The Skeptical Critical Commentary on "Mark"

[JoeWallack]

to JW,

Here, verse 9.

The primary themes of our test pericope in order of importance:

1) Jesus is identified as God's son

2) This is a divine identification

3) The baptism is a transitional moment for Jesus

4) The identification is only witnessed by Jesus

Now I'll list what I consider to be the primary themes of "Mark" in order of significance:

1) Jesus was rejected in his time

2) Jesus was rejected by his own disciples

3) What was significant about Jesus was his suffering, not his ministry

4) Jesus post baptism and pre-death was the son of God

5) Belief in Jesus is based on faith and not evidence

Matching consideration:

Pericope theme -

1) Jesus is identified as God's son = Matches Markan primary theme 4).

2) This is a divine identification = Matches Markan primary theme 5).

3) The baptism is a transitional moment for Jesus = Matches Markan primary theme 4).

4) The identification is only witnessed by Jesus = Matches Markan primary theme 5).

So the pericope as a whole has strong matches to overall primary themes of "Mark". Note here that lack of matching to the first 3 overall themes of "Mark", rejection and suffering, is understandable as the baptism is at the start of Jesus career, where he would not yet be rejected or suffer.

And what does that have to do with Mk 1:9?
"And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan."

Cordially, Bernard

JW:
? You did not quote my related explanation which is immediately before what you quoted. That makes you look like a troll. You get one more here Bernard.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[Bernard Muller]

to JW,

I never noticed your weakness in English before

I take that as a compliment. But I notice that weakness all the time.

1) This criterion, 3 - The extent of the improbable, is just one criterion. It is in the general category of Literary Criticism. In terms of evidential value, Literary Criticism is secondary to Source Criticism. If Sources (here mainly the Gospels) support history, such as the supposed Baptism, than a single Literary Criticism criterion such as the extent of the improbable, has little potential by itself to counter the weight of the Sources. If the only criteria we used here were Sources and the extent of the improbable, since Sources only support Baptism and the improbable here is not all that improbable, the conclusion would clearly be history.

2) This criterion is based on simple math. If a majority of the subject population likely would have not done what the narrative describes, than the criterion has weight. How much weight depends on the math. If there is evidence for a description of "a lot", supporting the narrative, which I think there is here, than this criterion has little weight against historicity.

That's a lot of confusing & vague semantics with little substance. And you avoid to address my criticism head on:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=370&start=90#p9296

However your summary is very clear-cut:

1) Jesus is baptized. = Improbable

2) Jesus is baptized by John = Improbable

3) Jesus is baptized in the Jordan. = Probable

4) Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee to the baptism = Improbable

Maybe you have your own definition of "improbable"? Also, your logic looks very strange when you have "Jesus is baptized" as improbable but "Jesus is baptized in the Jordan" as probable. How can you reconcile the two?

I suppose the explanation is in, as you put it, "the finer points".

So the evidence of Josephus is that John the Baptist was executed in 36 CE, well after the time indicated by the gospels

Again, your conclusion is very affirmative. But it is based on self-avowed incertitude:
I quote you (bolding mine):

"When, exactly, does Josephus state that John arose?
He is not at all clear, as is often the case for events that occurred before his time. Even when Josephus is precise about dates he can frequently shown to be somewhat off (as when he gives the length of the reigns of Roman emperors).

So any conclusions about John from this passage must be taken cum grano salis.

Having said that, it does appear that Josephus is giving John's death as occurring in 36 CE,

Herod's battle with Aretas appears to have broken out soon after Herod's first wife, Aretas's daughter, left him. If so,

So when did Herod marry Herodias? The only hint Josephus gives is that the pair first met when Herod was on his way to Rome, but unfortunately the only such journey we know about was when Herod visited Augustus to receive his inheritance in 6 CE. This is not very helpful.

I reviewed the whole issue in that blog post:
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p91.htm
saying that the dating of 35-36 CE is based on wrong assumptions and there are ample evidence it was much earlier.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to JW,

JW:
? You did not quote my related explanation which is immediately before what you quoted. That makes you look like a troll. You get one more here Bernard.

The point I was making is that all your items on your list have nothing to do with Mk 1:9.
What about your explanation preceding my quote?

We have already determined that verses 10 and 11 are fiction due to the extent of the impossible. The question arises, is there reason to test them for other fiction criteria? If verses 10 and 11 do test positive here for other fiction criteria that will not make the conclusion any more fiction (at least not in the real world) for those verses. However, due to the extent that the pericope as a whole tests positive for other fiction criteria, that does increase the evidential weight here for a conclusion of likely fiction for the remaining possible verse.

Again semantics and no substance. I agree that verses 10 & 11 are fiction but that does not prevent 1:9 to be truthful. After all 10 & 11 contains mythical claims but 1:9 does not. You cannot assume that fiction in two verses extend also to the preceding verse.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to JW,

3) CBS tries to pick off and dismiss these types of Literary Criticism criteria that weigh against historicity one at a time. The son of Mantra is "It's possible, not impossible, so it does not prove fiction and therefore can be ignored". It does not prove fiction and it may be little weight for fiction but it's still evidence and needs to be weighed. There is also the consideration of the usage of the improbable. If the author is consistently putting the subject, so to speak, in the improbable situation, than the sum of the improbable may be greater than the subject's parts.

I do not see anything wrong with ""It's possible, not impossible, so it does not prove fiction".
Note: but anything (humanly & physically) possible is not necessarily true. For example, many atheists accept Jesus spoke in parables and was an itinerant teacher, because that does not involve anything divine or extraordinary. But according to the evidence, I discarded these possibilities. As you wrote: "but it's still evidence and needs to be weighed".

However your theory about the improbable does not make any sense, at least in the way you apply it. I demonstrated that already, through some examples, on which I got no reply from you.

Cordially, Bernard

[JoeWallack]

Mark 1:9-11 is being abused here in a nauseating manner by Mr. Walter Mitty .

It is substandard material: repetitive and dumb

JW:
Oh, I think this Thread became the best critical commentary ever on the supposed Baptism some time ago.

You've been told before that this isn't the place to make up shit. If you want to make up shit go to Tweeb where there is virtually no scholarship and attitude is a substitute for research. Say hi to Jugless, Steven Avery, Muhammed, JP Holding and Lonnie when you get there. I'm sure you'll have lots to talk about.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[spin]

2) Jesus is baptized by John. "Mark" appears to have written the original baptism story

This is [lacking in rhyme and reason—can't think of a more neutral way of putting it], Joe.

First, you use this strange agent "Mark", whatever that means. The thread title also talks about a commentary on "Mark". Despite putting Mark in quotes you use it to mean both an agent and an object (the gospel), so there is no reason to use the quotes at all, as no significance is added and the ambiguity is maintained.

And there is no evidence on which to claim that this '"Mark"' wrote anything of the sort—given that you have a collection of traditions you are trying to analyze. You (we) have no way of knowing how much of those traditions entered the collection.

[JoeWallack]

2) Jesus is baptized by John. "Mark" appears to have written the original baptism story

This is [lacking in rhyme and reason—can't think of a more neutral way of putting it], Joe.

JW:
But at least you're trying.

First, you use this strange agent "Mark", whatever that means. The thread title also talks about a commentary on "Mark". Despite putting Mark in quotes you use it to mean both an agent and an object (the gospel), so there is no reason to use the quotes at all, as no significance is added and the ambiguity is maintained.

JW:
In the context of Literary Criticism "Mark" generally would mean the object. In the context of Source Criticism "Mark" would generally mean the agent. However, that you are confused by my related usage is a fact. As you know, in related discussions "Mark" is used to recognize that despite the assertions of CBS, sorry, Christian Bible scholarship, the evidence indicates that the author is likely unknown. "Mark" is also used interchangeably to refer to agent and object. I have faith though that without trying too hard one could find where I have presented ambiguous use here, especially to someone coming in looking at a few/one post/one excerpt. So from now on:

• "Mark" = author/agent
  
  G-Mark = narrative/object

And there is no evidence on which to claim that this '"Mark"' wrote anything of the sort—given that you have a collection of traditions you are trying to analyze. You (we) have no way of knowing how much of those traditions entered the collection.

JW:
You are talking Source Criticism here and I'm still on Literary Criticism. Looking forward though I think we disagree on whether "Mark" (author/agent) wrote the original baptism narrative. There is no quality evidence either way so either conclusion is a weak one. There is literally (so to speak), no evidence of any prior baptism narrative. The only significant Christian author before "Mark" (author/agent) is Paul. Paul has no mention of Jesus being baptized. Paul does describe baptism of believers into Jesus' belief as significant. This suggests that a baptism narrative of Jesus being baptized is anachronistic. The subsequent Gospels use G-Mark's' baptism as a base with edits consistent with Literary Criticism explanations, also suggesting no baptism story source prior to G-Mark. Likewise, Literary Criticism provides good explanations as to how "Mark" expanded the basic "Jesus was baptized" story.

So the evidence is relatively weak here, but it all suggests no prior baptism story. That is my conclusion but it is merely a more likely than not conclusion which I would put little weight on due to the heavy uncertainty of any conclusion.

In the big picture here, just like Christ Walking needing more Cowbell I got a fever for Skeptical critical commentary of the Christian Bible and the only cure is more criteria.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[Mental flatliner]

JW:
I'm planning on putting together a Skeptical Critical Commentary on "Mark".
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.

Potential problems:

1--You don't appear to be attempting to amplify Mark with a Jewish perspective. In every Gentile analysis I've ever read (yes, not a single exception), this is the first place I always find errors. The cultural gap can't be ignored. There's far too much room for misunderstanding.
2--Beginning an analysis on the premise that Mark is not an historical document is wrong and unfounded.
3--Beginning an analysis on the premise that Mark is an historical document is also wrong and unfounded. (This problem underlies any potential analysis and has to be addressed.)
4--You don't appear to be attempting to identify the writer and analyze from his (or her) point of view, which is by far the only one that matters.
5--I don't see anything in your analysis that addresses context. What decade do you plan to place the writing of Mark, how did the place and date of writing affect or influence the writer, and how can this kind of context not be analyzed if it impacts the gospel's outcome?

I've seen people make grave errors and literally fall off the deep end of the intellectual pool simply because they don't give an historical text a chance to speak for itself, in its own time, in its own language and tell a story in its own way.

By this, I mean you first have to frame the gospel of Mark as Jewish, written by a Hebrew/Aramaic speaker, by a person educated and informed by Judaism, in the years 27-30 AD, during the Roman period, influenced by events in Judea and Galilee (since this is what the gospel claims to be). Every step away from this context has to be academically justified.

[spin]

...

Potential problems:

1--You don't appear to be attempting to amplify Mark with a Jewish perspective. In every Gentile analysis I've ever read (yes, not a single exception), this is the first place I always find errors. The cultural gap can't be ignored. There's far too much room for misunderstanding.

Why do you want to inject this assertion into the analysis of the text? How valid is your notion of "a Jewish perspective"? How do you establish such in relation to the text?

2--Beginning an analysis on the premise that Mark is not an historical document is wrong and unfounded.
3--Beginning an analysis on the premise that Mark is an historical document is also wrong and unfounded. (This problem underlies any potential analysis and has to be addressed.)

You need to work with what can be eked out of it rather than working from notions such as historical and not historical.

4--You don't appear to be attempting to identify the writer and analyze from his (or her) point of view, which is by far the only one that matters.

You seem to be working under the assumption that there is only one writer. It may be so, but how would you know? How can one read the mind of this lone writer? All we can do is try to understand what the text says in as much context as we can reclaim.

5--I don't see anything in your analysis that addresses context. What decade do you plan to place the writing of Mark, how did the place and date of writing affect or influence the writer, and how can this kind of context not be analyzed if it impacts the gospel's outcome?

Analyzing the content of the gospel will hopefully yield some clues as to its time of writing. Though that is dangerous, you have no other way of getting to a dating.

I've seen people make grave errors and literally fall off the deep end of the intellectual pool simply because they don't give an historical text a chance to speak for itself, in its own time, in its own language and tell a story in its own way.

Then give Joe a chance to get there, rather than posting your whinging.

By this, I mean you first have to frame the gospel of Mark as Jewish, written by a Hebrew/Aramaic speaker, by a person educated and informed by Judaism, in the years 27-30 AD, during the Roman period, influenced by events in Judea and Galilee (since this is what the gospel claims to be). Every step away from this context has to be academically justified.

I can agree with one point, "during the Roman period". All the rest is conjecture.

[JoeWallack]

JW:
After thinking about this for a few years I still think that what the world needs now more than anything else (besides cowbell of course) is a Skeptical Critical Commentary on GMark. In the classic The Name of the Rose instead of looking for Aristotle's lost Poetics book on Comedy they should have been looking for Origen's lost Commentary on GMark.

You can peruse the earlier part of this unholy Thread to get some background. I now think the order of topics in the Commentary should be as follows:

• 1) Textual Criticism
  
  2) Translation of Verse
  
  3) Summary of Pericope
  
  4) Relationship to Surrounding Pericopes
  
  5) Relationship to GMark as a Whole
  
  6) Detailed Commentary on Verse
  
  7) Search for Evidence of Fiction
  
  8) Special Section on Irony
  
  9) Discussion of Possible Errors

This will be Skepticism's Christmas present to the world. As far as where to start let's follow the advice of one Sherlock Holmes and start our investigation at the beginning:

1:1

Strong's	Transliteration	Greek	English	Morphology
746 [e]	Archē	Ἀρχὴ	[The] beginning	N-NFS
3588 [e]	tou	τοῦ	of the	Art-GNS
2098 [e]	euangeliou	εὐαγγελίου	gospel	N-GNS
2424 [e]	Iēsou	Ἰησοῦ	of Jesus	N-GMS
5547 [e]	Christou	Χριστοῦ	Christ,	N-GMS
5207 [e]	Huiou	Υἱοῦ	Son	N-GMS
2316 [e]	Theou	Θεοῦ.	of God.	N-GMS

Let's use Laparola to identify Textual Variation keeping in mind that there is exponentially more Textual Variation than what Laparola has identified but Laparola has made a reasonable effort to omit variation lacking in quality (such as minor spelling).

The only significant Textual Variation here is Υἱοῦ Θεοῦ (son of god). Before we dig into text excavation here let me point out that Textual Criticism conclusion is dependent on the related methodology. Generally, for Skeptical Textual Criticism The Difficult Reading Principle is the most important/dominant criteria. I'm going to assign the Difficult Reading Principle 5 different levels of weight depending on the degree of difficulty:

• 5 = Negative description of Jesus. Example would be 1:41, an angry Jesus.
  
  4 = Significant problem for Christian assertion. Example would be 16:8, no narrative of historical communication with a resurrected Jesus.
  
  3 = Contradiction with Christian/Jewish Bible. Example would be 1:2, entire quote attributed to Isaiah.
  
  2 = Clear preference for one candidate where the meanings are similar. Example would be 1:10, "upon" rather than "into".
  
  1 = Minor preference for one candidate due to improved accuracy/coordination. Example would be 1:4, "John the Baptizer" vs. "John baptizing".

Of course the weightier the difficulty here the less evidence from other criterion is needed to carry the conclusion.

So, Gentlewomen, start your Polemic search engines. (The) Thread is now open for Textual Criticism of 1:1, to be "son of god" or not to be "son of god", that is the (initial) question. Categories of evidence are as follows in order of importance:

• The Difficult Reading Principle
  
  Internal evidence
  
  External evidence
  
  • Patristic
    
    Scribal
    
    Manuscripts
    
    Authority

Everyone is welcome to comment except Harvey Dubish


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism