was?? Why did he tell the parables at all if he didn’t want people to understand them??
I think the disciples are portrayed as they are so as to be foils for Jesus, and their confusion provides opportunities to teach Mark's community what he wants them to understand. Also, as another commentator has pointed out, the dramatic irony provides an opportunity for the hearer of the story to come to feel included as part of the special community that really "gets" what it is all about, promoting a greater sense of belonging and inclusion.
In Mark, the guard saying, "Surely this was a son of God" is mocking him, because he died first amongst the three criminals. This is in the same way that he's not really a king, but being mocked as a king, and reflects a Roman counter-apologetic at the time, "How can this man be a demi-god if our army killed him?" The guard is not being impressed by the temple veil ripping miles away, he's unimpressed by the death of the supposedly divine being they just executed.
The pagan Roman soldier? Oh yeah, that was John Wayne, I remember 😉👍
Do The Telepathy Tapes fit on the religious spiritual spectrum? Could this research change human spirituality as well as religion? Is the paradyme shifting?
Didn't Israel think of themselves as God's suffering servant? That is, God's suffering servant is the actual Nation of Israel? (I believe this is part of their/the OT scriptures).
If this is so, why would they not think or believe or even expect that their Messiah is/was/ would also be a suffering servant of God as well?
Wouldn't this fit and be understandable?
Here’s the problem: The suffering servant allowed the people to return home. It did not however get rid of God’s enemies. Even though the person suffered for their sins, God’s own people are still suffering and are being controlled by evil people. The Messiah is the one who’ll get rid of these evil forces and be the one to destroy God’s enemies, so that the kingdom of God can come long last
@@stantorren4400 _Here’s the problem:_
The Gospel writers and all of the early Christians (Jesus as well) saw the people who you refer to as _"God’s own people"_ as being the _"evil forces."_
The entire point of every Gospel is that the Romans are not God's enemies, _"God’s own people"_ are.
@@John.Flower.Productions That’s very debatable. Look at how many Christians believe Peter was crucified at Rome, thousands of miles from Jerusalem. Or the emperor Nero apparently accusing Christians of starting the fire. The numbering of Nero’s name is where 666 comes from.
How does Moses make coffee?
Hebrews it ☕️
🙂🙃
How can Ehrman not grasp that the disciples are merely the supporting cast in an historical fiction? Even their number betrays they're literary devices: "The twelve" is a prehistorically old sacred number/gathering. These characters exist solely to illicit reponses and actions from the main character in the tale. They are the collective avatars of the audience reading this text/watching it as a street play. Which I'm convinced Mark originally was.
The fact that the Roman centurion said "surely, this man was the son of God" (especially since Jesus never said that himself,) simply demonstrates that Jesus means nothing to Judaism, and everything to Greek-speaking believers in myths. Anyone who seriously followed YHVH would never follow the very ungodly Jesus. It's not even clear if the centurion did, either -- he's just reported to have said something meaningless. It's like Josephus saying, "He was the Christ." It makes no sense.
I wonder if it was originally "son of a god." Did the soldier become a monotheist and a Christian in a flash? I think "son of a god" might have been changed to "son of God" very early.
this is bookmark ... the tale begins with "you are my son whom I well pleased" and ends with Truly this line" ... the Gospel is written in the structure of a Greek fable that was popular at the time
@russelmiles2861, this line is very troubling. In Mark & Luke, at Jesus' Baptism, God says "YOU are my son..." but in the Matthew Baptism, and in all 3 Transfiguration accounts, God says "THIS is my son..." Which version is correct? Is Jesus supposed to be talking to himself in 2 of the renditions, but not in the other 4? Most likely, Mark & Luke are trying to lift the words out of Psalms 2:7, but it makes very little sense, even if God is really a separate being from Jesus -- why would he be talking to Jesus & not everyone else? Why would Jesus even need to be "born again" if he was supposed to be without sin? The whole story makes no sense. Also, in John 1, John the Baptist stupidly claims not to know Jesus (twice,) and the words, presumably of God, are totally different: 'he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”' But that's John the Baptist speaking, not the Roman centurion.
@RightOnBro72 I don't know what you mean by "which is correct". They are a fair translation of the Greek texts as the authors wrote them ... They are all correct as the story is told.
I assume you don't think that snakes talk, virgin births, demons, vampires, the sun standing still for 3 hours or the righteous dead came out of their graves ... There are stories... Accurately translated as the author wrote them.
@@russellmiles2861, when I wrote "which version is correct?" I was pointing out that there are several different renditions of the same story. Even if one version is true, the version that is different cannot be true, and is therefore a lie. I'm not sure what this has to do with talking snakes, vampires, etc, but if you're trying to say Jesus brought people out of their graves, maybe you can tell me if they walked or floated out of those graves? And did they ascend to heaven before the tribulation, or did they go back to their graves to wait for Judgment Day like everybody else has to? Either way, it makes the Jesus-story a fake rip-off of Judaism. That doesn't mean every story in the OT is true, but it makes it very clear that the New Testament is untrue.
The clear implication of the women never telling anybody about the empty tomb is that the stories of Jesus' resurrection did not come from his followers. They had to come from somewhere else.
@@davidwimp701 mark said the women told no one as a preemptive answer to those who might ask “how come we never heard about this empty tomb before? You aren’t just making stuff up, are you?”
@@macroman52 If the source was not the women, then that leaves the guy in the tomb. Maybe not literally. The common interpretation seems to be that he was an angel. The followers of Jesus knew him in the flesh, but Paul claimed to know him spiritually. He even visited Jesus at his home in heaven. Perhaps the guy in the tomb represents the Pauline view.
I was taught that the "satan" - as seen in Job - is a legal term. It means prosecutor or prosecuting attorney. So in Job the Satan is prosecuting the case against Job in God's court. Likewise, Peter is prosecuting the case against the Messiah as suffering servant.
I recognized as a 13 year old reading the Gospels that the disciples were all slow on the uptake 😐
Does Anyone in the bible had a bible??
Both Matthew and John continue Mark's portrayal of Peter
Mark appears to me to assume that people know what Jesus’s teachings are. There are several places in Mark where he says “Jesus went about telling people the good news of the gospel” but doesn’t say much of anything about what the good news is. This is my impression from the last time I read it. Whereas Matthew actually gives us Jesus’s teachings/good news.
I’ve been wondering if the community Mark was originally composed for was a Pauline community, thus the animosity towards the disciples. I think the rift between the Paul and James (Peter) was more pronounced than it appears on the surface.
It's about the blood ( the biblical interpretation). Life is offered because life is forfeit due to rebellion against the life-giver, God. The animal's blood serves as "atonement" in a vicarious sense, making peace with the diety if accepted. Hence, fellowship meal with god is made possible.
Mark's gospel has the theme of the Messianic Secret, as opposed to John's gospel wherein Jesus walks three feet off the ground proclaiming himself as the Messiah, and perhaps even more than that, depending upon your interpretation of some of his proclamations. These two gospels are incompatible stories, in my opinion.
Interesting idea that some of the disciples don’t believe in the resurrection. Would explain why some of the disciples vanish from history and others are well known after Jesus’ death.
As Bart Ehrman said, nobody expected a messiah who would be crucified. That’s a historical fact. That in the gospel of Mark everybody misses the point that the messiah must be crucified is well in line with the historical context. In fact paul talks about the folly of the crucified messiah in 1. cor. It was seen as foolishness and madness to think the messiah, i.e. the would be king and ruler of the world is going to crucified. Mark reflects the historical context very well.
Dr. Ehrman, is there anything about the original Greek that eliminates the possibility that the Roman soldier was being sarcastic when he said "Surely, this man was the son of God."?
My current understanding of Mark's secret (for readers only), counter-Narrative > Mark's Eschatology > the Son of God will soon return to Galilee and usher in God's Kingdom. At the time of his writing, God's Kingdom had not yet arrived, and therefore, Mark disregards the first disciples and their postmortem encounters, because - the real Eschaton would have occurred - had the Son of God actually returned - after Jesus was raised from the tomb.
"Among ancient peoples in critically dangerous situations it was customary for the rulers of a city or nation, rather than lose everyone, to provide the dearest of their children as a propitiatory sacrifice to the avenging deities. The children thus given up were slaughtered according to a secret ritual. Now Kronos, whom the Phoenicians call El, who was in their land and who was later divinized after his death as the star of Kronos, had an only son by a local bride named Anobret, and therefore they called him Ieoud. Even now among the Phoenicians the only son is given this name. When war’s gravest dangers gripped the land, Kronos dressed his son in royal attire, prepared an altar and sacrificed him." - Philo of Byblos
Did any of the NT writers know about the Roman invasion of Jerusalem before they wrote anything?
@@HisMessenger-wf5qd yes they did. It’s only because the gospel writers know the temple is destroyed that they bother to report that Jesus said some nasty things about the temple or even made the not too difficult prediction that the Romans would one day reassert their control, given all the revolutionary rumblings that were going on.
@@macroman52Why didn't they write about it?
“Not one stone will be left on another” is a "prophecy" by Jesus that appears in Matthew 24:2, Mark 13:2, and Luke 21:6. It refers to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70. Other histories state that, in the sack of Jerusalem, the Temple caught fire and its gold and silver ornaments melted. The Romans tore the Temple down stone by stone to recover the gold and silver. Almost certainly the Gospels were written after A.D. 70, when the writers knew that the Temple had been destroyed, but they presented it as if it was a prophesy by Jesus.
@18471902 Then why didn't they write about a destroyed Temple? They only wrote about the prophecy of a destroyed Temple. Why didn't they write about the Roman invasion of Jerusalem in 67 AD?
I wonder if the disciples interactions were real at all, at least as told by Mark. It appears that the disciples could be considered those who question the inherent problems associated with the teachings of Jesus as explained by the Gospels. The disciples are used as examples of those who question Gospel teachings?
Another winning pair of glasses Megan.
She must have more glasses than Imelda Marcos had shoes. 😂
she wears glasses? never noticed. and nobody even mentioned it in the comments ？
The kingdom of god is within you and all around you. Gospel of Thomas
Paul says the same thing, Christ is all, and in all.
In regards to Mark's dying messiah, I think the intent there is still that Jesus isn't meant to be THE grand Messiah, which is why Mark has no problem portraying him as failing.
Mark's Jesus is "the Christ" in the same way that John the Baptist is "Elijah," because he is a vessel for the anointed spirit, and that spirit is the high priest Jesus ben Jehozadak from the book of Zechariah. I think that's even why epistles like 1 Peter tie later Isaiah to this character, because they're thinking about the anointed high priest at the end of the Exile, start of the Second Temple, when that part of Isiah actually takes place. I think they understand ben Jehozadak's grand sacrifice to forgive all the people's sins in one day as being the means by which he enters the Divine Council to receive dominion over all and battle against Satan. In one of the epistles this Christ spirit is even referred to as a "fragrant offering," more aligned with a self-sacrifice as a temple sacrifice instead of as an execution by foreign powers.
In Mark, I think even the curtain splitting imagery might be playing on this motif, with the spirit of the high priest leaving the Second Temple, showing (as is often said) that now the Second Temple specifically isn't needed because the power within it has left and spread across the Earth, but that power is represented as the Christ spirit Jesus ben Jehozadak (not the Holy Ghost). Mark's empty tomb then represents that the same Christ spirit still roams free, no matter how many devout followers suffer and fall in the battle against Rome. Even if the Second Temple itself falls, though, the spirit of its priesthood will live on.
I think it is then in Marcion's gospel (as unknown as that is) where Gentiles begin to severely misunderstand Mark's Jesus as being the grand messiah to usher in the messianic age. And then we're left with the source of one of the biggest schisms between Judaism and Christianity: the gospels completely redefined what a Messiah is. This became, ultimately, the greatest obstacle to converting Jewish people to Christianity, because they were very often aware that this character COULD NOT meet the requirements as the grand messiah of the messianic age of universal Yahwism. Christians, by contrast, ignored this critique entirely and decided to make this fallen martyr into a third of the godhead, fully alienating Jewish people out by idolizing a man as god.
Anyways, that's all the sense I can make of these mysteries. If anyone else has a better idea for why the gospels invented this kind of failed messiah character, I'm all ears.
Hyam Maccoby once said that Jesus' disciples in gospels are portrayed as stupid 😢.
Maybe none of the disciples nor the Jerusalem church believed in a physical resurrection. Maybe they had experienced visions and thought that Jesus was “alive” in some way. Maybe that’s why they accepted Paul’s account so readily . And is Mark writing for a Jewish or Gentile audience? Bart seems to suggest both.
Maybe the Roman Christians started asking the leaders, if Jesus is really the mesaiah, why don't his own people worship him? Kind of strange he's the son of god from this land of Israel yet the people from there don't even follow him.
If Mark was first to be written, why are they listed as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
{:o:O:}
Church tradition (prior to the academic consensus around Markan priority) was Matt first.
@@ProfessorPinkle
And because Matthew and John knew Christ, they are first and last, and because Mark and Luke knew Paul, they are in the middle?
Cheers!
{:o:O:}
@@ansfridaeyowulfsdottir8095 That, I do not know.
On a slightly different topic, I have heard Bart espouse his view on several occasions that the Church fathers thought two disciples, and two companions of the disciples, composed the four gospels. And he gives a rationale for each attribution of authorship, e.g., Luke was written by the author of Acts, which documents Paul's mission, and its a "gentile" gospel so therefore its a gentile companion of Paul.....Luke was a doctor, so he was probably smart enough to write it.....or so the reasoning goes.
I might also add that they couldn't have developed the view that all 4 canonical Gospels were written by disciples, since, at least in the case of Luke, the text acknowledges that it's author is offering a second hand account.
Is “they just don’t get it” the right comment? What if they knew what to expect of the messiah by knowing something about what the Hebrew bible describes about the coming of the Messiah? Suppose they knew that everybody would recognise him immediately? Then 1 - Peter would not have answered Jesus and say that he is the Messiah, 2- they would know that it was not supposed to be a secret. Mark is after all writing an apologetic gospel and it fits in to say that “never mind that the crowds at large did not know who he was, even his own disciples did not know. But as you normally say “it’s a copy of a copy of a copy, …….”
'M' for Vendetta . _JC
You all have Mark's intent wrong. Starting with the baptismal scene, it is the beginning of J's coronation as Messiah/Son of God in the mold of the Davidic dynasty's coronations, only with a view of a retroactively understood literal fulfillment. (Matthew is very obvious about this.) The Voice references three OT passages (bearing in mind the LXX): Psalm 2, "You are my Son"; Genesis 22 re Abe's son, Isaac as his "beloved", a variant of "only son", but this time the Father will not spare his Son; Isaiah 42:1, "You are my Servant in whom my soul delights", variant being, "with you I am well pleased". With these 3 references Mark tells us who Jesus is: The REAL only/beloved SON who will not be spared. The Servant allusion points to the 4th "Servant Song" in Isaiah 53, esp. vv. 5-6ff. where his death is bearing our iniquities. The latter points to the OT understanding of "punishment", actually no such Hebrew word, but derivation of all three OT Hebrew words translated "sin"; rather, the idea is that the sinner "bears" the consequences of his/her sin. Taking this further, once we allow for the literal "Son" necessarily being divine, Jesus on the cross is our sin being divinely borne (ultimate "trinitarian implications later capitalized upon). Back to Jesus' coronation, the meaning of his baptism is alluded to in his instruction to the disciples: Mark 10:38-45; and in the garden: 14:56. Now, to the portrayal of the disciples, yes, there is only the portrayal of their obtuseness AND their deserting Jesus despite earlier protestations that they would not. Jesus' rejection by his own family has a similar point. Finally, the ultimate blow - the women, who up to that point were the only ones left showing some level of commitment, RUN AND TELL NO ONE THE MESSAGE OF THE MAN IN WHITE LINEN (who is the opposite of the young man in only a linen garb - quite likely, for the recipients of this work, implying baptism - abandoning it as he flees being captured. Now, imagine 2nd generation Christians who know about the proclamation of Jesus' resurrection, the foundation of their faith, protesting, "WAIT just one minute! THAT'S NOT the way the story ENDS!! Not the way WE HEARD IT!!! Precisely. So why are you running and ducking for cover in the face of persecution for following Jesus', the meaning of your BAPTISM(!)? That's the challenge with which the first hearers of this Gospel were faced. Mark's rhetorical question forced upon 'his' recipients. Plenty more could be added, here. But this is what the conclusion is about, the negative portrayal of all Jesus' followers, the meaning of Jesus' baptism and the meaning of ours together with the challenge it impllies.
"Who do you say I am?". It's in the gospel of Thomas too; that's the gospel of Judas, the twin.
Christ is a week long meditative experience of Truth; Christ's brothers are any who've had that week long meditative experience. Just try this perspective; it really works!
What do scholars think? Okay, the ladies at the tomb don't tell the disciples that Jesus will hook up with them in Galilee. Are readers supposed to imagine that Jesus did indeed appear to the disciples back in Galilee? Would Jesus have a physical body? What is the purpose of his visit to them back home?
I find Mark’s gospel interesting for a number of reasons. No Virgin birth story. His own family thought he was crazy. If the other birth stories were true the why would they think he was crazy? Doesn’t make sense. The biggest thing that stands out to me is Jesus crying out on the cross in Mark, asking why God has forsaken him. This says to me that contrary to him expecting to be crucified, as portrayed earlier in the gospel, that he really didn’t expect this to happen.
What's the point of the secret identity?
To explain why it took Paul to really get the church going, instead of one of the disciples?
To carry out His ministry for the agreed upon amount of time. Revealing to everyone that He was the Messiah would have led to a death sooner than planned.
Because superheroes love that secret identity stuff
Probably has something to do with 1Cor. ch. 2v8
Wintery weather is Wet weather (from west coast Canada 😂)
YES! Because the Gospel attributed to Mark has vestiges of Marcionite theology. It was finalized in the 2nd century.
Maybe Mark kept having scenes where "nobody was supposed to know/tell" that Jesus was messiah, in order to explain to people of his day why they had never heard of this "great being" before? Maybe Christians were talking him up a lot, and a common objection was "Oh yeah? Well if he's so great, why have I never heard of him, eh?" And Mark was the response to that.
Yay! Can my complaining in Comments on numerous previous videos at Megan's Blue, Orange or Pink hair have had an effect? Hair almost normal in this video!
"The collective Robin to Jesus's batman". How offensive.
❤
The constant barrage of commercials is really disruptive!
uBlock Origin extension . be sure to manually update it after install and if it ever stops blocking the ads - and you're golden .
@ does it work with Safari? Thanks for your help
@ apparently ; from UBlocks site : Chrome, Chromium, Edge, Opera, Firefox and all Safari releases prior to 13.
@@Sm0700537 did you get my answer ? its not showing up on my end .
Misquoting Irwan!
Romans 10:36 does not confirm that verses 34-35 were directed to the Hebrews because Luke (the supposed writer of Acts) is not writing to Hebrews… 36 is confirming that what Peter is saying he now realizes … that God is not a respecter of persons
Here’s an idea: Mark is blaming the Judeans (including the disciples) for the destruction of the Temple. Because they were unable to trust in such a Messianic mission (to suffer and die), they chose Barabbas as their Son of God instead of Jesus. And so, they were thrown from the vineyard, and the vineyard will be given to others.