The Skeptical Critical Commentary on "Mark"

[spin]

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,”

Downloaded this and it looks great. Hope to find sufficient time to read it.

[bcedaifu]

Thank you very much for posting this link, well done.

The article is fascinating, and I have just read the first couple of pages. He makes the point that the quality of the images is superior from the web site in Muenster, and I doubted his opinion, but, checking it, reveals that he is absolutely correct:
http://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/manuscript-workspace

I am going to be very curious to learn how anyone can figure out which corrections came first. He has stated, already in the first couple of pages that someone, including him, knows which scribe worked on the document initially. What method enables such certitude?

I am filled with doubt.

At least the text of Mark's gospel, seen at the Codex Sinaiticus web site, itself, appears to have been recopied in toto. I don't find that surprising, given the age of the manuscript. However, to assert that the main text of Mark, would require recopying, due to fading of the ink over many, many centuries, and, further, to then claim that this process of fading of the ink would NOT affect the scribal notations/corrections/additions, makes no sense to me.

In other words, I doubt that one can claim, with any degree of logic, that while the text itself required recopying, because that ink had faded, the ink used by the various scribes, inserting their small comments and revision notes, did not require recopying. Such a claim strikes me as utterly absurd. But, then, if these scribal notes, used to assess the revision history, have themselves been subjected to modification/recopying, how can one be sure of the genealogy of these comments? How do we know that the scribal notes had not been corrupted?

[JoeWallack]

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

1) Likelihood

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

For our test pericope here, Mark 1:9-11, what is the extent of contradiction:

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:
As we have already determined that verses 10 and 11 are fiction due to the extent of the impossible, there is no need to test them for contradiction. That leaves verse 9.

The main points of verse 9 in order of significance:

• 1) Jesus is baptized.
  
  2) Jesus is baptized by John.
  
  3) Jesus is baptized in the Jordan.
  
  4) Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee to the baptism.

Regarding 1) Jesus is baptized, CBS generally takes this as Gospel, that Jesus being baptized is a fact. Is there any contradiction?:

• 1 - "Matthew" is explicit that Jesus was baptized (reluctantly)
  
  2 - "Luke" is explicit that Jesus was baptized (as was the group)

"John"?:

John 1

28 These things were done in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

29 On the morrow he seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world!

30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man who is become before me: for he was before me.

31 And I knew him not; but that he should be made manifest to Israel, for this cause came I baptizing in water.

32 And John bare witness, saying, I have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven; and it abode upon him.

33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize in water, he said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon him, the same is he that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit.

34 And I have seen, and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.

JW:
"John" is not explicit that Jesus was baptized. "John" has implications both ways, that Jesus was baptized and that Jesus was not baptized. If a reader was familiar with the synoptics they probably would think that per "John" Jesus was baptized. If a reader was only going by "John" they probably would not think Jesus was baptized. Not significant contradiction at this point but enough for a Skeptic to doubt the Baptism is a fact.

Orthodox Christian Patristics would also all agree that Jesus was baptized and this is normally the extent of CBS inquiry. But what about non-orthodox Christianity? Marcion's brand of Christianity believed Jesus just descended from the sky and started his Ministry with no baptism. According to the orthodox Marcion was a major competitor to the orthodox and based on extant evidence Marcion is a witness before "John". Justin Martyr, mid second century, is familiar with Marcion and even thinks of him as an old-timer but does not appear to be familiar with the bulk of "John". Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons"), late second century, tells us that Marcion's brand of Gnostic Christianity goes back well before Marcion. There is plenty of orthodox Patristic claim that "John" was written before Marcion and Marcion's brand, but this testimony all claims that the author was a disciple of Jesus which is not credible.

So in summary, regarding possible contradiction that Jesus was baptized:

• 1) No contradiction from "Matthew"/"Luke" (although they use "Mark" as a base and seem to be dependent).
  
  2) Uncertainty from "John" (who appears to downgrade use of "Mark" from base to frame).
  
  3) Contradiction from Marcion. His version of "Luke" had no baptism and there is uncertainty regarding who's version of "Luke" was first.

There is contradiction than that Jesus was baptized. How much depends on how much weight you assign to Marcion. Note that the strength of contradiction increases with time:

• 1) "Mark" = Clearly baptized
  
  2) "Matthew" = Baptized but didn't enjoy it
  
  3) "Luke" = Competing versions with and without baptism
  
  4) "John" = Not saying he did, not saying he didn't. Just sayin.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

a little question about Simon of Cyrene

Mark 15:21

"And they compelled a passerby, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus ..."

"Καὶ ἀγγαρεύουσιν παράγοντά τινα Σίμωνα Κυρηναῖον ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ, τὸν πατέρα Ἀλεξάνδρου καὶ Ῥούφου ..."

It seems a little bit unusual that the phrase "who was coming in from the country" stand in the midst between "Simon of Cyrene" and "the father of Alexander and Rufus". I would expect, that "Simon of Cyrene" and "the father of Alexander and Rufus" are not separated.

Am I wrong here? I know, there are a lot of theories about the names of the sons. But first I would like to know, whether this separation of Simon`s name and of closer description ("the father of ...") is uncommon or not?

[JoeWallack]

a little question about Simon of Cyrene

Mark 15:21

"And they compelled a passerby, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus ..."

"Καὶ ἀγγαρεύουσιν παράγοντά τινα Σίμωνα Κυρηναῖον ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ, τὸν πατέρα Ἀλεξάνδρου καὶ Ῥούφου ..."

It seems a little bit unusual that the phrase "who was coming in from the country" stand in the midst between "Simon of Cyrene" and "the father of Alexander and Rufus". I would expect, that "Simon of Cyrene" and "the father of Alexander and Rufus" are not separated.

Am I wrong here? I know, there are a lot of theories about the names of the sons. But first I would like to know, whether this separation of Simon`s name and of closer description ("the father of ...") is uncommon or not?

JW:
You are jumping ahead to the criterion of contrivance. It seems like quite a coincidence that Simon, who just lost his name of Peter, is going out from Jerusalem to the country, while Simon, who will carry Jesus' cross, is coming from the country to Jerusalem from an author who has explicit themes of family replacement and switching (first/last).

The above does make me fear though that regarding Daniel Wallace's 1st century fragment of "Mark" debacle he has "good news" and bad news. The good news is that it really is a first century fragment of "Mark". The bad news is that the fragment says "Σίμωνα κύριός" instead of "Σίμωνα Κυρηναῖον". At what point did Wallace lose all credibility in appearance? After 1 year, 2, immediately? A CBS signs a confidentiality agreement with a fundamentalist. If the fundamentalist decides disclosure will support Christian assertion, the fundamentalist gives the CBS perMission. If the fundamentalist decides that disclosure will hurt Christian assertion than no permission is given. Is this ethical?:

Leave it to Believer

• Wally: Boy, you've done it now Believer. Wait till the Father gets home.
  
  Believer: Well Moses Wally, I guess I kind of messed up, huh.
  
  Eddie Hellskill: Why don't you just kill it Believer?

Bonus material for Solo = Look up the meaning of the name "Simon" and comParable to the key parable of "Mark".


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Thank you very much, Joe. I'm sure it is very helpful for me.

I searched a couple of hours but can't find an old greek phrase like in Mark 15:21, separating "name" and "family relations" through an adverb clause (Don´t know whether "adverb clause" is correct?).

[JoeWallack]

Thank you very much, Joe. I'm sure it is very helpful for me.

I searched a couple of hours but can't find an old greek phrase like in Mark 15:21, separating "name" and "family relations" through an adverb clause (Don´t know whether "adverb clause" is correct?).

Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except for Me and My Messianic Secret

JW:
A digression for now, but an interesting one. For that matter, what other ancient identified characters by their children instead of their father? A literary technique straight from Aristotle's Poetics I think regarding "strange" language to make drama more dramatic. As they say, "They don't write em like they used to".

Specifically, regarding the offending phrase

And they compel one passing by, Simon of Cyrene, coming from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to go [with them], that he might bear his cross.

I have faith that our own Neal Godfree is on the right path to explanation:

Why is Peter’s Brother, Andrew, Overlooked So Much in the Gospel Narrative?

Simon (later named Peter) is a Hebrew name. He will become the leader of the Twelve.

Andrew, the name of his brother, “is a Greek name par excellence”.

That’s surely at least slightly odd. But we recall Mark loves these little word-plays. In a recent post we saw how he combined an Aramaic “Bar” with the Greek “Timaeus” to form a Jewish-Greek hybrid name presumably for a symbolic purpose.

Here’s Hanhart’s suspicion to explain what is going on here:

Mark reflects the situation of the ecclesias in the Diaspora, especially those under Pauline influence, in which Gentile members were emphatically regarded as having the same rights and privileges as Judean members. The number four has the symbolic meaning of the four corners of the earth. Since Mark wanted to depict in Capernaum the very beginnings of the worldwide Ecclesia, the Gentile Andrew was at the very outset “honored” as being the brother (adelphos) of Peter and having equal status.

My guess is "Cyrene" refers to:

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... ant14.html

Antiquities of the Jews - Book XIV CHAPTER 7

2...
And Strabo himself bears witness to the same thing in another place, that at the same time that Sylla passed over into Greece, in order to fight against Mithridates, he sent Lucullus to put an end to a sedition that our nation, of whom the habitable earth is full, had raised in Cyrene; where he speaks thus: "There were four classes of men among those of Cyrene; that of citizens, that of husbandmen, the third of strangers, and the fourth of Jews. Now these Jews are already gotten into all cities; and it is hard to find a place in the habitable earth that hath not admitted this tribe of men, and is not possessed by them; and it hath come to pass that Egypt and Cyrene, as having the same governors, and a great number of other nations, imitate their way of living, and maintain great bodies of these Jews in a peculiar manner, and grow up to greater prosperity with them, and make use of the same laws with that nation also. Accordingly, the Jews have places assigned them in Egypt, wherein they inhabit, besides what is peculiarly allotted to this nation at Alexandria, which is a large part of that city. There is also an ethnarch allowed them, who governs the nation, and distributes justice to them, and takes care of their contracts, and of the laws to them belonging, as if he were the ruler of a free republic. In Egypt, therefore, this nation is powerful, because the Jews were originally Egyptians, and because the land wherein they inhabit, since they went thence, is near to Egypt. They also removed into Cyrene, because that this land adjoined to the government of Egypt, as well as does Judea, or rather was formerly under the same government." And this is what Strabo says.

Jews living together with non-Jews. "Alexander" would be a Greek name (the most popular one) and Rufus would be a Roman name. So a Jewish name, "Simon", as father of a Greek name and Roman name. A very strange combination if you try to take it literally (but as McGrath and Ehrman rightly say, it doesn't prove that The Baptism didn't happen).

So why "Rufus"? Well, as John Belushi famously said in the classic Animal House, "Why not." I think "Rufus" though is another nodule to Paul:

Romans 16:13

Salute Rufus the chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine.

The only other mention of a "Rufus" in the Christian Bible.

Of course I can not prove any of this, but than again I can not also prove that Frank killed Zoe or that my daughter scarfed down the Gummy Sours I was hiding in the cupboard even though I know God damn well they both did it.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[spin]

So a Jewish name, "Simon", as father of a Greek name and Roman name.

[/quote]
Careful, Joe. "Simon" is Greek. "Simeon" is Jewish. There was a stage when Jewish names gathered a Greek equivalent by appearance rather than by translation, basically around the turn of the second c. BCE, eg Simeon -> Simon, Jesus -> Jason, Eliakim -> Alcimus (and possibly Manasseh -> Menelaos). Later they tended to translate, eg Nathaniel -> Theodoros.

[JoeWallack]

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

1) Likelihood

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

For our test pericope here, Mark 1:9-11, what is the extent of contradiction:

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:
As we have already determined that verses 10 and 11 are fiction due to the extent of the impossible, there is no need to test them for contradiction. That leaves verse 9.

The main points of verse 9 in order of significance:

• 1) Jesus is baptized.
  
  2) Jesus is baptized by John.
  
  3) Jesus is baptized in the Jordan.
  
  4) Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee to the baptism.

1) has already been considered. Regarding 2) everyone who testified that Jesus was baptized said John did it. Regarding 3), likewise, everyone seems to say that Jesus was baptized in the Jordan, alBeth, "John's" strange/bizarre/macabre comment:

1:28 These things were done in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

Regarding 4) "Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee to the baptism", there is minority evidence in "Luke" that suggests original "Luke" located this Nazareth in Judea:

1) "Luke" indicates that through 1:25 the setting is Judea.

2) For "Luke" 1:26 Sinaticus, the best witness, says Nazareth is a city of Judea.

3) Per "Luke" Elizabeth, located in Judea is a relative of Mary and Mary travels to Elizabeth in haste indicating they are closer instead of farther.

4) Chapter 4 has clearly been edited with specific evidence that "Luke's" Nazareth was originally in Judea:

Luke 4:44

And he was preaching in the synagogues of Galilee.

In perhaps a bigger cover-up than the forthcoming ultimate episode of True Detective, the Textual evidence:

TVU 60

TVU 60
23.
NA28 Luke 4:44 Kai. h=n khru,sswn eivj ta.j sunagwga.j th/j V Ioudai,ajÅ

Difficult variant

BYZ Luke 4:44 kai. h=n khru,sswn evn tai/j sunagwgai/j th/j Galilai,ajÅ

T&T #5

Byz A, D, X, D, Q, Y, f13, 33, 700, 1071, Maj, Latt, Sy-P, Sy-Hmg, bo pt, goth,Trg

txt P75, 01, B, C, L Q, R, f1, 22, 131, 157, 579, 892, 1241, al53, Lect, Sy-S, Sy-H, sa, bopt, WH, NA25, Gre, Bois,Weiss, Trgmg

indicating that "Judea" is likely original here:

"And he was preaching in the synagogues of Judea"

Note that unlike "Mark's" Jesus who only travels between Galilee and "the wilderness" in Chapter 1, "Luke's" Jesus moves around here between spots like James Harden on the fast break:

4:1 = wilderness

4:9 = Jerusalem

4:15 = Galilee

4:16 = Nazareth. Stop. "Luke" changes the story so that Jesus comes to Nazareth after he has toured Galilee. So where is Nazareth according to "Luke"? Well according to Sinaiticus (the best) it's in Judea. And here we have coordination. Jesus comes to Nazareth, after touring Galilee.

4:23 = Nazareth. Jesus is told to do here in his own "country" what he did at Carpernaum.

4:29 = The hill at Nazareth. The word generally means "mountain". A mountain or at least putzo clifftee in Nazareth Galilee?

4:31 = As the brits say, "the cruncher". "And he came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee.":

• "Came down" sometimes means going from Judea to Galilee
  
  Capernaum is identified as a city of Galilee. In contrast to Nazareth?

4:43 = Jesus must go to other cities (must he? He must, he must). But he has already gone to the cities of Galilee in 4:15. Therefore it makes sense that he would than go to the cities of Judea in 4:44.

Thus we have it on good authority that there is evidence with scope in "Luke" that Nazareth was in Judea. Add to this that everyone would agree that in general "Luke" is trying to move "Mark's" settings to Judea.

5) All of the few related early Patristic references either explicitly or implicitly place Nazareth in Judea possibly because "Luke" having the latest related story which was therefore the most authoritative at the time:

• 1 - The Protevangelium of James - = An attempted harmony of the Infancy narratives that does not mention "Nazareth".
  
  2 - Sextus Julius Africanus = Says that "Nazara" is in Judea
  
  3 - History of Joseph the Carpenter = Says that "Nazareth" is by Jerusalem.
  
  4 - Justin Martyr = Implication that "Nazareth" was in Judea
  
  5 - The Acts of peter and Paul says Nazareth was in Judea
  
  6 - Origen, in a fit of reason, says that one apologetic defense against a contradiction between the Synoptics and "John" is "He never was at Nazara".

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

I have faith that our own Neal Godfree is on the right path to explanation:

Why is Peter’s Brother, Andrew, Overlooked So Much in the Gospel Narrative?

Sounds good. Andrew might also connect the sea and the temple? And perhaps the translation of Bartimaeus (and of "Abba" in Mark 14:36) is written, so that we can understand, what "Barabbas" mean?