The Skeptical Critical Commentary on "Mark"

[Peter Kirby]

spin, speaking of 1 Thessalonians and "non-confessional commentary," Gerd Luedemann recently published exactly that.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Earliest-Chri ... ssalonians

As far as collaborative comment on early Christian texts (and other stuff), that's been my intent for this domain (earlywritings.com). Built on analogy with my previous effort with the Gospel of Thomas:

http://earlychristianwritings.com/thomas/

[JoeWallack]

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.

JW:
Jesus, are you Bingo-the-Clown?

and Bingo he surnamed Harvey Dubish

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[JoeWallack]

sounds great

Is it possible to pre-order the commentary ?

JW:
As that great 20th century philosopher Eric Von Zipper said,

You, I like.

Have not put it together yet. Asking people to pay for it before it's delivered? Meh, too Christian.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[JoeWallack]

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.

JW:
Hi Peter. It's primarily intended for Skeptics. Skeptics don't change the mind of evangelical Christians, fellow evangelicals do. Skeptics can change the mind of Liberal Christians who can change the mind of Progressive Christians who can change the mind of Traditional Christians who can change the mind of Conservative Christians who can change the mind of some evangelical Christians. I think the average Skeptic does not realize what a problem "Mark" is for Christian assertions mainly because of the lack of accessible quality detailed Skeptical commentary. Many Skeptics have bad assumptions about "Mark" because they see the same bad assumption repeated in every commentary they see on "Mark". Skeptics accept that "Mark" was written first so I think it would just be an unnecessary distraction here.

The Legendary Vorkosigan's Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark is great, it's just not a detailed critical commentary. It is what it says it is:

focusing on the historicity of people, places, events, and sayings in the world of the Gospel of Mark. Where pertinent, useful, or just plain interesting, additional information is given

That site would be a valuable reference for my commentary and I would love to have The Legendary Vorkosigan be a contributor to my Commentary, specifically the section for evidence of Fiction.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[JoeWallack]

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.

JW:
What I have in mind for my Skeptical Commentary is development of commentary for at least the first pericope here, online. I see the following sections and related wish list for contributions:

• 1) Textual Criticism (Bart Ehrman = long shot)
  
  2) Summary of Pericope (open)
  
  3) Translation of Verse (Dr. Carrier = he may be interested)
  
  4) Detailed commentary on Verse (open)
  
  5) Search for Evidence of Fiction (Neil Godfree, The Legendary Vorkosigan)
  
  6) Special Section on Irony (Joe Wallack)
  
  7) Discussion of Possible Errors (Joe Wallack)

Electronic Management = Peter Kirby

Resource for possible Semitic references = spin


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[Tenorikuma]

Sounds like a fascinating project.

[JoeWallack]

JW:
I think the first representative pericope to flesh out on a test basis would be Mark 1:9-11:

Mark 1:9-11 [The Baptism of Jesus]

1:9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in the Jordan.

10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens rent asunder, and the Spirit as a dove descending upon him:

11 And a voice came out of the heavens, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased.

Starting with Textual Criticism some questions are:

• 1) To what extent do you inventory Textual Variation?
  
  2) Does this Commentary include commentary on commentaries?

To illustrate the issue of 1), Wieland Willker's online Textual Criticism of "Mark", perhaps the most accessible online tool, contains 1 entry for 1:9-11, the "ἐγένετο" of 1:11:

1096 [e] egeneto ἐγένετο came V-AIM-3S

In print, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (NIGTC), only gives a separate paragraph to the above. It also lists 4 other Textual Variations in one sentence with one explanation, assimilation to "Matthew".

We have issues here of quantity and quality. If a Reader did not know any better (and most readers would not) they would think that either presentation above was a complete list of Textual Variation. It needs to be communicated that there is exponentially more Textual Variation than what has been identified here. These commentaries are filtering the inventory based on what they think is significant.

Regarding quality we have an excellent example here of the problem for a Skeptic of having to rely on what a Believer thinks is significant. Regarding:

10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens rent asunder, and the Spirit as a dove descending upon him:

http://biblehub.com/text/mark/1-10.htm

Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology
2532 [e] kai καὶ And Conj
2112 [e] euthys εὐθὺς immediately Adv
305 [e] anabainōn ἀναβαίνων going up V-PPA-NMS
1537 [e] ek ἐκ from Prep
3588 [e] tou τοῦ the Art-GNS
5204 [e] hydatos ὕδατος water, N-GNS
3708 [e] eiden εἶδεν he saw V-AIA-3S
4977 [e] schizomenous σχιζομένους tearing open V-PPM/P-AMP
3588 [e] tous τοὺς the Art-AMP
3772 [e] ouranous οὐρανοὺς heavens, N-AMP
2532 [e] kai καὶ and Conj
3588 [e] to τὸ the Art-ANS
4151 [e] Pneuma Πνεῦμα Spirit N-ANS
5613 [e] hōs ὡς as Adv
4058 [e] peristeran περιστερὰν a dove N-AFS
2597 [e] katabainon καταβαῖνον descending V-PPA-ANS
1519 [e] eis εἰς upon Prep
846 [e] auton αὐτόν· him. PPro-AM3S

Regarding:

1519 [e] eis εἰς upon Prep

(which is one of the 4 Textual Variations explained by NIGTC as simply assimilation to "Matthew") Bart Ehrman points out in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture the textual variant of "unto" instead of "upon". Ehrman argues that the variant is significant in the context of "orthodox" vs. Gnostic polemics of the time (of the variant) and that "unto" is more likely original.

So, to what extent does a Skeptic filter textual variation based on significance and to what extent does a Skeptic comment on the deficiencies of Believer Commentaries?


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[andrewcriddle]

Most commentaries on ancient texts concentrate on the textual variants that might be original. It is quite legitimate to do a study of textual variants as evidence of a text's reception e.g. variants in the text of Plato as evidence of how Neoplatonists understood and misunderstood Plato. However this is a rather specialized field. I'm doubtful how interested either the typical believer or the typical sceptic would be in this sort of study of Mark.

Andrew Criddle

[spin]

Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology
2532 [e] kai καὶ And Conj
2112 [e] euthys εὐθὺς immediately Adv
305 [e] anabainōn ἀναβαίνων going up V-PPA-NMS
1537 [e] ek ἐκ from Prep
3588 [e] tou τοῦ the Art-GNS
5204 [e] hydatos ὕδατος water, N-GNS
3708 [e] eiden εἶδεν he saw V-AIA-3S
4977 [e] schizomenous σχιζομένους tearing open V-PPM/P-AMP
3588 [e] tous τοὺς the Art-AMP
3772 [e] ouranous οὐρανοὺς heavens, N-AMP
2532 [e] kai καὶ and Conj
3588 [e] to τὸ the Art-ANS
4151 [e] Pneuma Πνεῦμα Spirit N-ANS
5613 [e] hōs ὡς as Adv
4058 [e] peristeran περιστερὰν a dove N-AFS
2597 [e] katabainon καταβαῖνον descending V-PPA-ANS
1519 [e] eis εἰς upon Prep
846 [e] auton αὐτόν· him. PPro-AM3S

For chrissake, Joe, do not use Strongs in public. It's a confessional level tool for the almost utterly ignorant. Seriously, you might be painting the Mona Lisa, but using Strongs is like giving her a few piercings. It would be credibility suicide.

And note that σχιζομένους is functioning as a noun.That's why τους ουρανους is genitive, ie "he saw the tearing of the heavens". (This is where David Bowie got the line in the song All You Pretty Things, "A crack in the sky and a hand reaching down to me".)

Regarding:

1519 [e] eis εἰς upon Prep

(which is one of the 4 Textual Variations explained by NIGTC as simply assimilation to "Matthew") Bart Ehrman points out in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture the textual variant of "unto" instead of "upon". Ehrman argues that the variant is significant in the context of "orthodox" vs. Gnostic polemics of the time (of the variant) and that "unto" is more likely original.

"upon" comes from the textus receptus, which has επ', ie "onto". The notion of εις, ie "into", is strange in English. I'd use "to" to be more accurate without losing English sense.

So, to what extent does a Skeptic filter textual variation based on significance and to what extent does a Skeptic comment on the deficiencies of Believer Commentaries?

[JoeWallack]

Most commentaries on ancient texts concentrate on the textual variants that might be original. It is quite legitimate to do a study of textual variants as evidence of a text's reception e.g. variants in the text of Plato as evidence of how Neoplatonists understood and misunderstood Plato. However this is a rather specialized field. I'm doubtful how interested either the typical believer or the typical sceptic would be in this sort of study of Mark.

Andrew Criddle

JW:
The Skeptic would be more skeptical about what was original. Hence, a broader discussion of Textual Criticism would be more appropriate for a Skeptical commentary. The question here is not whether to have more, but how much more. In addition to considering Textual Criticism based on extant Manuscripts and Patristic quotes, a Skeptical commentary should also consider variation based on general Patristic comments such as Marcion's gospel.

CBS (Christian Bible Scholarship) has mislead the public into thinking that the Canonical Gospels were dominant and relatively unchallenged from the beginning. That needs to be corrected and Ehrman is doing what CBS should have done long ago. For Beowulf, it's not a coincidence that in the process of becoming the greatest Textual Critic the world has ever known, Ehrman went schmad.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki