The Skeptical Critical Commentary on "Mark"

[spin]

I see a tiny sigma at the end of the word ημεραιϲ above it, and another tiny sigma at the end of γαλιλαιαϲ below it.

This is certainly correct. They appear frequently, only at the ends of line (ultimate or penultimate letter), so they are not corrections (one would expect them not only at ends of lines). (There are some insertions which are corrections in the text of Codex Sinaiticus, see the 12th line below "Naza-" for ΕΓΕΝΕΤΟ.) Even the alpha at the end of the line of the supplied page with "Naza-" is reduced. But they stop after about 12 lines....

[spin]

"Theories are all right sometimes. ... and sometimes just stirring things up is all right ... and keep your eyes open so you'll see what you want when it comes to the top.”

And this is what I really like to do here and I don't go any further.

That's fine for you. I have been dealing with this stuff for many years, as I'm sure that some members will be unhappy to note.

You are really unfair, spin. You know that my English is stupid and out of the context you must know that I speak here about the texts and not about this forum. It´s a thing, that I will not forget, spin. Have a nice day.

I don't understand what you are saying in relation to my previous comment. I noted that I have been dealing with the Nazareth issue for years and that some members have probably had enough of me doing so.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Apologies, I misunderstood you and will delete my post.

[JoeWallack]

The little Markings you are referring to are not part of the text. If you pay Peter something he may be willing to remove your post before many people see it.

I see a tiny sigma at the end of the word ημεραιϲ above it, and another tiny sigma at the end of γαλιλαιαϲ below it. What on earth do you mean, those aren't part of the text?

JW:
Hey Peter, do you have a ten for 2 twenties?:

http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manus ... omSlider=0



JW:
On the row above "NAZA" the last word on the right is HMEPAIc.

In small the word is:

http://biblehub.com/text/mark/1-9.htm

2250[e]--hēmerais--ἡμέραις--days,--N-DFP

In caps, the scribe's sigma is "C" and the midget letter at the end of "HMEPAIc" does look like a miniature "C". So, right letter and right position = part of the text. So in this part of the page, the ending alpha, while smaller than the rest of the same line, is actually larger than the ending letters of the surrounding lines.

It does look like and it is commonly thought that this scribe traced what you can barely see is faded underneath. Why the little letters? To try and keep the original margins? Style? One letter (or two) was added in the row? And when it stops, different scribe?


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[JoeWallack]

JW:
Summary of the pericope:

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.

JW:
Now let's consider the relationship of these verses to "Mark" as a whole:

• 1) What is the explicit point of the verse
  
  2) What is the implicit point of the verse
  
  3) To what extent do the points here agree with the broad points of "Mark"

Verse	Translation	Explicit Point	Relation of Explicit Point to the Rest of "Mark"	Implicit Point	Relation of Implicit Point to the Rest of "Mark"
9	And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in the Jordan.	Jesus was baptized by John	No clear explicit connection	Jesus was ordinary before the baptism	Agrees with overall theme that Jesus was and was seen as ordinary before the baptism
10	And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens rent asunder, and the Spirit as a dove descending upon him:	Jesus receives The Spirit of God	Agrees with the overall theme that post baptism Jesus possesses the Spirit of God	If an ordinary Jesus could receive the Spirit of God than any ordinary person could	Agrees with the rest of "Mark" where Jesus explains and provides formulas for how to be like him
11	And a voice came out of the heavens, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased	Identification of Jesus as God's son	Agrees with a primary theme of "Mark" that Jesus is God's son	If an ordinary Jesus could receive God's spirit and become God's son than any ordinary person could receive God's spirit and become a son of God	Per the rest of "Mark" the goal of Jesus' followers is to be a son of God but Jesus is still the Son of God

Note that comments regarding the Implicit are more subjective than comments regarding the Explicit.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[JoeWallack]

JW:
Moving forward with an analysis of 1:9-11 I think I will next look for evidence of fiction before doing a detailed commentary. The starting point for evidence of fiction in "Mark" is of course the Legendary Vorkosigan:

Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark Chapter 1

and the Vorkmeister's related conclusion on the offending pericope:

In sum, looking at the overall dependence of the pericope on the OT at both the structural and detail levels, the presence of the supernatural, the lack of external witnesses to the story, and the contradiction by later sources that picture John and Jesus as heads of rival sects, there is no support for any relationship between Jesus and John in the Gospel of Mark.

Vork does not formally state his criteria for evidence of fiction but based on his conclusion they would be as follows:

• 1) Parallels to non-historical literature
  
  2) Presence of the impossible
  
  3) Lack of confirmation
  
  4) Contradiction

I've developed my own list of criteria to use in searching for evidence of fiction and have rightly divided as follows:

1) Likelihood

• 1 - The extent of the impossible
  
  2 - The extent of contradictions
  
  3 - The extent of the improbable

2) Literary

• 1 - The extent of contrivance
  
  • a - Thematic motivation
    
    b - Necessity of tying to other stories
    
    c - Style, such as irony
  2 - Parallels in potential sources
  
  3 - Similarity in language
  
  • • a "Mark" as a whole
      
      b Specific story
  4 - Common Themes
  
  5 - Unusual choices of words/phrases to get closer to subject

3) Lack of confirmation


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[JoeWallack]

JW:
Looking for evidence of fiction with the first criterion:

1) Likelihood

• 1 - The extent of the impossible

First a note. In the Scientific world, when a possible witness testifies the impossible, it is assumed that they are either lying or at least not telling the truth (we don't need to get into an argument here about defining "impossible" since the fallback "the most likely explanation is that there was nothing impossible" is close enough to "it was not the impossible"). To the extent a possible witness testifies the impossible, their general credibility is impeached and potentially all of their witness is impeached. When a witness is impeached due to claims of the impossible it is not necessarily taken as evidence that their possible claims are false. For starters their claims of the impossible only impeach them as witnesses for their claims of the possible. The extent of the claims of the impossible and their relative significance to the testimony as a whole will potentially provide evidence that the related claims of the possible are false.

Nota Benedictine - CBS, primarily consisting of Believers, generally is officially neutral as to the possibility of the Christian Bible's impossible claims. This is not Science, this is theology. In an irony that I think the author of "Mark" would really appreciate, if you think here that the impossible claims of the Christian Bible are possible/true than your credibility as to conclusions regarding the Christian Bible is impeached and you could not be cited as an authority for any related conclusion. In order to properly understand "Mark" you first have to understand that most of it could not possibly be true.

Practically, Apologists posture that because (so they say) the possible claims of the Christian Bible have been accurately transmitted, the implication is that the impossible claims have as well. Skeptics tend to say something to the reverse, because the impossible claims of the Christian Bible have not been accurately transmitted, the implication is that the possible claims have not either. So who is right in general. Well, Skeptics of course, but to what extent? To the extent the impossible claims are significant to the testimony/story.

We've seen the Legendary Vorkosigan conclude that a specific story in the Christian Bible is likely complete fiction due to the extent of the impossible in the story but have you ever seen a major Christian Bible commentary make the same conclusion? I have not. Apologists/CBS invoke the E word here "embellishment", just because there is embellishment does not prove there is no historical core and embellishment is common in historical testimony. All true, but not a reason not to try and measure the extent of the significance of the impossible/embellishment and consider it as possible evidence against any historical core, rather than ignore the issue in total.

So, for our test pericope here, Mark 1:9-11, what is the extent of the impossible:

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.

JW:
What are the main points here in order of significance?:

• 1) Jesus receives divine recognition.
  
  • 1 - Heavens rent
    
    2 - Spirit descends unto
    
    3 - Voice from Heaven
    
    4 - Divine approval
  2) Jesus is baptized.
  
  3) Jesus is baptized by John.
  
  4) Jesus is baptized in the Jordan.
  
  5) Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee to the baptism.

Regarding the impossible, qualitatively, the main point is that Jesus receives divine recognition which is impossible. Points 2-5 I count as all possible. Quantitatively, 2 of the 3 verses consist of the impossible and specifically 4 of the 8 points above consist of the impossible. Certainly this is enough all by itself to doubt the history of the offending pericope in total, but is it enough by itself to conclude it likely that it is all fiction? On to the next criterion to test for evidence of fiction.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[neilgodfrey]

Might one be allowed to conclude that without #1 points #2 to #5 are so banal as to be pointless. Is not the point of Mark's pericope the impossibility of #1? Without that the baptism of Jesus has no special meaning at all. It is not the introduction of a new movement or career. It is no different from the baptisms of Aaron, Abel and Adam. It might be deemed "impossible" that anyone would bother to write about such a prosaic event -- unless one is the proud parent of Aaron, Abel or Adam.

[JoeWallack]

Might one be allowed to conclude that without #1 points #2 to #5 are so banal as to be pointless. Is not the point of Mark's pericope the impossibility of #1? Without that the baptism of Jesus has no special meaning at all. It is not the introduction of a new movement or career. It is no different from the baptisms of Aaron, Abel and Adam. It might be deemed "impossible" that anyone would bother to write about such a prosaic event -- unless one is the proud parent of Aaron, Abel or Adam.

Stay on Target


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

But the Sinaiticus has no problems with all variations. Therefore you can´t reduced all variations as scribal inventions.

The codices are collections of texts.

Larry Hurtado blogged about an interesting article by Peter Malik, “The Earliest Corrections in Codex Sinaiticus: A Test Case From the Gospel of Mark,”