How and Why Matthew and Luke Destroy Mark

[@jrmott]

I love your approach to scripture, Dr Tabor. You are critical without ever being disrespectful.

[@MythVisionPodcast]

Bravo! I love this material Dr. Tabor.

[@johnhurt5406]

I follow the Augustinian Hypothesis that Matthew is the source for both Mark and Luke. Matthew appears to be the Greek translation of the Gospel of the Ebionites / Hebrews / Nazarenes - which is the original gospel. Mark and Luke were both traveling companions of Paul. Everything that conflicts with Paul in Matthew has been removed from Mark and Luke, notably Matt 5:17-20, or Matt 7:21-23, where the word "iniquity" or anomia is used. You won't find anomia or "lawlessness" in Mark or Luke, but it is used several times in Matthew. Mark is an expurgated Matthew to fit the doctrines of Paul, and so the addition of "the sabbath is made for man" - to lower the importance of the 7th day, this makes perfect sense that it would be placed in Mark to fit Paul's doctrines that the Sabbath is unnecessary to the modern Pauline "christian." Mark also has the addition added in the NIV and other versions that Jesus said all foods were clean (Mark 7:19), while the same discussion in Matthew 15 ends in verse 20 stating that Jesus was talking about unwashed hands, not unclean food. So yes, Mark has some real problems, and people of our age are also adding and changing things in Mark to fit Paul's doctrines. Matthew has also been altered, mostly to fit the doctrine of the trinity. Matt 28:19 in the Shem Tob or "Hebrew Matthew" (which was kept by the Jews and not altered by the Catholic church) - in this verse in the original, we find that we should baptize in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and not the trinity. This addition is almost as bad as the Johannine Comma in 1 John 5:7-8 The Ebionites were the original church, and their only canon was Matthew. They did not have James, or Paul's writings, or Luke. In the book "Paul on Trial" by John Mauck, Luke and Acts are said to be a legal document prepared for the trial of Paul before Nero, as it is addressed to the "most excellent" Theophilus, a term used for the Roman judiciary. The Ebionites complained that the first two chapters of Matthew had been added by, supposedly, Marcion and Theodotion, to make Jesus into a pre-existing "god" and not a martyr chosen to be the Christ at His Baptism. In the first chapter of Matthew, the genealogy of Christ has 3 sets of 14 generations, yet there are only 13 in the last set. Also, the last set, as compared to history, would have each generation being 45 years old before they conceived the next generation. Matthew 1:23 - the quote from Isaiah 7:12 is talking about Isaiah's son, which he named Emmanuele (Isaiah 8:8), and his other son Mahershalalhashbaz. The word for "virgin" is really "young woman" (almah) and is Isaiah's wife. The generations of Christ have been picked from the names of the Kings in the Bible, except they also picked Jeconias, who Jeremiah 22:30 said would never have a child to sit on the throne. Luke gives a completely different geneology and has Christ coming out of David from the line of Nathan, and not Solomon. If you remove the first two chapters of Matthew as the result of Marcion, then Matthew opens with the introduction of John the Baptist, just like Mark. Only Matthew and John were called by Christ to be His Apostles and teach His word. Mark and Luke were not called by Christ, and to me at least, look like an effort to overlay the original Matthew with an altered copy. Otherwise, why are they nearly identical? Because Mark and Luke were not there with Christ. Why is the Gospel of John from a different perspective? Because John was there with Christ. Luke was not at the Last Supper, yet he records "Do this in remembrance of me", which Paul uses in 1 Corinthians to create the Eucharist, while John ignores the cup and bread and speaks of washing each other's feet. No, Luke and Mark are the creation of Paul. Matthew is the original. Thanks, I really appreciate your work. John Hurt

[@cruzefrank]

I hope you put out more future courses. I love your course on Mark

[@investigandolabiblia]

He should do one on every book of the NT

[@cruzefrank]

@@investigandolabiblia I absolutely agree. Too bad there isn't a way to earn college credits from taking courses like these as well as Bart Ehrman's online.

[@investigandolabiblia]

@@cruzefrank if there was the colleges would lose money and the courses a lot more expensive….

[@TomDavisAtSundown]

Signed up this morning and look forward to the course. Thank you for the honest, historical, non-evangelical presentation. We just walked away from an SBC church that has turned back to its fundamentalist distortions and your course will replace that loss for a least a few weeks.

[@kylecameron1943]

I agree with Kevin and Henry on this one. I don’t believe that the writers of the Gospels used each others work side by side to make their version more accurate. When I read them I understand them to be 4 different “eye witness” accounts of what took place. If human history teaches us anything…. It’s that we all see life happening around us through different lenses…. Filtered through our own personal life experiences. It makes more sense that that there would be somewhat conflicting nuances based on their personal perspectives rather than trying deliberately inserting contradictions…. I mean there really wasn’t any motive for that… people are selfish, yes. However, people tend to act irrationally for money, sex, power, or fame…. And if you look at the historical record…. They had nothing to personally gain from their claims. They pretty much all faced some radical persecution after their claims of Jesus being who He said He was. That’s just how I see it. But everyone has to seek for themselves. Just keep honestly seeking truth and we will find it. Remember, Absolute Truth Never Changes. Our perception might… but the Absolute Truth does not.

[@thumbstruck]

Different individuals have different perceptions and emphasize different things. Different communities have different challenges and questions.

[@davethebrahman9870]

Very decent of you to post these fascinating remarks.

[@MrScotchpie]

I am taking your course and enjoying it. I have just finished reading Mark and ready for lesson 2. I must say, Mark's Jesus is very different to how I was taught Jesus to be. To me in Mark he sounds like a man who is a little short tempered and maybe a little arrogant as he thinks of others as being stupid, "can you not understand" etc. A much more human Jesus than what is traditionally taught (gentle and meek etc).

[@grantsmythe8625]

Yeah, I got it too and am still in Lesson one. I'm reading Mark slowly and listening to it read on an audio Bible video while reading it, then pausing, then continuing, etc. It's a slow process but I'm in no rush. It's very interesting.

[@whiteashpiperwhiteashpiper5447]

Maybe think in "tones", of voice to inject meanings.

[@edwardmiessner6502]

Well some scholars claim Jesus was modelled after Paul! Ruh-roh. (Thinking about implications for any historical Jesus)

[@danixmoffat7229]

I would love to hear your opinions on "the chosen" series.

[@ahwehbe6070]

Brother we want to see more discussions between you & Paul on blogging theology ! ❤️

[@gpwil3847]

Thank you as I sincerely consider my faith, I find your insight very helpful. Often I wonder what Jesus may say to me will he send me away or welcome me.

[@willemvo7296]

how he is portrayed in the gospels he was aware he was mirroring something, which is cause and its causing, so it depends what cause would have needed to be explained in parable and to be absorbed in our history, together with care. jesus sent away the rich man, but did he.

[@derekhenrich8099]

Do you think we would have Mt and Lk if Mk wasn't as "unorthodox" so that they had to correct him?

[@PeloquinDavid]

The later you go in the sequence of the four gospels (in order they were written), the more hagiographical, ideological and grandiose they become. Mark (minus its later accretion of a tacked-on ending - i.e. a lie) is by far the most ambiguous of the four texts and strikes me as being far more representative of the likely response to the sudden death of one's great hero at the hands of a hated enemy: confusion, uncertainty and a glimmer of seemingly impossible hope at the sight of an empty tomb and the words of a stranger...

[@mohankang8062]

Most scholars agree that this ending was a later addition, since it was not present in the earliest manuscripts. It seems that later scribes were uncomfortable with Mark’s inconclusive ending, so they provided an appropriate conclusion with what they knew had happened.

[@youtubeaccount3230]

What it seems like is from marks writing you can tell he believed Jesus second coming was at his time, mark is writing just when the temple is destroyed, so he goes and writes that Jesus prophesied this(basically lied) and that this generation shall not pass till they see the son of man returning this is why he believed in a spiritual resurrection, because he was reading Pauls letters

[@mikev4621]

@@mohankang8062 so they retro-aligned Mark with the later fictions ?

[@islamforall437]

Tabor is a Champion of the New Testament Scholarship. Credit must be given to him at least. He is Excellent. The fact that Tarboo isn't trying too hard like "James D White🙄" makes him one of the Outstanding. Tabor is on the category of Bart Erhman and John Dominic Crossan.

[@Robert_L_Peters]

Thank you

[@dark_attack7896]

THANKYOU SIR..., FOR YOU EDUCATION, ITS VERRY EDUCATIF.

[@commodityjane]

I wonder if "son of" is an archaic way of saying "beloved of"; Son of Man, Son of God at the same time has a duality in that it is accepted he is half divine, but it also may have a secondary meaning, "beloved of"...

[@kevinrombouts3027]

It seems quite clear that each of the gospel writers had different perspectives and they wrote according to the aspects of theology that they believed should be highlighted. I would be more concerned if they agreed on everything because that would smack of undue collaboration. One could argue that the differences indicate that the gospels can't be trusted or you could argue that the differences allow us to be greater enriched by the Spirit as we read because on the core thesis concerning the messiahship of Jesus they agree. So my faith is enriched not destroyed by the differences.

[@notanemoprog]

Thank you for this!

[@gregwright9797]

Thnk you.

[@Epoch11]

Fairytale have many versions although being named Mark I do have a favorite of these books

[@zyxmyk]

i took the course. i thought the strangest thing in Mark was when Jesus didn't want to explain a parable to the crowd because he said, "...lest they turn again and be forgiven." hard to put a good spin on that one.

[@NotNecessarily-ip4vc]

A house divided cannot stand.

[@rv5188]

Is there an oral tradition in Aramaic previous to the Greek Gospels?

[@revelator5754]

I like these comments on eyewitnesses. They were eyewitnesses to Marks book, that much is clear. Almost verbatim.

[@henryschmit3340]

It's simply the same events from the different perspectives of the individual writers. That one might have referenced the views of another, and that there are seeming contradictions only points to its authenticity as a genuine historical account of the events surrounding Jesus. "Did the Gospel authors know their stuff? ..... the Gospels refer to many towns, regions, and bodies of water in a natural manner, just as we would expect from people familiar with Israel/Palestine before the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. They didn’t have access to the Internet or even contemporary written records that would provide this information. The counterfeit gospels like Thomas, written much later, show very little knowledge of the area. The personal names also match the known name frequency of the time and place. So does the way the people are talked about. For rare names, the person with that name was probably the only one people would know, so no further explanation was needed. But for the common names, the writers needed to explain which one. E.g., common male names were Simon and Judas (= Jude = Judah), so the Gospels specify Simon Peter, Simon the Zealot, Judas Iscariot, and the Judas who was not Iscariot. Mary was the commonest female name, hence Mary mother of Jesus, Mary of Magdala (Magdalene), Mary sister of Martha. But people with the rare names of Thomas, Bartholomew, and Philip did not need disambiguators. The Gospels also reported speech about people naturally. Jesus was another common name. But the Gospels were all about Him, so they didn’t need to specify which Jesus. But when the Gospels reported people talking about Him, they had to specify which “Jesus”. Pilate (like Josephus above) asks the crowd about Jesus “called Christ”. A servant girl accuses Peter of being a companion of Jesus the Galilean / Nazarene. A crowd says this Jesus was “the son of the carpenter”. Similarly, Matthew’s Gospel uses “John”, another common name, mainly to mean John the Baptist. But Matthew still records Herod and his stepdaughters explicitly referring to John the Baptist with the disambiguator. But many years later, Jesus was so famous that it was no longer necessary to explain which Jesus. So the naming pattern fits the 1st century, not later ones. This applies to both famous heroes and famous villains. Dr Willams develops an analogy with the name Adolf. Suppose I mentioned “Adolf” in c. 1900. Did I mean Adolf Anderssen the great chessmaster, Adolf von Baeyer the great chemist, or any number of other people? But after about 1939, we would know perfectly well which “Adolf” was meant. Undesigned coincidences. The Gospels corroborate each other very well. But if they were identical, skeptics might accuse them of collusion. Different emphases of each writer can explain many differences. But some of the differences inadvertently affirm accurate reporting. This is what Dr Williams calls “undesigned coincidences”, following Dr Lydia McGrew, herself following 19th century apologist J.J. Blunt (and 18th-century apologist William Paley of ‘watchmaker’ fame). For example, the Gospels records Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead and his two sisters, Mary and Martha. Luke records Martha busy serving, frustrated with Mary sitting at Jesus’ feet (Luke 10:38-42). John records Martha rushing to meet Jesus while Mary stayed home (John 11:20) and records Mary weeping (John 11:32-33), but Martha warning Jesus that the tomb would stink (John 11:39). These are very different emphases, but both paint a consistent picture of Martha as a woman of action and practicality and Mary as a contemplative thinker. Mark records Jesus calling James and John “sons of thunder” without explanation (Mark 3:17). Luke doesn’t mention the nickname but records James and John asking Jesus if they should call lightning down from heaven (Luke 9:54). This makes sense of the nickname in the other Gospel. There are many undesigned coincidences in the accounts of the Feeding of the 5,000. For instance, Mark says that the grass was green (Mark 6:39) and that Jesus moved to a remote location to escape the crowds (Mark 6:31). John’s Gospel relays that it was close to Passover. Lush, green grass would be expected around Passover (John 6:4), near the end of the rainy season. This time would also be when people travelled and city populations swelled, hence the crowds. John, writing much later, inadvertently clarifies why Mark’s report was accurate. John also records that Jesus asked Philip where to get food (John 6:5-7). Why this relatively obscure disciple? John had previously said Philip was from Bethsaida (John 1:44), but so what? Luke provides the answer when he, not John, reports that the feeding was near Bethsaida (Luke 9:10). The combination makes sense: Jesus asked someone with local knowledge. These are some of the many examples of incidental details that combine to explain what would otherwise be puzzling and add authenticity."

[@joaopedrobarbosacoelho455]

I wonder if we had Q we would have conclued that Matthew and Luke altered it too to fit their own purposes. We know how the sermon on the mount (or plains) read differently in both.

[@xifangyangren9997]

I just read something similar in S.G.F. Brandon’s Jesus&Zealots.

[@postxian1]

Seems Mark is writing for a community in Galilee and surrounds (Syria?). Partly because the transfiguration is there, but also because that's where Jesus tells them to meet him (and in Mark they don't). The idea that Mark is writing in Rome based on Peter's teaching, even though an ancient witness, doesn't seem consistent with the text.

[@willemvo7296]

overwriting is the whole point of an archeological site, and that is what religion is, an archeological site, with us stuck in different layers not connecting, absorbing, the layers, while only the present carries the whole. so maybe, there is more to it, then those layers being a product of randomness :) if there is still space to write, maybe we did not arrive in that present yet = creation story, not done, and still man has to arrive = shabbat made for our future = for man.

[@josedejesusgarcia2856]

James Tabor whom do people say that I Am?….

[@whiteashpiperwhiteashpiper5447]

Can't one say "yeah that's not the whole story, so & so says that this is what they experienced "? Therefore not an "overwrite " but a fuller POV?

[@longcastle4863]

👍 _!!_

[@seanvassar1117]

Jon is considered authentic?

[@andylyon3867]

There is no contradiction, leaving out, adding in, or disagreement in the gospels. Each gospel address each of the four humors. So which humor is out of balanced can be addressed by the gospel that focuses on that humor.

[@ciaran82359]

Eh?

[@dumupad3-da241]

3:00 - Jesus generally refers to himself with the term 'the Son of Man', not to all human beings. So when he says 'the Son of Man is the lord of the Sabbath', he is saying the same thing in Mark as in Matthew - I am a theologically extraordinary figure and normal rules don't apply to me. This simple message seems to be the main point of this episode as well as of many other episodes in Mark and the other gospels. Maybe Mark's Jesus does endorse situational ethics with the phrase 'The Sabbath was made for man', too - of course, this is the philosophical meaning that people in later and more secular ages have derived from the quote - but if so, this is more implicit and not what the emphasis lies on.

[@ChiliMcFly1]

I've heard it was said that the one who was stripped naked at garden when Jesus was captured was Mark when he was a young man, so probably the first to write his gospel. Showing Mark was the one who actually wrote Mark. I don't think this has any evidence but there is a story.

[@davidfrisken1617]

Dennis MacDonald proposes it is from the common Greek myths of the time where when people came back from the afterlife they were all naked because clothing could not travel between the realms. So basically used as a symbol foreshadowing the resurrection of Jesus.

[@ChiliMcFly1]

@@davidfrisken1617 Mark 14:51-52 Are you saying this is a resurrected from the dead person ?

[@fudgesauce]

Here is a good time to bring up NonStampCollector's funny video which imagines how the author of Luke ended up writing what he did. The first 90 seconds is set up, then the parade of rewrites, with citations, begins: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bWnFpIBth8d-ZqM

[@jamesdewane1642]

This is a great link! Very onpoint and helpful

[@mikev4621]

essential viewing - glad I took the time

[@matthewkay1327]

I need someone to take the course and report back because those don't sound like big deals.

[@mohankang8062]

Correct Matthew, because it authenticates the scriptures. The more deep you go, the easier it is to determine it was written by imperfect men about the one perfect man, Jesus Christ.

[@openmodalguitar61]

Interesting and thought provoking video but the title is poorly chosen. In a strictly literal sense it is consistent with the argument made in the video, that Matthew and Luke introduce and/or omit elements that alter the intentions and meaning of the material they use from Mark, and in that sense they 'destroy' this material. However in the world of You Tube clickbait video titles, to say that somebody 'destroys' somebody else implies that their argument or performance is overwhelmingly and utterly superior to that which they 'destroy'. Most casual scrollers reading this title would think that it means that Matthew and Luke completely discredit Mark, which is pretty much the opposite of what the video actually presents. Tabor in the video speaks of overwriting; using this term rather than destroy would be more accurate. Or perhaps 'How Matthew and Luke set out to destroy Mark', which speaks to their intentionality without inaccurately implying any superiority over Mark. This is a widespread problem on KZbin, sensational sounding clickbait titles that turn out to have little or nothing to do with the content of the video. In this case it is actually contrary to the arguments presented. A pity because the video itself is a worthy contribution to an important topic.

[@clarkgraves1010]

When Luke edits the Q material (ie, the sayings stuff he has in common with Matthew that Mark doesn't supply) he's more willing than Matthew to follow the source and let Jesus use crowd-stirring rhetoric. Matthew's Jesus is a sensible pastor. Luke's is allowed to

[@TheDanEdwards]

"When Luke edits the Q material" - or not. If we dispense with the Q hypothesis then the author of Luke is just copying "Matthew" and changing what he will, to suit his own ideological purposes.

[@thomasrhodes5013]

@@TheDanEdwards Was he deliberately altering the material to conform to his ideology or was the material expanded to satisfy desires of the growing congregation which had not context from which to understand the characters? the recent Jewish War must have torn up most social references.

[@GravityBoy72]

Is there any parts of Luke where he copied Matthews modified version of Mark rather than the original Mark? I'm thinking Matthew used Mark and Luke used Matthew. No need for Q because Q is what Matthew invented and Luke copied.

[@doncamp1150]

Peter's confession, "you are the Christ," is not false. Jesus does not object to the confession; he adds to it something Peter did not yet understand, that being the Christ meant suffering and dying not, as was popularly supposed, riding into Jerusalem on a white horse to ascend to the throne and rescue the Jews from Rome. This idea of overwriting or 'taking out' is a slant that does not fit this example. What each writer does is write for his audience guided by his rhetorical purpose. Every quote we find in the Gospels must have been picked out of a longer dialogue with his audience, in this case the disciples. So, each writer chose phrases that fit his purpose. Mark 8:29, for example, was perfectly in line with his opening statement or theme in 1:1, "the good news of Jesus the Messiah the Son of God. Though he allows Jesus to qualify that in his reply. Matthew in 16:16 includes "Son of the living God." It is a title used eight more times in Matthew, so often that it is a motif. So, what is the theme of Matthew? Messiah. That means in Matthew "Messiah Son of the living God." It fits his theme to include that in the confession. What is the theme of Mark? Servant. And it fits his purpose to juxtapose the briefer confession with Jesus' reply referring to his death. Put those together we have Servant or suffering Messiah, Mark's theme. If Matthew was there with the others, which is what I propose, he would have heard the whole confession and the reply. He chose to include in his Gospel the parts that served his purpose and theme. The same for Mark. There need not have been any "overwriting."

[@berglen100]

Paul a mystery's writer also wrote what could be played by him allegory of male and female mind names and jew and all other nations named to the minds secular maze. So Paul wrote revelation called by John unless death in secular time history wasn't Eccl 3:15 evolution neither wakes just death was, is, will be asleep in time dreams..

[@joey551]

I am a non-practicing Jew but I had a period in the early 80s with Christianity. It lasted a couple of years. Then I went to University and took Biblical Hebrew as my language. Time has passed and I have no more interest in reading the bible. I like Rabbi Tovia Songer but don't watch him much now. I do wonder who you think Jesus was. You have analyzed the whole bible, so you must have an opinion and possibly a feeling or two on this subject.

[@mohankang8062]

He was either a raving lunatic, or the Messiah.....nothing in between. The Dr talks about copying this, editing that, one emphasises more than the other....what the Dr is doing is demonstrating the human perception of what happened, how it was written, and in doing so, the authentication of scripture of the reality of the Messiah and not a raving lunatic.

[@joey551]

@@mohankang8062 not messiah. The stories are not reliable. Something yes. Not raving lunatic. There were no tape recorders. Stenographers. It could all be mythology. At best, and this is a stretch, in the family of the prophets.

[@Grandgousiers]

Are you Bob Dylan?

[@joey551]

@@Grandgousiers Ha

[@Joshua123N]

In short, "Father" James Tabor is starting a new Church, another Priest or another Gospels....do you understand the "latent intent"???...but then he strengthened my faith even more, in YHVH and His messiah even if there are shortcomings in the Gospels and Paul's letters because I rely MAINLY on the Hebrew Tanakh about the "Messiah" and not even Rabbi ToviYAH Singer can answer.....

[@whidoineedthis]

100th comment🎉🎉🎉

[@eternalgospels]

Not so. I discovered thru statistical analysis that the author of 1 Thessalonians knew the written form of Koine Greek Matthew. Furthermore, Paul in 1 Thessalonians alludes to a tradition found only in Matthew. Also, I've discovered Mark has Chiastic structure vestiges found "ONLY" in Matthew; Marks writing destroyed this Macro level Chiastic structure found only in Matthew. If the chiastic structure is not apparent to a simple minded person {as we know the author of Mark was} not well acquainted with Jewish writing structure then it makes sense why such structure vestiges will be apparent but broken. Matthew's chiastic structure was purposeful and thoroughly thoughtful. Mark is simply a mutilation of Matthew. Matthew's editorial and literary skills are far above Mark, hence the reason why Mark would have not been able to understand how he was destroying said chiastic structure. Mark retains some of these micro level chiasms.

[@thomasrhodes5013]

Wasn't the attic approach to oratory the norm in the Greco-Roman world during this epoch of world history?

[@eternalgospels]

@@thomasrhodes5013 Some of us scholars know about these micro and macro chiasms. However, due to textual criticism most of these vestiges have been sanitized.

[@thomasrhodes5013]

@@eternalgospels it is sad how far Scholarship has plummeted. This is evident by your self testimony. Was it your pampered safe-space environment that screwed you up so much?

[@eternalgospels]

@@thomasrhodes5013 Your response is Typical for atheists. You and Jehovah's witnesses are so similar. They refute an argument without understanding its proposition and even before you finish any statement it's apparent they are kinda zoomed out looking for an answer even without hearing the full statement to give you an answer to a statement they haven't fully heard and much less grasped. Let me throw you a bone, I think I have solved the Synoptic problem. My hypothesis can only work and becomes apparent when using 1 Thessalonians 1 & 2 Corinthians, Acts and Josephus. However, it brings a new problem with its proposition; the Gospels either are pre 70 AD along the 3 letters mentioned above or the 3 letters are post 70 AD along the gospels. The events of 52 AD anchors the letters to pre and post 52 AD events, making the chronological progression of the letters become valid historical documents or a forger understood the importance of the events of 52 AD and designed the documents to reflect such chronological events to fool people who might have noticed the chronological pattern which the letter follows. Since the statistical analysis on keyword usage follows a progression that matches Matthew in 1 Thessalonians and Luke & Matthew in 1 & 2 Corinthians then the Papias Chronology doesn't seem implausible. If the former is true then the Gospels are not post 70 AD. However if the latter is true then the forger was hyper intelligent and extremely evil making the NT the world's greatest forgery. This chronological pattern and its motivations for revising the gospels are apparent once you understand the events of 52 AD. It also raises an important question, why did Paul's writings show up a bit before and the events of 52 AD? This seems too convenient especially once you understand the importance of the events of 52 AD. This alone has raised my confidence to new levels the Synoptic Gospels aren't post 70 AD and Matthew was indeed first. Although the proposition might seem implausible it explains it in the most simplistic way using Statistical Analysis of keyword usage in 1 Thessalonians, and 1 & 2 Corinthians as to why there are differences of Matthew and Lukes birth narratives and Luke's motivation to create a different birth narratives than Matthew's by understanding the importance of 52 AD events in Jerusalem. The model shows very clearly the author of these 3 letters knew Matthew and Luke Gospels, it also shows the motivations for altering the Gospels. Everything stems from the events of 52 AD. Using the argument of inference for the most plausible explanation without any ad hoc arguments the proposition becomes an easy model that's hard to refute due to the statistical analysis of keyword usage in the letters mentioned above and the natural progression of keyword usage in the letters which follows the chronology of the letters. What I mean is 1 Thessalonians is pre 52 AD and reflects Matthew only. The keyword usage order in 1 Thessalonians themes matches the same order found in Matthew only. Then 1 & 2 Corinthians keyword usage and order within the letters themes matches Matthew and Luke clearly showing a chronological progression. 1 & 2 Corinthians are post 52 AD. Again, without understanding the main historical headline in Jerusalem during 52 AD you will never understand any of what I am talking about. Most scholars have made the issue more complex than it really is. All the evidence is found between 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians. The model relies heavily on keyword usage statistical analysis and correlation coefficient formulas, hypothesis testing and a chi-square analysis. Everything has to do with an EGYPTIAN FALSE PROPHET and what he did on the mount of olives during summer of 52 AD. That is the key to understanding this Synoptic problem mess and beautifully explains why Luke birth narratives had to be different from Matthew's. It is generally agreed upon by historians the EGYPTIAN FALSE Prophet incident happened during 52 AD. If you should remember anything remember that. 1 Thessalonians chapter 5 theme MAIN keyword usage matches Matthew's 25 themes keyword usage in THE EXACT ORDER. If this theme is only found in Matthew and Thessalonians is Pre 52 AD what does that tell you? Or should I spell it out further? Is it a coincidence? Yet the likes of you who can barely do math let alone speak more than 1 language wants to insult me, a person who speaks 4 languages, and is also a statistician and a scholar? Eat your bone and don't choke with it in the process! 🐕

[@thomasrhodes5013]

@@eternalgospels I am grateful that you did not attempt to confuse Batman with another one of your confounded riddles Mr. Nygma.

[@FreeAmerican-mm2my]

The Gospels are not complete transcripts of everything Jesus said and did.

[@gparker7019]

Is it sabbath or "weeks"? Why mention David eating temple bread? What does that have to do with the situation? David has nothing to do with restriction based on time. Think a little more. For the story of ONE good, the focus is on the word ONE. the guy is asking what ONE good work can I do to enter eternal life. Jesus answer- the is no one good work (or one sinners prayer) - keep all the commandments. And yes there are limitations to that also. I am sure someone is going to jump on that...

[@kencreten7308]

1) you ask people to "think more," about what? 2) what do you think "people are going to jump on?"

[@jdaze1]

You're "overthinking" it. :)

[@gparker7019]

@@jdaze1 what biblical year (cycle) was Jesus' teaching during? Why would that year make a difference in understanding the grain field episode?

[@FatherVampire]

So... yet again... another click-bait title falsely claiming what is not found in the video. Nowhere here is either Matthew or Luke shown to "destroy" Mark. If anything Mark's Gospel destroys theirs! Given Mark predates both, it is the glaring contradictions found in the later Gospels that prove these later authors guilty of rewriting the narrative to fit their own more-dogmatic narratives... thus "destroying" them, instead.

[@iwilldi]

picking corn on sabath. Why does marks jesus shift the topic to abjatar, david and saul/paul Why does he make Jesus look beyond stupid? Isn't the reference to David (which has nothing to do with sabath) a way to claim _the eschaton is made for the son of Mark_ And why the fuck is Jesus more talking about claiming kingship than answering the question at hand (which is an essene one, not a pharisaic one) Can you please show me a single verse in Mark which could convince me that the author was a christian and believer by the time of writing and not a satirist?

[@allanjstark]

So god inspired Mark. Then he corrected his Inspiration, because God recognize, he inspired some bad ideas. … yes! The Bible is from God! 😅😅😅

[@Thomasw540]

Jimmy, I took your Mark course, It didn't come close to addressing any of these absurd assertions The best part that was worth the price of admission was the 10 events you trace in Mark 11 and 12, but it appears to me that the reason why you moved from fixture to fixture is because the universities grew weary of you flogging the dialectical Marxism of the Weather Underground party lines which produce memes like "situational ethics" which was discarded before the Beatles broke up.

[@theinvisibleworld888]

English please

[@Thomasw540]

@@theinvisibleworld888 You had to be there, If you haven't taken Tabor's course on Mark and his 10 events in Mark 11 and 12, I may as well as try to explain to you in Yiddish, Let me put it to you this way: Jimmy Tabor has devoted his academic career in teaching people how to think like David Koresh, who was reading from the same gospel as Charles Manson, The pursuit of the pre-Christian Revelation leads directly to Johnstown and Waco. September 8, 70 CE is what happens when you take Jesus out of Judaism, And that's what the Jesus Seminar is all about.

[@dark_attack7896]

وَعَلَيْكُمُ السَّلاَمُ وَرَحْمَةُ اللهِ وَبَرَكَاتُهُ .......ALL..MUSLIM...... From..Indonesia.... BARAKALLAHU..FEEKUM.

[@ronashman8463]

"Ii would say it's a false confession." (The confession of Peter.) Who is this Bible corrector? Time to write your own Bible and leave it out! Another version on the pile of about 250 failures since 1611 won't be noticed.

[@lewis7315]

ignorance and sillyness

[@erikhaynes5506]

I've lost all respect for this guy after his outright lie that Jesus rebuked Peter for confessing he was the Christ in the recent "The Embarrassing Gospel of Mark".

[@KendraAndTheLaw]

Probably was a slip. He's 75. We all make mistakes. It's silly and childish to think that invalidates him in general.

[@erikhaynes5506]

@@KendraAndTheLaw It's not a slip. It's even a highlight clip in the introduction where he goes on to further drive it home by saying, "Peter's confession of Jesus as the Christ is a false confession inspired by Satan."

[@hmansour89]

He is not lying though….he is quoting bible verses and showing the development that happened in later gospels. He knows what he is talking about it and his reasoning is convincing

[@vnurcombe]

@@erikhaynes5506 except he doesn’t believe in Satan, so you’re bearing false witness.

[@TheDanEdwards]

You do realize that "Mark" is just a story, written by an author. It's connection to the reality of what happened some 4 or more decades earlier is up for discussion. Tabor is pointing out that the author of Mark is intending different ideas than the author of Matthew, and then the author of Luke intended something else. These ancient books are the works of authors, all trying to influence other people. That's what they are.