The Skeptical Critical Commentary on "Mark"

[JoeWallack]

JW:
I'm planning on putting together a Skeptical Critical Commentary on "Mark". The best existing detailed "critical" commentary on "Mark" that I'm aware of is The Gospel of Mark (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 719 pages.

Using this as a guide for a better critical commentary, The Gospel of Mark (New International Greek Testament Commentary) (GMNIGTC) first covers the pericope describing John the Baptist (1:2-8):

1) The discussion begins with Textual Criticism which I think is the correct way to start.

2) Next is a general discussion of the pericope and its relation to surrounding pericopes, "Mark's" related theme, "Mark's" entire Gospel, all the Gospels and the Jewish Bible. The problem is that while the general discussion is informative as an overview the author can not help mixing in theology and the Christian Bible outside of "Mark". This creates a feel of coordination with everything which is misleading. I'm inclined to deflate the general discussion and try to limit commentary to the pericope being analyzed.

3) Next is a detailed commentary by verse. GMNIGTC restricts translation discussion to what it considers controversial translations which is relatively few words. All words should be translated. There are many more translations that a Skeptic would consider controversial compared to a Believer.

4) I would make the translation section separate from the detailed commentary. GMNIGTC's detailed commentary is its biggest problem as it is more "Conservative Christian" than critical. It identifies many issues but mixes theology, apology and speculation into the discussion without identifying that it is doing so. It avoids many issues that should be identified by a critical commentary such as possible errors, Greek instead of Semitic source and evidence of fiction.

5) The next section would be identification of evidence for fiction such as the impossible, implausible, contrived, contradicted, unknown, and paralleled. The GMNIGTC has a default position that every individual pericope is historical with no effort to look for evidence of fiction

6) The last section would be for discussion of possible errors. The GMNIGTC rarely even uses the word "error" and contains more than its share of apologies to try and defend against.

The outline of my Skeptical Critical Commentary on "Mark" would than be by pericope:

• 1) Textual Criticism
  
  2) Summary of Pericope
  
  3) Translation of Verse
  
  4) Detailed commentary on Verse
  
  5) Search for Evidence of Fiction
  
  6) Discussion of Possible Errors

I plan on putting the first Chapter online to see what the reaction is.

So for starters I'm looking for feedback on my proposed outline 1) to 6) above. Everyone is welcome to comment except for Harvey Dubish.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[Blood]

Sounds like a great idea. You're the man to do it.

[stephan happy huller]

I have a question. Clement of Alexandria makes clear in the Letter to Theodore that Mark added mystical elements to the original notes of Peter. Whatever that means might be debatable, but doesn't that also leave open the possibility that Mark's 'real text' is 'debunk-proof'? How do you 'debunk' James Joyce's Ulysses?

It seems to me that Robert Price and the fundamentalists want to push that discovery (Mar Saba 65) to the side so that the battle can be about whether Mark - and thus 'the gospel narrative' as such - is 'literally true.' That's it. The thinking being, if you can debunk the 'literal facts' of the gospel, Christianity is 'disproved' in the same way if Jesus is historical person then Christian is 'rescued' from the mythicists from the POV of the fundamentalists.

But couldn't this be as the proverb says - fighting over the shadow of an ass?

Again this may be unrelated but Mark in the Samaritan tradition in only credited in the Tulida of 'forming wisdom.' Couldn't the Christian Mark have been attempting much the same thing.

And now for a comment which can be ignored by everyone else.

The word in the Tulida spelt bet-dalet-vav-alef-he is an active participle with a definite suffix. The pronunciation of the indefinite is bādo (accented on the first syllable) and the pronunciation of the definite form here is bādū’a (accented on the second syllable). The word spelt dalet-h.et-mem-tav-he means “of wisdom” or “of the wisdom”. The dalet is a prefix. It is pronounced dikmāta (accented on the second syllable).

For those at the forum who might try to argue that the term can mean 'spurious' (something apparently which might be said of the gospel) the connotation of spuriousness in the verb bet-dalet-alef (or he or yod) is not in Western Aramaic. It is only in Eastern Aramaic, i.e. Syriac and Jewish Babylonian Aramaic. (It is not attested in Mandaean). In Jewish Palestinian Aramaic it can only mean original invention. This includes made up situations or words for the sake of explaining an argument. I've had another look at Jastrow’s examples. (Note that his example from Yerushalmi Megillah does not mean what he reads into it. It does not say the Latin translation was spurious, but rather that it was a new translation without reference to previous translations). In Samaritan Aramaic there is never any bad connotation. It still has its primary meaning of metalworking and other craftwork, but always with the connotation of originality. It is the verb used for the divinely inspired work of Bezalel in crafting the Tabernacle under Moses’s direction on the model of the Heavenly Tabernacle.

Here is an example from Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, not known to Jastrow. Num 16:28 especially significant if we read the verse in context. Moses says he did not make the Torah up himself. A marginal variant in Targum Neofiti uses this verb, not with any connotation of spuriousness, but instead with the connotation that such originality was beyond the ability of Moses. In Jewish Palestinian Aramaic it also means to make intelligible. There is alternation in Western Aramaic between the roots bet-dalet-yod and vav-dalet-yod. (Note by Ben-Hayyim in his edition of the Tîbat Marqe).

The point I am making I guess is one man's 'creativity' is another man's spuriousness. But aren't we aren't we just assuming the fundamentalists are right as a pretext to clubbing them over the head? What if the fundamentalists are wrong, what if the literalists are wrong and have always been wrong? What then?

One more note. Though all mss. of the Tulida have the verb bet-dalet-he (or yod), it should be borne in mind that dalet and resh are very similar in shape not only in Jewish script but also in the original Hebrew script (Samaritan), and bet-resh-he (or yod) means to create. An original wording with this verb is not impossible.

In Florentin’s critical edition of the Tulida with notes the Hebrew word [bore] bet-vav-RESH-alef meaning “creator” is given by Florentin as the nearest Hebrew equivalent to the exact meaning of the Aramaic term.

[stephan happy huller]

I guess my point is, what's not to love about Mark? Why he bad? Why he not genius? I look at all you've said and for the very same reasons I might say 'what's a genius' (other than the usual - Christians bad, Jews good, Mark was Christian so he bad - logic). Again, I would like to hear, why isn't the gospel of Mark, even in its present corrupt form, a work of genius? It's very hard to write a book, then it is much harder still to write a book that people actually read, harder again to write a book that people take seriously, and then finally impossible to get the kind of traction that Mark did from his little codex. Again, what's not to love? Why isn't there love for Mark's abilities as a writer, inventor, craftsman etc. Mark's gospel is quite a complex literary text. Deceptively simple.

Someone once said 'simplicity is the ultimate complexity' or something like that. True.

[Bingo]

JW:
The best existing detailed "critical" commentary on "Mark" that I'm aware of is The Gospel of Mark (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 719 pages.

Imho Michael A. Turton's Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark kicks incredible ass; and I’ll be very surprised if you can do anything that comes remotely close to it.

[Bingo]

Sorry to be so negative.

But deal with it.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

sounds great

Is it possible to pre-order the commentary ?

[Peter Kirby]

Joe, if this is meant as something of a broadside against evangelical Christians (as part of the audience), then I do suggest including a chapter on the priority of Mark. Matthew-first hypotheses are popular enough with the evangelical crowd that you will invite reviews that criticize this assumption and dismiss the rest, otherwise.

Turton's thing is great, Bingo. I've asked him when he might turn it into a book. (It's not clear that he will.) Can there be a market for two commentaries on Mark from skeptics? In a perfect world, yes.

[spin]

Just on the side, how about setting up a workshop to build a non-confessional commentary on a book, ie not a "skeptical" commentary, but a commentary free of religious tendency? The aim would be for understanding what it says, how it says it, what it does, etc. If such a process could be possible, it would best start with something small, such as 1 Thessalonians and, if we could get through that, we could get more ambitious. It could be a multi-commentary, when there are things we cannot resolve, and provide a majority and minority view when necessary. (Minority probably shouldn't indicate an individual view. If, say, I can't curry any support for an analysis, that might be a useful indication.) We slowly work through a text to see what it says, everyone free to comment constructively, then collate it.

[stephan happy huller]

Great idea. Really great idea.