Creating Jesus--Why Mark's Gospel Was Forgotten

Just completed and now available is a college level mini-course, “Creating Jesus: Why the Gospel of Mark was Forgotten,” with seven video lectures and a Study Guide with supplementary materials that I have prepared specifically for this course. If you purchase the course, you will have permanent access.
Read more about signing up for 👉 "Creating Jesus: Why Mark’s Gospel Was Forgotten?" at this link-with no obligation to purchase unless you decide this is for you:
mythvisionpodc...
The Gospel of Mark is the most influential piece of literature from the ancient world. Even though Paul’s letters are written earlier, they offer us no “Jesus Story.” Mark is our earliest narrative presentation of the figure of Jesus. However, it is purposely constructed as a “riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.” And even though it is now embedded in the New Testament, it is essentially lost and forgotten.
Matthew and Luke are essentially “rewritten Mark”-or better, “overwritten Mark.” These writers use Mark as their main source, but utterly deconstruct and, as a result, essentially “destroy” it. Even though they incorporate up to 80-90% of Mark as their core story-once edited and embedded in their narrative, Mark as Mark basically ceases to exist.
In that sense it has remained “unread” for the past two millennia. Mark is in fact a kind of anti-gospel or counter-gospel. It could even be seen as “anti-Christian.” It stands in opposition to the master narrative of the Jesus Story that becomes the heart and core of the Christian Gospel-cobbled together from Matthew, Luke, and John-and the early Christian Creeds, all of whom completely lose-and even reject-Mark’s presentation.
In this course I pull Mark out of the New Testament, strip it from later forms of orthodox and dogmatic Christianity, and place it in its original historical context-as a post-War apocalyptic treatise following the destruction of Jerusalem in the summer of 70 CE. Its view of God, of Israel, and of the Messiah, is utterly opposite of, and opposed to, what emerged as early Christianity.
The focus of the course is a detailed exposition of the gospel of Mark as Mark. Mark is a skillfully constructed as a three-part drama, with clear literary motifs that move the story along in very carefully worked out directions, ending with a dead messiah, forsaken by God, his contemporary Jewish culture, and even his closest followers and disciples. The reader is left alone at the end, to try and sort out what it all means, with no direction home. And yet, embedded in the narrative, is a certain “understanding” of the message, but only for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.
This was my most effective and popular course, to both graduates and undergraduates, in my four decades of teaching at the University of Notre Dame, the College of William and Mary, and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Now that I am retired, I am offering this course more widely through MVP Courses to the public. You will own the course for life, with access to the 4K quality videos along with the course materials you can download as PDF files.
Read more about signing up for 👉 "Creating Jesus: Why Mark’s Gospel Was Forgotten?" at this link-with no obligation to purchase unless you decide this is for you:
mythvisionpodc...

[@jamesbarringer2737]

I have troubles with any lesson like this that includes something that is so clearly false. Tabor indicates Jesus said "Get behind me Satan!" to Peter in response to Peter saying he believed he was the Messiah. Ch 8. Read the chapter, and you see that when Peter said Jesus is the Messiah, Jesus' response is "Do not tell anyone." When you see Jesus make that same comment - "do not tell anyone" - in other places in the Gospel, the effect is that news about Jesus spreads faster than if they had told someone. Jesus does NOT rebuke Peter for calling him the Messiah. Rather it is because Peter rebukes Jesus for preaching that he, Jesus will be rejected and sacrificed - THAT is why Jesus says to Peter, "Get behind me Satan!" Peter is opposing God's plan, which is for Jesus to suffer and be sacrificed. Just read Ch 8, and you'll see this clearly as the case. Secondly, one of the things Jesus routinely does in the Gospels is point out when people have - unbeknownst to themselves - testified that he, Jesus, is God. So when someone calls Jesus "Good" and Jesus responds, "Why do you call me good? Only God is good," notice Jesus never said he isn't good - Tabor (and Jordan Peterson) read something into Jesus' words that isn't there - nor considering Jesus' normally talks in this way, is it implied. Jesus only asks the question, "Why do you call me good?" He doesn't deny it. Jesus is pointing out this series of logical conditions. 1) You say I am good. 2) Only God is good. Therefore 3) you have testified I (Jesus) am God. Jesus does this frequently - i.e. with Pontius Pilate ("Are you a king" Jesus answers, "You say that I am," etc, etc, etc). Why does Mark end with the empty tomb and the message Jesus has risen? Plain old GOOD storytelling. That's an amazingly powerful ending. Jesus has been preaching over and over again he would suffer and be raised - Peter has rebuked him for it, Jesus has lost followers over it - and yet indeed that's what happens. I don't have the talent for the powerful literary tool of brevity but the author of Mark does. Many people - including I myself - get goosebumps from Marks' conclusion. While overall John is my favorite Gospel, the conclusion of Mark is by far the most stirring ending of the 4 gospels - because it stops so suddenly at the empty tomb and the unadorned message - he is risen.

[@langreeves6419]

YES! It's a great ending! Good literary device. Jesus has told people to NOT say anything all throughout the book, yet people talk about him anyway! At the end, he tells the women to spread the word, but they are too scared! So. Who will spread the news? The book of Mark gives that job to the readers of the book. I can't believe he so badly misquotes what Jesus said to Peter.

[@jamesdewane1642]

Well said. I have the exact same trouble with Tabor, and i agree that Mark is very sophisticated because he leaves a lot of things up to the reader. As a favor, please tell me what you think Mark is doing with chapter 16. I see it as anti-apocalyptic. Jesus provokes the question about the destruction of the Temple, starts his answer with, Be careful that no one deceives you, then proceeds to tell them the end is not some all-at-once-for-everyone event. Chapter 16 looks to me like Jesus is using apocalyptic imagery to describe how when your perception begins to open up, that's when trials and tests come to you. When you become purified through this, "then they will see the Son of Man coming..." Thoughts?

[@Madlands69]

I think you're reading context into it though... I don't think Jesus is saying he is God in this gospel. The Messiah is not God. And Mark 10 could just be Jesus saying "don't call me good, only call God good" which would make sense for or a Jewish Rabbi at the time to say. Notice right after that he says "you know the commandments... follow them and you shall have eternal life" another pretty typical Rabbi thing to say. Also in Mark at the Baptism the voice from heaven talks to him specifically and tells him "you are my son" as if he didn't know. And then he goes and starts the ministry.

[@Madlands69]

@@jamesbarringer2737 Jesus speaks in parables so not everyone understands in Mark. Then Matthew and Luke just forget to mention that. Then in the Gospel of John he doesn't use parables at all 🤔 he never exorcised any demons in that one either.... It's almost like there's different evolutions of Jesus as time goes on. Don't be blind.

[@MaxPhallic]

Tabor has reading comprehension issues, how in the world is this guy an expert. hehe, can' read mark 8. what trickster this guy is. maybe he wants to be employed and popular. well he succeeded.

[@NHNEU1111]

Jesus rebukes Peter for denying that he would be rejected suffer and crucified not that he was the Messiah. I think that’s pretty clear in the English. How do you tie his rebuke back to stating he was the Messiah???

[@howaboutataste]

I do want to hear a definitive answer to this, but, I think the "may it never be!" was because such an end would prove he wasn't The Messiah. The Messiah needs to accomplish the reconstitution of Israel and Judah, dominate the world, live a thousand years, establish an unending dynasty, etc.

[@mytwocents7481]

Maybe Tabor thinks that Mark was tampered with. If you delete Mark 8:30-32, then Peter's confession is immediately followed by Jesus' rebuke. Tabor is too sharp to simply be confused about the passage.

[@howaboutataste]

@@mytwocents7481 there aren't any manuscripts found that have that deletion. There are three texts that have "and then he will speak the word openly." as part of what Jesus says, right after "will rise again after three days" , instead of it being narration of the manner in which Jesus was speaking.

[@NHNEU1111]

@@mytwocents7481 it would be nice if he would explain. I’m open to hearing him out but to just throw that out there without any explanation appears to be isegesis. I disagree with him on just about everything but I still value his opinion and have learned from him. I would also like to know exactly what he believes in he seems to leave that vague as well.

[@mytwocents7481]

@@NHNEU1111 I guess his comments are a teaser/advertisement for the course. He doesn't make it clear, but he probably presents a full argument in the course.

[@Davey3]

Is Tabor agnostic????? I’m just asking

[@integrationalpolytheism]

I don't know...

[@skronked]

Whatever..the man is a prince!!

[@yaaqov1]

He believes in the Torah, but as a non-Jew

[@yaaqov1]

See James Tabor's book on "Abrahamic Faith"

[@christophermanley3602]

He has said in other videos that he believes in God.

[@DaddyBooneDon]

This guy is way off about Mark. He misquotes stuff in super obvious ways. For example, he says that in Mark, Peter says "You are the Christ" and Jesus says "Get thee behind me Satan." There's a lot that happens between the two statements. You don't just cut a bunch of story out to suit your needs. Read Mark 8:27-33 for yourself.

[@mytwocents7481]

Tabor probably thinks that Mark 8:30-32 is a later addition. Without those verses, "Get thee behind me" comes right after "You are Christ."

[@annalisette5897]

My family was atheist but I always felt a spiritual pull. So I have read a lot and done a lot of my own thinking. I wanted to know the real, historic Jesus. Since I have had serious illness for most of my adult life, I hoped knowing the historic Jesus would reveal knowledge about miracles.* Scholars always said Mark was the first gospel written, closest to the historic Jesus. I have long wondered about the very things discussed in these videos. The other New Testament book that I feel shows us glimpses of the historic Jesus is John. I feel the "Beloved Disciple" shared some real memories with the writer of that book. I too came to the conclusion that the Beloved Disciple must be brother James because Jesus gave his mother to this man and I cannot imagine family being bypassed in such a situation. (And when I found Dr. Tabor's blog I was surprised and happy that he also thought James was the Beloved Disciple.) *My best friend does not claim any specific religion but she relies upon Jesus telling others to go forth and do what he did. She believes anyone can heal as Jesus did. My friend practices the Japanese healing art of Reike, which is similar to Jesus' works. I have major neurological problems and my friend has not been able to help with those, however I once had a major surgery and my friend's gift had a lot to do with a quick and complete recovery. I was actually her first 'patient'. She asked if she could "do something" and I agreed. She stood behind me and I did not watch what she did, nor did I care as I was taking quite a bit of medication. She never touched me but the surgical incision became very warm and healing commenced rapidly. It had been an orthopaedic surgery and the doctors had had a grim prognosis yet I recovered quickly and far better than predicted. My friend says Jesus meant for all of us to be able to do the things He did.

[@youngknowledgeseeker]

Very interesting. Thank you for sharing. Sorry about what you have to go through. It's always our dream to have God heal us in miraculous ways if possible

[@AnHebrewChild]

Anna - I hope you find healing and comfort. In this life and the next. Thanks for writing what you wrote. I don't know you (obv) but will say a prayer for you. Have a nice day :]

[@berglen100]

The title of the 54th Psalm is translated as “David is hiding with us” in the King James Version, and “David is in hiding among us” in the Revised Standard Version; but the title should read: “David is in hiding within us,” for that is where he is, as well as every character in scripture. When I say, with Blake: “All that you behold, though it appears without it is within, in your Imagination of which this world of mortality is but a shadow,” I mean that literally, for the drama of life unfolds from within.

[@JamesTaborVideos]

I have noticed that quite a few who have commented here have charged me with being ignorant, misleading--and even LYING, in my treatment of Peter's confession of Jesus as the Christ in Mark 8--since I supposedly "leave out" or somehow miss the intervening verses between that confession and Jesus' rebuke of Peter--hoping ignorant viewers who hear me won't know my deception here. Of course these are folks who have not taken the course, where all of this is thoroughly explained. That is why I say Mark is a mystery, puzzle, and enigma...purposely written to confuse readers--thus the constant reference to having eyes and ears without seeing and hearing and thus understanding. And it apparently works! Just look at these comments. Yes, of course those verses are there. Tthey are not interpolations, who could miss them? And that is precisely the point. Hence these responses from those who miss Mark's purposes here. What I say in the video can sound is shocking...but to figure it out--you have to come to know what Mark is doing. And that is what the course is about. So here goes, briefly, since more than a few have "exposed" me here. Peter's confession as it is presented in Mark is absolutely a "false" one, in that Peter has no understanding of the meaning and implications of that very confession, and his objection--to the suffering idea--is labeled by Jesus as from Satan--for whom Peter is now the agent in this scene. This same pattern is repeated three more times in chapters 8-10...again, it's all in the course. For someone to mouth the confession, or use a title such as "Christ," IF they are using it with a totally false meaning, is not then a "true" confession. That is why studying Mark is so important. And that is why I did this course. We learn how Mark is signaling to the reader a hidden meaning of what it means to be the Christ that only ONE person in the book gets. But that is why I have taught an in-depth course son Mark for four decades. He has been lost, forgotten, and misinterpreted. The hundreds and sometimes thousands of comments to my videos on KZbin--and this is often the case with all social media--are a mix of the good, the bad, the ugly, and yes, the "crazy." To even begin to address them all would be impossible, time wise and content wise. But I thought I would at least offer this brief explanation.

[@langreeves6419]

That's a weak explanation of your misquoting the book of Mark. Do you have any scholars who agree with this rewriting of Mark? Is there a variant text you're using?

[@sso1834]

Dear Professor, thank you so much for addressing this. I admit I was enticed to immediately purchase your course, to see how you came to the conclusion of "false confession", since even a non-English-Speaker like I could read English well enough to notice the "obvious reason" of Jesus' get-behind-me-Satan rebuke. I didn't "get it" after doing my first pass of your course, but I think I got it now after your further explanation. You mean "false confession" because the word CHRIST in Peter's mind meant GLORY, but he didn't understand the path to GLORY was suffering. You mean, if someone doesn't fully understand the meaning of a word but uses that word to describe something, it is "false confession". So that is how you DEFINE "true/false" in this context. I can clearly see how you drew your conclusion now. Thanks so much for the mesmerizing course. Your perspective is truly eye-opening. I benefit a great deal learning from you how you (and other folks) read out of the same books I read.

[@jamesdewane1642]

I appreciate the explanation, but i think we might better characterize Peter's confession as half right, especially as the two-part cure of the blind man occurs immediately prior. And this is right at the halfway point of the book. Half a book gets us to an understanding of Jesus as Christ, half the book is left to help us see Jesus' redefinition of Christhood. 🙂

[@mytwocents7481]

Like other folks commenting here, I was shocked by how Tabor connects Peter's "you are the Christ" declaration with Jesus saying "Get thee behind me Satan" as if the one directly follows the other. Based on the CURRENT text of Mark, they don't. They're separated by verses 30,31,32, but Tabor isn't crazy. I'm guessing he believes those verses were added later.

[@GravityBoy72]

I was thinking the same. In the text, Jesus says it to Peter after Jesus talks about being killed. Does James Tabor think this is a later addition?

[@mytwocents7481]

@@GravityBoy72 Tabor himself has replied in the pinned post without any reference at all to later additions, so I humbly retract my wild guess.

[@itsdave.j]

I was thinking the same when he said that

[@MaxPhallic]

Tabor's a salesman dude, and we fell on that trap. he's earning a living.

[@cypriothomolies]

Mark's gospel is the meat and potatoes of the four. It goes right for the jugular. It was also written for the jews of Jerusalem who either knew of yesu or knew of what happened. Just as when you read Luke's gospel, it is long and detailed but punches you in the gut over and over, very harsh language in the Greek. Because it was written for the Greco-Roman audience. These aren't falsicities or coincidence, all four were written for different audiences who would understand them by their cultural norms. Also, telling Peter to get behind me satan was because peter expected yesu to be the conquering messiah with an earthly kingdom and was disappointed by his standards and not looking for God's standards. He didn't just tell off peter.

[@glarris1]

Well said. I hope anyone who takes Tabor’s course understands his limitations. He seems like a well-intentioned historian who unfortunately is theologically clueless.

[@KendraAndTheLaw]

@@glarris1 For example?

[@whoeverofhowevermany]

So this is an ad?

[@whoeverofhowevermany]

@@christophermanley3602 🙄 but I'm used to KZbin suggesting videos that just have ads on them, not that are ads themselves. I'm already deep in capitalism just being in KZbin at all anyway, so it's definitely late to be welcoming me. This video is just breaking the format by making the content itself the ad instead of presenting the ad through the normal and monetized method. He's cheating 😂

[@TheShutterbug1968]

I appreciate Mr Tabor and his view, but only Jesus can manifest himself to us and to who He really is. If you seek Jesus you will find Him. Looking to man for Jesus will only get you where you still are today. With lots of questions and "What ifs". Bless you...Jesus is our only teacher.

[@russelldavis4938]

When Jesus says get thee behind me Satan, He is not saying Peter is mistaken. He says Peter, as Satan does, is creating a stumbling block to his purpose not accepting the wishes of God with gladness.

[@josephdeisrael]

@James Tabor In "get behind me Satan." The rebuke was against the Son of Man (Messiah) having to suffer. The rebuke is not against Yeshua being called Son of Man/Messiah. And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. And He was stating the matter plainly. And Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. But turning around and seeing His disciples, He rebuked Peter and *said, “Get behind Me, Satan; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s.” Mark 8:31‭-‬33 NASB1995

[@sorenaleksander2670]

The scholar who opened my eyes on Mark was the late great Harold Bloom in his Jesus and Yahweh - The Names Divine. The greatest teacher under whom I ever had the privilege to study! Cheers!

[@williambeckett6336]

That's why Matthew was deliberately put first and out of order: To pull as much focus away from Mark as possible. because Mark's jesus was never a god. Not even a demigod, he was a mortal man tapped by god for a mission like Moses or Noah that got him killed. And original Mark had NO ressurection. The church does not want people thinking about that at all.

[@lawrence1318]

Tabor doesn't know what he's talking about. When Jesus said to Peter in Mk 8 "get thee behind me, Satan" it wasn't in response to Peter's calling Him Christ (which he didn't do at that point) but for telling Christ He shouldn't go to the cross. In general, and putting that blatant error aside, atheists don't know the Lord and so have no ability to rightly divide the word. They are in the dark and can't understand spiritual things, so they are simply not equipped to interpret scripture.

[@Peter-gb5kr]

Sir you got it wrong. Jesus said get thee behind me Satan after Peter told Jesus that He would not go to the cross. Jesus had just finished saying he would suffer many things and be killed and rise again after the third day. Jesus did not say get behind me Satan after Peter said you are the Christ.

[@jamesdewane1642]

Hip hooray! Mark is a wonderful and intricate work that deserves in-depth treatment. Thank you Dr. Tabor!

[@EXISTENCE1891]

Mark 8. Yeshua does not rebuke Peter for saying "you are the Christos/Messiah" but for saying he must not go to Jerusalem to die. I'm surprised James Tabor got this wrong

[@jayb5596]

Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Most people interpret made in our image to mean we look like God. When infact after our likeness covers our resemblance to god both physically and spiritually. Made in our image, represents an image of gods conscience which is what our universe actually is. A binary model of gods image a snapshot image of gods conscience placed into the son to cleanse the conscience. If you need to understand how God could be saying we are made in the image of god can mean inside gods image. Go look up a backup image of a server a snapshot of a server. That is what a image represents when god said let us make man in our image god literally meant in gods image.

[@langreeves6419]

Really? You're going to completely misquote Mark and tell me you have a great course on Mark? Reread Mark 8. I'm not saying the book is accurate or true. But if we are going to quote the book, quote what it says. Jesus rebuked Peter when Peter said that Jesus wouldn't be killed. Jesus did NOT rebuke Peter for calling Jesus the messiah.

[@koppite9600]

Mark 14 60 also states Jesus is God, so these scholars are really cherrypicking what they want and leave.

[@christophermanley3602]

3:47 - this isn’t exactly correct. There’s a whole paragraph between when Peter proclaims Jesus the Christ and when he tells Peter “Get behind me Satan.” In fact, he says “Get behind me Satan” when Peter tries to stop Jesus from saying that he had to die.

[@christophermanley3602]

“And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ. And he charged them that they should tell no man of him. And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him. But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.” ‭‭Mark‬ ‭8‬:‭29‬-‭33‬ ‭KJV‬‬

[@davidmeinertdecrepidude]

Maybe 'Get thee behind me, Satan' was Jesus' way of saying 'Get out of town!' or 'No shit Sherlock'

[@christophermanley3602]

In Zeffirelli’s “Jesus of Nazareth,” I’ve always loved how Robert Powell’s performance of Jesus makes it look like he’s almost saying it to himself, or to the voice of Satan in his head that’s saying “you know, Peter has a point.”

[@berglen100]

The characters Jesus, David, Abraham, and Moses are but personifications of eternal states, which you individually will encounter as you move towards the ultimate awakening of being God himself. In his poem, “Saul” Robert Browning tells the story recorded in the 16th chapter of the Book of First Samuel, of how David cured Saul of the evil spirits which the Lord had sent upon him.

[@jamesdewane1642]

I agree with you. I read Mark chapter 16 as a description of what to expect as one moves toward that state. Do you see it that way, too? Mark has Jesus using end times or second coming imagery to describe an opening of perception followed by trials of purification and culminating with the vision "then they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds..." I've had little success getting anyone to give credence to my reading, but after working through all the metaphors earlier in Mark, it was as plain as day to me.

[@FatherVampire]

Dr. Tabor: "How is it that -- I mean... to me, Derek, this is the most shocking thing ... and Peter finally gets it: 'You're the Christ.' And Jesus says, 'Get behind me, Satan.' In this course, and I teach my students this, Peter's confession of Jesus as the Christ is a false confession inspired by Satan." (3:31) But... that's not what happens in Mark. Instead, Jesus replied directly to Peter's "confession" of Him as "Christ" by telling them: "Then He warned them not to tell anyone about him." -- Mark Ch. 8 v. 30 Only after this, after Jesus next tells them he will be rejected and killed, that Peter takes Jesus aside and rebukes Him... knowing, as all Jews do, that this is not at all what is prophesied about the REAL "Christ". Only in direct response to this Petrine rebuke -- not Peter's declaring Him the "Christ" -- does Jesus then rebuke Peter by stating, "Get behind me, Satan." Read for yourself the relevant verses; it's crystal clear: 31 Then Jesus began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and experts in the law, and be killed, and after three days rise again. 32 He spoke openly about this. SO PETER TOOK HIM ASIDE AND BEGAN TO REBUKE HIM. 33 But after turning and looking at his disciples, HE REBUKED PETER and said, “GET BEHIND ME, SATAN. You are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but on man’s.” -- Mark Ch. 8 vss. 31-33 (emphasis added)

[@FatherVampire]

@@michaeldavenport5031 ... Thank you for this...and there's actually a good reason for it. Believe it or not (and I know this will be difficult to accept prior to hearing the evidences), if that irony isn't great enough wait till I start publicly sharing on my own KZbin channel the historical, scientific and scriptural evidences proving the Slavic Vampire was never a blood-drinking revenant (actually, already presented in Ep. 2 of my current series) just as the historical Yeshua was never the Messiah nor Savior and never started a religion. Instead, both were of the same Alien-Human hybrid Bloodline possessing the same "supernatural" and "physiologically impossible" traits that got them both deified and demonized. 😲 Yes, the Vampire was literally deified initially by the Pagan Slavs before later being demonized... just as also Yeshua was deified by His true followers before then being demonized by the Jews and Romans. I know how crazy this all sounds... for now.

[@FatherVampire]

@@michaeldavenport5031 ... It's impossible to argue with a dogmatic statement of belief. However, believe it or not... I wholeheartedly agree with you: Yeshua IS indeed the literal begotten-in-the-flesh Son of the God of Israel. But have you ever considered exactly WHO the real "God of Israel" actually is? The first time that name appears is when God gives the name "Israel" to Jacob... thus becoming, literally, the God of Israel. Yet HOW is "God" actually described? Let's read this Biblical event and find out (Genesis Ch. 32, Vss. 24-30): 24 Then Jacob was left alone, and A MAN FOUGHT with him until daybreak. 25 When He ("God") saw that HE HAD NOT PREVAILED against him, He touched the socket of his thigh; so the socket of Jacob's thigh was dislocated while he fought with Him. 26 Then He ("God") said, "LET ME GO, for the dawn is breaking." But he (Jacob) said, "I WILL NOT LET YOU GO unless you bless me." 27 So He said to him, "What is your name?" And he said, "Jacob." 28 He said, "Your name shall no longer be Jacob, BUT ISRAEL; for you have striven (fought) WITH GOD and with men AND HAVE PREVAILED." 29 Then Jacob asked Him and said, "Please tell me your name." But He said, "Why is it that you ask my name?" And He blessed him there. 30 So Jacob named the place Peniel, for he said, "I HAVE SEEN GOD FACE TO FACE, yet my life has been preserved." (emphasis added) Thus we learn beyond any doubt that this "Man" with a physical body who Jacob attacked and fought... is God! And yet, despite God dislocating Jacob's thigh, He could still not escape Jacob's hold on Him! God is, thus, a literal "man" with a physical corporeal body... one that is NOT more powerful than that of a mere mortal man... and He is also not omnipotent, after all! As further evidence of this, finally God had to literally BEG Jacob to release Him. Yet still Jacob refuses... except God agree to "bless" Him. And God acquiesces, agreeing that Jacob had physically defeated Him. Jacob, a mere mortal man, had physically beaten God, "Almighty," and made Him beg! 😲 Then God did for Jacob what He previously had done for Jacob's grandfather, Abraham, and gave Jacob a new name also: ISRAEL... literally meaning, "He who Fights against God". This proves that this God is the same who had given Abraham his new name, too. Thus, this mere Man with a corporeal physical body that Jacob beat... is revealed to literally be: The literal "God of Israel" ... the "God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob". 😲 Think about that. Take all the time you need. If indeed "Life Eternal" is to "...know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent" (John 17:3), then it's high time we REALLY started doing so, and by the actual evidences... by re-evaluating everything we thought we knew about both against the scriptural and historical evidences. Because, sadly, while everyone thinks they know God and His Son... yet in fact, no one has had the slightest clue.

[@FatherVampire]

@@michaeldavenport5031 ... and I will hope you might someday come to appreciate historical and scientific evidences over superstition, mysticism and belief. The irony here is that where the Tanakh is concerned, the latter is actually founded on the former... thus offering common ground for both. Sadly however, both sides tend to ignore or even disdain the other... thus preventing either from discovering the shared Truth both sides possess. Best wishes in all.

[@Thomasw540]

The Gospel of Mark created the genre of Gospel: A statement like "how can you end a Gospel the way Mark ends the Gospel: is a Marxist absurdity typical of the Jesus Seminar, All Christian literature begins with Pilate's euanglion to TIberius which was conprised by the harminization of Mark 15:1 - 16:8 with the Gospel of Peter, Tertuallian cites this "intelligence report from Judea" to Tiberius in Book V, Apology, This euangelion was composed before Acts 10. The euangelion in Mark 1:1 is the post-Acts 10 version that includes Peter's confession in Acts 10:34 - 43, which becomes the narrative arc of the Gospel of Mark as composed by Cornelius. Pilates Command Sergeant Major and Chief of Sgtaff, Cornelius has the same job with Pilate that Tom Walz had as a Command Sergeant Major to his Batallion CO, There is a divine covenant that runs straight as a laser from the Corss to the Talking Corss to Cornelius to the Command Sergeant Marjor of the Army in the Pentagon, today, The Talking Cross is the divine sanction for the separation of church and state As an Air Force brat, you should know that in spirte of your Weather Underground commitments as anti-war campus radiical and draft dodger.

[@jjschereriv]

How do I access the course?! I paid $29.95 online but can't figure out how to get to the content! Also, I could not find any contact info on the website. Help me, please. . .

[@tomrhodes1629]

Jesus Christ has indeed been totally misrepresented, as has GOD. But not like you think, Mr. Tabor. Truth is simple, Truth be known. But those who don't know Truth can be smart enough to create a clever replacement - that keeps them isolated from Truth. Intelligence without wisdom is like a boat without water. It won't take you where you want to go...unless you don't want Truth. And many do not. But for those who do, I've published the answers to all of your questions. GOD's prophet, the prophesied return of Elijah, testifies in these end times - the end of one cycle of time before the birthing of the new. And by the way, no one "invented" Jesus, aside from GOD. But one doesn't have to be smart in order to convince oneself of whatever it is that one wants to believe. And because you are so smart, Mr. Tabor, you may convince others, also. But all is fated, and you are in fact in control of absolutely nothing in this world, nor is anyone else. Only The Mind that is ALL, which many call "GOD." And we should be glad it is so! (I correspond only through my sites.)

[@robtrindade9087]

Ok, if in this instance you equate the rebuke that later follows Peter identifying Christ with having a false understanding/identification of Him in relation to His purpose (not being the Savior who dies on our behalf and only being God incarnate with the glorious aspects,) then sure, that should be rebuked. But I don't see a single bit of criticism or doubt that you've given to Mark being valid though. Even the above instance is not an argument against Mark, it's just you relating two things that are not entirely related and using it as if it therefore discredits or casts an unfavorable view on the book. And then what I need is an extended course because clearly I couldn't understand what you just meant as the Bible is pretty complicated huh? *Casts doubt by making an unfair or unclear argument*, now take my course! (and also you probly can't understand or fairly criticize my argument unless you take it) Mhm.

[@integrationalpolytheism]

This is actually what I've been doing with GMark. I've read it through a few times now in different English translations, and there are a lot of things that come across differently than when you just take the Christian homogenised Jesus at face valie.

[@chasx7062]

This is the effect of #DunningKruger?!!! Some guy who may or may not have a title thinks he is the smartest Clown in the Room.... Mark is like a true reporter who just reports the facts as they are known... The other gospels just spins the facts. BUT the fact that the early Church left Mark in there, has to be commended Who is right and who is wrong??? wait till judgment day heh

[@markjillrotimi7810]

How could you lump together two different opposing scenarios and use it to justify your argument? The first scenario Mark 8:27-29 And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am? And they answered, John the Baptist: but some say, Elias; and others, One of the prophets. And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ. And he charged them that they should tell no man of him. In this first part Peter said Jesus is Christ and Jesus said to the disciples that heard what Peter said not to tell anyone. The second scenario Mark 8:31-32 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him. But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men. This is a different scenario from the first scene. In this part Jesus was talking about his suffering and death however, to Peter’s dismay he rebuked Jesus for saying he would suffer and be killed. Jesus saw that Peter’s concerns were opposed to the climax of his mission and he rebuked him saying to Peter Satan get thee behind me. The two stories are clear and not lumped together as Dr. James is presenting it.

[@NeuroDivergentRabbitHole]

Wow, THREE endings to Mark? I am only familiar with 2 of them: the traditional "long ending" they put in printed Bibles, plus a really short one that says something to the effect that they later told Peter and his companions who went out preaching Jesus' message, which I read in the James Moffatt translation of the Bible. What's the 3rd one? Where can I find it?

[@Atem258]

3:34 Jame, you are not being honest yet… Jesus never told Peter to get behind him because Peter called him the Messiah but because Peter told him not to say he would suffer and die and in 3 days he would rise. Where’s the honesty???? Mark 8:27-30 is a different scene from Mark 8:31-33.

[@kenledbetter4979]

I just purchased the course and look forward to diving in.

[@kengemmer]

29 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered and said to Him, “You are the Christ.” 30 Then He strictly warned them that they should tell no one about Him. 31 And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. 32 He spoke this word openly. Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. 33 But when He had turned around and looked at His disciples, He rebuked Peter, saying, “Get behind Me, Satan! For you are not [e]mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.” Jesus does not rebuke Peter when he calls him the Christ but rather when Peter rebukes him for saying the Son of Man must be killed.

[@donalddotson-cw5ll]

Whenever the student is truly spiritually inwardly purified/ready. The teacher Will come. Seek with simple humility and you will find. Knock with heartfelt humble gratitude to the creator God consciousness and it will be opened. Anything less is looking for scientific theories.

[@linnhudson4908]

What you are missing is that mark is a historical account. That which seams to be missing is on purpose so that the prophetic books of Luke and Matthew and John play out in the end times. As chapter 3 of Luke and Matthew indicate the beginning of tribulation. Luke 3:6 or 3 1/2 yrs or 1260 this is salvation and harvest that takes place in Paul's gospel. Luke and Matthew 3:7 or 3 yrs 7 mo. Or 1290 days they are seeking to be baptized because they are fleeing the wrath to come.

[@raysilva3595]

This man is confounded and speaks according to the flesh and the Spirit is not in him... Christ said that God is Spirit and you must worship Him in Spirit. And Christ spoke to the crowd in parables because He knew they were not believers and not children of the elect. Christ said that His sheep know Him and they will come, not by the initiative of man but by the drawing of the Spirit of God the Father

[@wtallent2224]

@3:53 - If this is what you teach your students, then either you are purposely lying, or you don't bother to study the text with any real seriousness. Jesus did not call Peter Satan for confessing him as Christ. You skipped verse 31? Peter was adamant that Jesus should not be killed! What was the purpose Jesus came into the world? To die! Who wouldn't want Him to complete this mission? Satan. Would you consider teaching Scripture accurately?

[@xifangyangren9997]

Who’s gonna grade our homework when we take your course? 😮

[@blacksmith1634]

3:54 Can some one please refer to the bible vers. This is a very significant detail in the gospel, but after initialy googling for peters confession, I could not find jesus' reponse as stated in the video. Are there other versions of Mark or am I looking in the wrong place? I olny found Mark 8, 27-30 Here Jesus tells his disciples to remain quiet, but does not address peter as satan. I know he does in some vers were he talks about his suffering and peter tries to keep him from talking like that.

[@skypilot5423]

Dr Tabor，you are misleading people with your interpretations of the gospel. Clearly you don’t have the guidance of the Holy Sprit. I found the comments here are mostly polite, but true Christians left comments here clearly see how wrong and even borderline blasphemous your opinions are about Lord Jesus and the gospel. I feel bad and sad for you that one day you will face Lord Jesus for all you said about him on the judgement day. Sorry for my strong words. But I feel very sorry for you.

[@cheaptrickfanatic3496]

Uuhhhh.... can someone explain to me what this whole, "Peter's confession of Jesus as the Christ is a false confession and Jesus rebukes Peter" is all about???? Where is THAT??

[@lisaking4291]

Mark, is the most important, footnote commentary in the Bible, Evan though he is whittled down, I am so annoyed about those people who have changed the Bible we have today, they have made it a un bible, no longer a Bible, it's a destroyed mutation of the Bible that was a Bible, made that's, like it's more so, become tainted, and disfigured distorted disjointed amputated, it's just so much more like what satan would do, is, what he has done, has, to take out take away the truth so we humans no longer have the truth anymore, have lies in a Bible that's not a Bible, the guts was dismembered, slapped onto into it, disgusting book of untruth, sucked out what Jesus was and what Mathew and mark were originally saying about back then, devastated is all I can say that I am about this, I'm 52 year's old in October coming up, so old to be having this information about the Bible we call the Bible, a Bible, I'm sad.

[@Charles-tv6oi]

Between me n you, what's bothering you n why you don't trust God or want to believe? I can show you texts are not what many think. If you can still believe there's hope. Holy Spirit don't deal with those he doesn't intend to save. Something more is going on I suspect

[@andrewclemons8619]

@3:49 you say Jesus tells Peter to "get behind me satan" after Peter says he believes Jesus is the messiah. Where do you get that? Jesus tells Peter to get behind me Satan after Peter rebukes him for saying he will be put to death and rise again 3 days later not because Peter says hes the messiah. So far you're merely claiming Mark precedes Matt and Luke so I'm expecting to hear some hard evidence in some of your other videos.

[@Me2Lancer]

Interesting. Thanks for sharing. I was taught to start with the Gospel of Mark because the other synoptic gospels are based on and expand on the content in Mark.

[@xifangyangren9997]

When I finished your course, I decided the “Gospel of Mark”should be renamed the “Can you really live the way and drink the cup of suffering like Jesus?” 😮!

[@greywolf850]

Research Ivan Panin my man …. And his work all scripture is God breathed

[@gregmorgan3508]

I looked all over for the zoom call on mark. It is the best kept secret that cannot be found. I would have thought you would have created a link in the course.

[@Nogill0]

I'd say that this kind of close and careful critical analysis of Mark WOULD make a great book. Perhaps consolidate the course material at some point and use that as the basis for a book? I'd love to have that book in my collection!

[@dolorazajick920]

Even though Luke, John and Matthew are more elegant and evolved, One can almost catch glimpses of a Jesus that is more tangible and real through a more immediate and vernacular telling of what happened, despite so many miracles mentioned. One can see his human side and understand what temptations he was resisting and his message seems more simple. Some people insist that Matthew was written first, but I think putting it first it was an attempt to unify the four synoptic gospels and to deal with the inconguities of Mark with the message of the other synoptic gospels.

[@PaulyMG33]

what of the Gospel of Thomas? Does Mark draw from Thomas or vice-versa?

[@christophermanley3602]

I’d like to recommend Max Maclean’s one man show where he recites and performs the Gospel of Mark. It lends a good bit of nuance and humanity to the words on the page. It’s available on KZbin.

[@longcastle4863]

Interesting, Thank you 👍

[@whoeverofhowevermany]

777 views 😂

[@sorenaleksander2670]

Not that difficult. In Mark, the only "entities" who ever seem to know who Jesus is ARE the demons. Therefore, when Peter simply repeats what the demons are saying, Jesus' seemingly confused response is quite justified.

[@chiloandchepo]

Jesus Christ confuse ddd???? Pleeeeeese

[@David_Brinkerhoff93]

Mark was Paul's discipline. His Gospel account portrays the mortal Christ as being inferior for a specific reason. He writes in order to make contrast for the risen Christ that Paul claims to have met privately in the wilderness. As for Peter and his 'false,' Satan inspired confession (according to Mark)... Well, as we all know, Saul of Tarsus, (the pharisee who consented to the murder of Steven and other Christians) was the bestest best Apostle that ever ever was. There is no room for Peter and the other foolish disciplines of the mortal Christ who persist in the law of moses. There is only Apostle and his name is Paul. You are free to do as you please as long as you confess his christ with your mouth. And self-proclaimed 'Christians' everywhere do worship Constantine and Paul's false god. 'Ye worship ye know not what' was a prophesy in disguise.

[@jamesdewane1642]

Thank you, my dude! I've heard Tabor and others refer to Mark as Pauline or even as Paul's minion, and you're the first to provide a reason. And it's quite the hypothesis! Undercut non-Pauline Christians by showing the disciples to be dolts (especially Peter) and show that earthly Jesus was a failure. This would explain a lot of the changes Matt and Luke make to the Mark narrative. Here's a counterproposal. Mark is anti-Pauline in that he is anti-apocalyptic. Paul was adamant that the second coming was nigh, but then he gets taken in captivity to Rome and dies without God's kingdom showing up or a second coming. Then another decade goes by and still nothing. A big crisis of faith is brewing. The authors of Mark figure they can do something about it. Either they never believed in a second coming like Paul did, or they decided Paul must have been wrong because it had been too long. Either way, they decide to write up Jesus predicting a second coming, but as a private, individual spiritual transformation, not any kind of public all-at-once event. This is Mark 13. Yes, it uses all the end times imagery, but starting at 13:5 Be careful no one deceives you, all the images fit a reading of it as a description of 1) an opening of perception, followed by 2) trials of purification, leading to 3) spiritual transformation/epiphany, "then they will see the Son of Man coming..." This is why, No one knows the day or the hour... Different day and hour for each individual. Notice the VERY cagey language at "This present generation will not pass away before all these things come to pass." Why not mention death? The phrase "taste death" is used just before the Transfiguration. Mark's Jesus is referring in 13:30 to an immortal soul, so that's how the prophesy can be true but timeless! What do you think? There's no way I can unsee Mark's very deliberate personal spiritual transformation description. Maybe my reading makes it even more Pauline, as Mark is giving Paul a good excuse for being wrong, with all that apocalyptic imagery...

[@NewZion50]

With respect, you are in error Sir regarding Mark 8 27-30. When Peter declared Jesus the Messiah, all Jesus said was to "tell no one". I think you were incorrectly referring to Matt 16:23. When Jesus' saying to Peter "Get behind me Satan" was in response to Peter declaring that he would not let the Soldiers arrest him. Jesus said that to him because if Peter did interfere it would be in conflict with God's will. It appears that you are twisting your scripture again to fit your agnostic narrative that Jesus was just a man and not the only begotten son of God. Mark is supposedly the oldest book out of all the Gospels. I see nothing that contradicts the original mission of Jesus the Christ in Mark's writings. It may not be as full of details like Matt, Luke or John but it is, I believe, the foundational writing of the Passion of Jesus Christ in the New Testament and the New Covenant. Again I implore you to do a full investigation into the Shroud of Turin. It is truly God's receipt. Peace

[@scottstoner5506]

It is in Mark 8:33 "But when He had turned around and looked at His disciples, He rebuked Peter, saying, “Get behind Me, Satan! For you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men." Your context of the quote is also 100% incorrect. Dr. Tabor clearly and accurately depicts the basis of Jesus' remark as a rebuttal to Peter's clearly getting things wrong.

[@aleko3562]

@@scottstoner5506 Are you stoned?

[@mytwocents7481]

Maybe Tabor thinks that Mark was tampered with. If you delete Mark 8:30-32, then Peter's confession is immediately followed by Jesus' rebuke. Tabor is too sharp to simply be confused about the passage.

[@MatthewKiehl]

Have you guys looked at Mike Winger's 70 part Mark series? I think it is over 100 hours long. I'm not saying it's great but it does capture some of the current attitudes.

[@KendraAndTheLaw]

As he is an evangelical apologist-at-all-costs, not a lot of credibility.

[@AnHebrewChild]

@@KendraAndTheLaw True about Winger. But everybody, including Tabor in this video, uses 'motivated reasoning.' (psych term) For those highly familiar with the content of MMLJ, that reality is very apparent from the ideas set forth in this video. The key is understanding that everyone has diverse biases and sets of suppositions: once this is understood, it opens up to the open-minded truth seeker a wider world of resources. cheers

[@whiteashpiperwhiteashpiper5447]

According to tovia singer Satan isn't a "fallen " angel. But a angel of God created to simply tempt us humans in order to exercise our free will.

[@gokartbob6478]

Satan isn't even an angel... Lucifer is. Satan is a spirit/ demon.

[@whiteashpiperwhiteashpiper5447]

@@elmalakhfeo6813 true

[@whiteashpiperwhiteashpiper5447]

@@gokartbob6478 not so. Lucifer isn't in the Hebrew Bible according to tovia singer. Satan is however.

[@larry1824]

By who snowflake????????

[@Robert_L_Peters]

Crazy to think that Matthew and Luke couldn't find a main source better than Mark. And disappointing. Was it just so good? Or were they lazy? Or is it all there was for some reason nefarious or otherwise? Is John's narrative unique enough that he could have had something independent?

[@pauljohnwelsh7864]

Really enjoying your KZbin channel Dr Tabor, and the argument you've constructed on Mark's Gospel is intriguing.

[@picapatrol]

I tried to sign up but the clicking on PayPal netted me only a blank screen. A broken link somewhere?

[@dorothysatterfield3699]

Hi, Barbara - I'm having the same problem. I'm using my iPhone's data (no WiFi) and it's rainy and foggy in my region right now, so I think the weather might be to blame, at least in my case. Apparently others are getting through to PayPal without a hitch. Let's keep trying - this sounds like a terrific course, even to an atheist like me.

[@JamesTaborVideos]

​@@dorothysatterfield3699 Try logging into PP first, then signing up...sorry for the glitch, I don't handle the tech stuff.

[@JamesTaborVideos]

Try logging into PP first, then signing up...sorry for the glitch, I don't handle the tech stuff.

[@dorothysatterfield3699]

@@JamesTaborVideos Thank you, Dr. Tabor. Someone made credit card payments possible, without having to go through PayPal, so I was able to sign up. I'm looking forward to this course!

[@berglen100]

Do not see Saul as a man, but as humanity. He is the human being referred to in the 4th chapter of the Book of Daniel: “And the great watcher said “Hew down the tree, cut off its branches, scatter its leaves and its fruit, but leave the stump.” Then the tree becomes personified as: “Let him be watered with the dew from heaven; and let him move with the beasts of the earth. Take from him the mind of man and give him the mind of a beast. Let seven times pass over him until he knows that the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will, even the lowliest of men.”

[@TheDanEdwards]

Many commenters have misunderstood Tabor. He knows there are a couple of verses between those in Mark 8 which he quotes. Unlike some commenters here, Tabor has wrestled with the actual material, not regurgitating some Sunday school doctrine. The Synoptic Problem, the formation of Christianity, and the development of the Canon are very intertwined.

[@chasx7062]

This is the effect of #DunningKruger?!!! Some guy who may or may not have a title thinks he is the smartest clown in the Room.... Mark is like a true reporter who just reports the facts as they are known... The other gospels just spins the facts

[@TheDanEdwards]

​@@chasx7062 Whoever wrote the book called "Mark" was an author, not an eyewitness. At most, the author took beliefs of those (including Paul's followers) around him and put them into story form.

[@chasx7062]

@@TheDanEdwards But these "authors" just gave you events as they "thought" happened, rather than trying to "interpret" those events, right?

[@jamesdewane1642]

Nah, Tabor said it like he said it to get the most buzz. He knew he could make it sound like he was misquoting and then go back and respond to the reactions. Or do you think he hasn't done this two dozen different ways over his 40 years of teaching? Teaching a course several times is like a standup comic perfecting a set in front of many audiences. This is a wiley old grey fox.

[@Isaac5123]

Exactly How can there be a Gospel if they didn't say anything to anyone? This is how corrupt the scriptures have been cocoted

[@Joshua123N]

This one point is very "painful", he came as a saviour but don't want to save others, thus he use parables???...

[@xifangyangren9997]

I completed your course today and loved it! If you get a question board up for the course, please let me know. Thanks.

[@joeycarter8846]

Weeellll, that's one's way of looking at it, professor Tabor. Another way is that Mark left out many obvious & shocking things about Jesus....just as any eye-witness account. He's assuming the people reading his account knew the story, and he was simply capturing a general summary. Matthew & Luke, being more educated, filled in the setting & details better. My students, while writing papers, did this all the time...beginning in the middle, you might say, so an uninformed person would ask, "Wait, who is this you're talking about again?"

[@ameren110]

Well, in this case Tabor is just repeating the consensus of mainstream bible scholars since the late 1800s. This isn't anything new; the idea of "Markan priority" is pretty much a settled matter.

[@cipherklosenuf9242]

Well, it seems to me that if I’m the author of Mark then I’m going to include what’s really true and important. You seem to suggest that Mark didn’t include everything important because it wasn’t that big a deal. I think it makes sense to let Mark be the Gospel and speak for itself. Why isn’t that good enough?

[@TheDanEdwards]

"Matthew & Luke ... *filled in* the setting & details better. " -as in creative writing. And the author of Mark was not an eyewitness.

[@ameren110]

@@TheDanEdwards Well, there's an element of creative writing in that they sought to expand the narrative. At the same time, they were working from the sayings gospel Q, which was a set of Jesus' teachings/parables that lacked a narrative; it's believed that Q preserves Jesus' original parables that were passed down through oral tradition. Notably, the common material in Luke and Matthew doesn't deal with Jesus' divinity or other later Christian theological developments.

[@TheDanEdwards]

​@@ameren110 Q is a hypothesis that many NT scholars today do not think is necessary.

[@langreeves6419]

Mark's gospel is very popular in literagies that are read in churches

[@dark_attack7896]

THANKYOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR EDUCATION, SIR.

[@familyaccount4919]

Truthful Kindness here. Thanks for sharing !

[@lilynazara3809]

There are more Hebrew language gospels now that are not back translation but are source language, Hebrew. Please see online, The Hebrew Gospels of Sepharad. Translations into English and photos of Hebrew text available.

[@stellijer]

I don't think there are any gospels sourced in Hebrew.

[@henryschmit3340]

It's not a big mystery. All four Gospel accounts are written from four different perspectives.... as you would expect, being written by four different people. It's not hard.

[@TheDanEdwards]

No. There is so much more to the various gospels and how they relate. Recommend looking for prof. Mark Goodacre's book on the modified Farrer hypothesis - on how "Matthew" copied "Mark", then Luke copied both, with errors. The entire writing process is interesting but also dismantles the fundamentalists' belief system.

[@henryschmit3340]

@@TheDanEdwards Those tired old arguments have long been debunked. "..errors.." There are no errors... except in the critics' imaginations. All the so-called errors have simple enough explanations.

[@patrickfle9172]

Just booked the course, thank you

[@Brad4083]

As other commentators have mentioned, James Tabor has some shocking interpretations of Mark 4:10-12 and 8:27-33 that I wish he would have explained. Do we have to take his course to find out?

[@Cyrusmagi]

He has pinched these off Joseph Smith!

[@jamesdewane1642]

@@Cyrusmagi Reference? Joseph Smith was quite the interesting dude! Bedded all the women he could, died in a gun battle.

[@jamesdewane1642]

4:10-12 is apparently contradicted in 4:21-22. In part, "nothing is hidden but it must be disclosed." What does Tabor say? For me, Mark seems to include a lot of advice for teachers. Sometimes the best move is to leave everyone stumped, or to tell the kids that know the answer to just keep quiet till the others work something out on their own. The image of breaking the bread is like curriculum planning. At the feedings in Mark, everyone ate as much as they wanted. A teacher breaks down the material to be learned into pieces that can be assimilated by the students that you have, and it doesn't work to force anybody. The "not perceive" and "not understand" of 4:12 seem to be temporary. In the Isaiah chapter from which the quote is drawn, do the unperceiving people eventually understand? For me the sequence seems like preparation for sending the disciples out to teach. They need to be OK with the fact that lots of people will not be ready for what they are saying. Before sending them off Jesus goes over it again, If they don't receive you, shake the dust off your sandals and keep going. There is so much fun in the first half of Mark!

[@jamesdewane1642]

8:27-33 For me, Peter is half right. This comes right after the two-part cure of a blind man. It's also the halfway mark of the book. Half a book to recognize that Jesus is the Christ, the other half for Jesus to educate us on what that truly means. Again, IDK what Tabor says in detail. Different from me?

[@JamesTaborVideos]

If you have trouble with a blank screen using PayPal trying logging into your PP account first...that seems to work. I will ask Mythvision Courses to try to look into this glitch.

[@NHNEU1111]

How about responding to some of the comments Dr Tabor???

[@JamesTaborVideos]

@@NHNEU1111 If you have spent much time on KZbin or reading the hundreds--even thousands of comments on my videos--and really on any channel or SM, you would understand the complete diversity such medium draw....from absolutely crazy stuff, to well intentioned questions. No one could possibly address even a tiny fraction of them. Just for the heck of it I decided to scroll down to yours...and you have completely mistaken what I said...in the course I cover this very thoroughly...of course I did not "skip" the intervening verses...that is the whole point--but Peter's confession is a false one--given his understanding of the meaning of "Christ" at that point in time--and that is why he objects to the suffering, and is addressed in such sharp terms. This is a big part of the course... Hope this helps...but please be sympathetic with my dilemma here. My whole life and career has been teaching, responding to questions, and honestly searching for our best understanding of these issues in the field of Christian Origins...Even the way your phrased your query here sounded rude and testy--like hey Dr. Tabor, why are you hiding or whatever. That is totally untrue. And unfair.

[@NHNEU1111]

@@JamesTaborVideos Thank you Dr Tabor! I have a channel too and I understand the difficulties with responding to comments. I didn’t mean to sound rude, I really just wanted to hear your explanation so I guess my approach worked lol. Kidding aside I apologize if I came off rude. I have a channel that’s mostly about the preterist view of eschatology and I find your teachings on the Essenes, Nature of Resurrection and your experience with apocalyptic groups very helpful in my studies. Actually just purchased your book about Paul’s accent to Heaven and am excited to read it! I wish I had time to do one of your courses, maybe someday when I’m not so busy. Thanks again!

[@NHNEU1111]

@@JamesTaborVideos By the way, would love to have you on for a podcast sometime if you would be interested. I know that’s a long shot but I have to try, my audience would definitely appreciate your teachings 😊

[@TheBackyardProfessor]

@@JamesTaborVideos VERY WELL SAID. Thank you for ALL you do for helping educate us. I am using your materials also in my New Testament Commentary series on my show. The thing I absolutely LOVE about your work is the surprising amount of ideas I have not thought of before which you provoke because of the way you approach the Bible. It is always a great experience learning at your might screen (that also is true of your mighty pen - GRIN!

[@pjh3066]

Mark 16:15-16 is why it gets left behind for most people. And Jesus said these Words for all of us to do.

[@GravityBoy72]

Yes... the Catholic Church has dropped that one since 1965. -- "15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." -- Pope Francis has been openly saying that people don't need to believe. 60 years ago he would be kicked out as a heretic. And they think they are credible.

[@KendraAndTheLaw]

That part of Mark was undoubtedly spurious.

[@pjh3066]

@@KendraAndTheLaw that part of Mark is where Jesus told the Apostles how people would be saved. The second part of what he said told how people would be condemned. Pick the part you are willing to Obey.

[@KendraAndTheLaw]

Very thought provoking. Thanks.

[@TheBackyardProfessor]

Tabor is one of my favorite scholars to go to for penetrating insights

[@KendraAndTheLaw]

@@TheBackyardProfessor For sure

[@greywolf850]

You’re misleading people Get behind me satan is in Matthews Gospel and why do you call me good is in Luke’s…. Those are exclusive to Mark… Deuteronomy 19:15 states all matters require 2-3 witnesses so the Bible will follow that principle that’s why there is overlap…. Marks gospel is forgotten because it’s not offering a differing… perspective luke from the doctors view, Matthew the Old Testament and john the miracles and the true of His nature… mark is just the gospel without a differing unique perspective

[@jamesdewane1642]

Nope. Mark is the elegant slam dunk gospel. The others are going through contortions to please audiences for whom Mark was somehow unacceptable.

[@greywolf850]

@james ALL scripture is GOD breathed… useful for teaching, training, correcting in righteousness 1 Timothy 4 - men were instruments, the Holy Spirit wrote the Bible is BREATHEd it research Ivan Panin

[@berglen100]

It is in you as a person that the nature of God is revealed, for a scriptural episode is not a record of an historical event, but a parabolic revelation of truth. To see Jesus or David as an historical character is to see truth tempered to the weakness of your soul. You must see what the characters represent, rather than the characters themselves. This is true for every story in scripture, for every episode will unfold within you.

[@whiteashpiperwhiteashpiper5447]

James,are you familiar w/ Tovia Singer?

[@evropej]

The tomb was empty because they chopped up his body and burned it. This is why the bones are white in the psalms when Jesus is talking. There is no more to Mark because there was nothing more that happened after they killed him. They wrote all the other stories to create a religion. This is why none of them make sense or line up. Jesus said you shall get no signs yet the other gospels are filled with miracles. The disciples never believed and that is why they asked him to show us the father. Peter was satan and he wrote most of the religion of catholicism or christianity as a denomination. He called him satan because he betrayed him, the cock crows twice, st peter square has an obelisk, a penis symbol, kaypha the road where you stumble, stumbling block that makes you fall flat on your face, he is the curse. Habakuk chapter one, what does it say about fishermen? They look to snare people for money, this is why he told Peter go catch me a fish and find money in its mouth. The sea is symbology for gentiles who walk in darkness. Its all symbology folks. There were two messiahs, John and Jesus or Ben Joseph and Ben David. Go on my channel for more details.

[@jrodr7885]

Lol all your teaching are dead wrong... sad

[@evropej]

@@jrodr7885 Your powerful counter argument was so compelling that I have no recourse and I am found speechless. Is it because you cannot hear what I have to say? For those who have an ear, let them hear what the spirit spoke!

[@jrodr7885]

@@evropejare you even in the spirit ? If your not there's no point learning or understanding the scripture. It's not for people that walk on the flesh...

[@evropej]

@@jrodr7885 do you have demon spirit, aka evil person who has lived and has died or a righteous spirit? I dont believe in mysticism. Jesus cured the blind by opening their eyes to the truth, and then the truth will set you free. They could not hear Jesus because they were blinded by religion. He spoke in parables to see if they were using their own head. He drove demons, or evil spirits, or evil ideologies out of people with bread from heaven, or knowledge from heaven,. It is all symbology. When did God give you a piece of bread? LOL Go on my channel and wash your soul lol

[@jrodr7885]

@@evropej why would I have a demon if anything you are the one with an evil spirit by twisting the scriptures to your own understanding ? And I don't need a man to understand the scriptures... if I was in the flesh I would have the need of a man to teach me...

[@jeremikenagy5365]

I prayed to God,I asked to guide me to truth.I then found these videos