Modeling Mark's Chiasms: Mark 10

I've nailed the model Markan chiasm. Here's another example, from Mark 10.



The pattern is typical of Markan chiasms, opening and closing with geographical movement, and having the usual ABBA center. The A brackets contain movement, the B brackets oppose two miniature chiasms built around Jesus/God and last/first. The E brackets both contain messages about leaving everything to follow Jesus, while the F brackets represent another pattern often seen in Mark, where a problem is posed in the first bracket whose solution is expounded in the opposite bracket. Thus How can the rich enter the Kingdom? is solved by observing that with God, all things are possible. The G brackets contain a obvious miniature chiasm that integrates the chreia structure into the chiasm as a whole. The structure of the C/D brackets is flexible and may be collapsed into one bracket.

One thing I like about Mark is the role that chreia structures play in the center of his chiasms.....more to come.

Previous articles on chiastic structures in Mark:
Mark 15:1-15
Mark Definitely Knew and Used Paul

Mounce is here!

I've decided to learn Koine as my project for this year, and I was delighted to find Mounce's Greek For The Rest of Us and Basics of Biblical Greek (workbook), along with Davis' Beginner's Grammar of the Greek New Testament in my mailbox courtesy of Amazon yesterday. Watch out, world! Soon I shall be moving from being completely ignorant to completely wrong!

For those interested in some self-study, Peter Kirby is leading a study group entitled Greek Study with Mounce over at Ebla Forums aimed at tyros like your trusty writer. The hardworking Kirby, whom I have on good authority is actually a set of triplets, is well known for his many websites, including the wonderful Early Christian Writings.

Secret Mark, Mark's Secrets: Decoding Mark

Decoding Mark
John Dart
Trinity Press International (October 1, 2003), 213 pages

Decoding Mark is a fascinating book in many ways, full of speculation on the meaning and literary structure of the Gospel of Mark, two topics near and dear to my own heart. This is a useful book, rich with suggestions, ideas, insights, and marred only by Dart's acceptance of the forged gospel fragment of Secret Mark as authentic text from an early redactor, and reverence for its probable forger, Morton Smith. Despite the importance of this fraud in the construction of his book, his commitment to it is less damaging than one might think at first glance, as we will soon see.

Exegetes who have written on Mark basically fall into two groups: those who see the writer of Mark as a dullard with poor Greek, and those who, Crossan's words, find it difficult to overestimate the brilliance and creativity of its author. Dart, the news editor of the Christian Century magazine, is among the latter, and hence, in my view, one of those who truly understand the Gospel of Mark.

Decoding Mark is aimed at the educated lay reader and thus Dart begins the work by inviting the reader to take a look at Secret Mark in the first two chapters. Secret Mark is an additional passage of the Gospel of Mark discovered by the scholar Morton Smith in an Israeli monastery in the 1950s. The manuscript has never been found, and many scholars doubt its authenticity. After this titillating glance into the nuts and bolts of academic conference making, arguments over the authenticity of Secret Mark, Dart then begins to attack the problem of what Original Mark might have looked like. In this he follows the trail blazed by Helmut Koester and others, attempting to discern what the Gospel of Mark must have looked like prior to getting worked over by later redactors.

Dart follows in the tracks of many other scholars in seeing Mark as a carefully arranged set of chiastic structures. While many exegetes, including this writer, see chiasms in Mark, none of us agree on their exact construction. For example, Dart writes:

"Mark uses no double or matching midpoints. That is, you'll find, not ABCC'B'A' but ABCB'A'. Chiasms in some other ancient texts may have twin centers, but not in Original Mark."

whereas I see Mark's complex centers as the real clue to his genius, and believe he does use twinned centers. Nevertheless, on most things his approach is excellent, focusing on building chiasms out of keywords and linked motifs and ideas. For example, his chiasm in Mark 6:1-6 (p70) runs:

A 1: He went away from there and came to his own country; and his disciples followed him. 2: And on the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue; and many who heard him were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get all this? What is the wisdom given to him?
.....B What mighty works are wrought by his hands!
.........C 3: Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?"
.............D And they took offense at him.
.........C' 4: And Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house."
.....B 5: And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands upon a few sick people and healed them.
A 6: And he marveled because of their unbelief. And he went about among the villages teaching.

This lays out Dart's system, based on keyword structures. It is very convincing and in the main correct, except that he has the center wrong, because of his misunderstanding how the centers of Markan chiasms work. In Mark the chiasms are actually triumphs of complexity. This chiasm actually looks like this, in my view:

A He went away from there and came to his own country; and his disciples followed him.
.....B And on the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue; and many who heard him were astonished, saying, "
.........C Where did this man get all this? What is the wisdom given to him? What mighty works are wrought by his hands!
..............D......A Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?"
.......................B And they took offense at him.
.............D'......B' And Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor,
......................A' except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house."
.........C' And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands upon a few sick people and healed them.
.....B' And he marveled because of their unbelief.
A' And he went about among the villages teaching.

A and A', as typical in Mark, involve geographic movements. In B and B', the crowd marvels at Jesus, probably ironically, while he marvels back at them. In C and C' the theme of mighty works appears. The D and D' structure have at the core the common ABB'A' structure so characteristic of Markan interiors, with element pairs of family and kin opposed to each other in A and A', while B and B' give us offense as opposed to honor. Note that the center structure inherently opposes Jesus to the crowd: they take offense at him, so he says to them, another chiastic pattern. What Dart has missed is that the writer of Mark often integrates chreia, witty sayings common among philosophical schools in antiquity, into the centers or ends of his chiasms. Mark 6:4 is one such saying, which the writer fashions into a chiasm, a very common approach.

Nevertheless -- despite this one failing -- Dart strikes more deeply and more correctly than anyone I have read on the topic of chiasms to date (haven't seen Breck yet). Unlike many who do this, Dart has a systematic approach that enables him to locate and demonstrate, with probably as great an objectivity as can be obtained on this subject, the structures that underlie this complex piece of literature, one of the most important in human history.

After demonstrating his methodology, Dart then goes on to address many of the mysteries of Mark. He attempts to reconstruct what the author saw as its original structure, finding a five-act framework in which each act is preceded by a messenger sequence. Five acts was the usual format for the Attic play, and Dart is not alone in finding a five act structure in Mark. He also addresses the question of whether the famous Bethsaida Section is an interpolation, answering in the affirmative (a conclusion I had also tentatively come to), but beginning it slightly later than most critics. One of the most effective ways Dart supports his chiasms is by showing how they confirm certain critical guesses about the structure of Mark, as well its relationship to the other Gospels. Dart also attempts to solve the perennial problem of the Naked Man in Mark 14:51-2 -- what exegete can resist that? -- but since his solution relies on Secret Mark, it must be discounted.

One of Dart's most important contributions is showing how the disparate parts of the Gospel actually relate to one another, and elucidating the larger structure of the Gospel. For example, he links the disciple call in Mark 1:16-20 to Simon of Cyrene and the Crucifixion (15:21-31) by use of catchwords. Note how in each passage the words echo each other passing along/passerby, Simon/Simon, father (in boat)/father (of brothers), casting (nets)/casting (lots). In Dart's view the beginning and echo each other. I was pleased to see that Dart believes that the Gospel pivots in Mark 10, where I had also located it, not Mark 8, where most critics put it.

Moving on to the controversy over Secret Mark and Original Mark, I'd like to explain, why, in my view, Dart went wrong. Note first that Secret Mark is a pastiche built out of pieces of the Gospel of Mark.



The reason that Dart was able to integrate Secret Mark so effectively into his chiasms is not because his methodology is flawed but because Secret Mark is constructed out of the Gospel of Mark, naturally echoing its themes and keywords. Because Dart relies on motifs and keywords in building his chiasms, Secret Mark did not present any difficulties to his methodology. Dart's confusion is a tribute to the skills of the forger.

Light in tone and very accessible, Decoding Mark is an enjoyable book, and even better, a very useful book. Dart has gone farther into the structure of Mark than anyone else, and even where the reader fails to give assent, he cannot fail to be stimulated.

Off for a couple of Days

I'm out of commission due to overwork. But I'll be back with reviews of Decoding Mark and a discussion of the criterion of embarrassment with regard to the Crucifixion.

An Open Letter to NT Scholars

Guys. It's time.

I frequently peruse the websites of NT scholars and I am just as frequently disappointed in what I find: brilliant, insightful, useful work -- that I can't get to because it's not online.

I'm not arguing that everything should be online. There is so much good work that has been done from the 60s, 70s, and 80s and 90s that could be and should be online, though. I suggest a ten-year rule: anything before 1995 should be available online.

Just think: that will make scholarship available to the humiliores, an ideal often expressed in modern scholarship but rarely honored. For individuals who live in non-Christian or developing regions and nations, online access to such scholarship is not merely convenient but imperative. It may also lead to increased interactions with the scholarship of others, the revival and expansion of ideas proposed but never elaborated on, and so on. There's no downside here.

Stuff from the Dark Ages prior to the invention of digital word processing may exist only in hardcopy. But even something like that can be photographed in a moment and the images popped on a server.

So now I'm begging. Take a moment. Get out your digital cameras. Fire up those scanners. Prod your student workers. But get those older works online where the world can see them!

The Chiasm in Mark 12: Mark points a finger at Paul

The Chiasm in Mark 12:10-37: Mark points a finger at Paul

Introduction
In this essay I will first construct a chiasm that provides persuasive evidence that the writer of Mark knew and used the writings of Paul. A second structure, draped across this chiasm, may provide evidence that the writer of Mark thought of, or perhaps intended others to think, that the writings of Paul were scripture. The second part of this essay explores some of the fallout for the Gospel of Mark, early Christian history, and historical methodology, from connecting Mark to Paul.

The structure of this chiasm is based on a model of Markan chiasms that I am currently developing and preparing for publication. Markan chiasms differ from other types known in antiquity. Whereas most proposed chiastic structures in antiquity roll out and roll back in simple repetitive structures ABC-C'B'A', in general Markan chiasms are characterized by simple exterior structures that bracket complex interior structures. These interior structures, often, though not always, signaled by the presence of keywords, vary from chiasm to chiasm. The great variety of interior structures of Markan chiasms is one of the reasons they have not received the kind of attention they deserve, for they are difficult to spot. In addition, traditional versification and pericoping frequently mask or destroy chiastic structures in Mark.

1. Delineating the Chiasm in Mark 12:10-37

Mark 12 opens with the Parable of the Tenants. Four pericopes then follow:

Mk 12:13-17 Render unto Caesar what is Caesar
Mk 12:18-27 Sadduccees ask about marriage after resurrection
Mk 12:28-34 Which is greatest commandment?
Mk 12:35-44 A poor widow gives everything to Temple

The traditional pericoping masks another structure. Its basic framework looks like this:

Mk 12:10-11 Jesus is the Cornerstone
Mk 12:13-17 Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's
Mk 12:18-23 Sadduccees deny resurrection
Mk 12:25-27 Discussion of What Bodies will be like in Heaven
Mk 12:28-34 Commandment to Love
Mk 12:35-37 How can the Lord be the Son of David?

For the moment we will ignore 12:24 and the related verses. They will be returned to this structure later. Let us now take a look at what brackets this section from 12:13 to 12:34

Mk 12:10-11 Citation of Psalm 118
Mk 12:12 They feared to arrest him

Mk 12:35-7 Citation of Psalm 110 "why do scribes say....???"
Mk 12:38 'Ware the scribes!.

Note that here we have two Psalm quotations followed by commentary about those who want to kill Jesus. Psalms 118 and 110 both relate to Simon Maccabaeus, the great Jewish leader. Psalm 118 celebrates Simon's entry into Jerusalem, while Psalm 110, the most widely cited scripture text in the New Testament, contains his name as an acrostic in Hebrew. The two Psalm quotes with related themes linked to the enemies of Jesus seem to function as A-A’ brackets for a chiasm:

Table 1.
A 12:10-11 Citation of Psalm 118 and warning that they want to kill Jesus
B 12:13-17 Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's
C 12:18-23 Sadduccees deny resurrection
C' 12:25-27 Discussion of What Bodies will be like in Heaven
B' 12:28-34 Commandment to Love
A' 12:25-37 Citation of Psalm 110 and warning to beware of scribes

At first glance none of the parts, except for the brackets, appear to have an obvious relationship. "Render Unto Caesar" doesn’t really work as either a complement or an opposition to "Commandment to Love." Nor does a denial of the Resurrection appear to have much of a connection to a discussion of what bodies will be like in Heaven.

Among the many parallels between Mark and Paul noted by Donahue and Harrington (2002:40) is that just as in Romans 13:1-7 and 13:8-10, in Mark 12:13-17 and 12:28-34, a command to love follows an injunction to obey the governing authorities. Table 2 shows what results when we plug that insight into our chiasm.

Table 2.
A Mk 12:10-11 Citation of Psalm 118 and warning that the scribes want to kill Jesus)
B Romans 13:1-7 Obey your government = (Mk 12:13-17 Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's)
C Mk 12:18-23 Sadduccees deny resurrection
C' Mk 12:25-27 Like Angels in Heaven
B' Romans 13:8-10 (Love is fulfillment of the Law) = (Mk 12:28-34 Commandment to Love)
A' Mk 12:35-7 Citation of Psalm 110 and warning to beware of scribes

As Table 2 shows, the two parallel passages from Romans 13 fall neatly into the B-B’ bracket of the chiasm. Is there another passage from Paul that parallels the C-C’ bracket?

There is. Mark 12:25-27 has the same theme as 1 Cor 15:35-50, a discussion of what bodies will be like in heaven. Further, just prior to that in 1 Cor 15, there is a discussion of those who deny the Resurrection -- just like the Sadduccees, whom the writer of Mark explicitly avers deny the Resurrection (note that of Jesus' opponents in Mark only the Sadduccees get such an explicit description of their beliefs, yet they only appear once). That gives us two blocks of material here that relate Mark and Paul. The table below displays the result of inserting the parallels from 1 Cor 15:

Table 3.
A Mk 12:10-11 Citation of Psalm 118 and warning that the scribes want to kill Jesus
B Romans 13:1-7 Obey your government = (Mk 12:13-17 Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's)
C 1 Corinthians 15:12-14 (What if there is no resurrection?) = (Mk 12:18-23 Sadduccee denial)
C' 1 Corinthians 15:35-50 (What is the resurrection body like?) = (Mk 12:25-27 Like Angels in Heaven)
B' Romans 13:8-10 (Love is fulfillment of the Law) = (Mk 12:28-34 Commandment to Love)
A' Mk 12:35-7 Citation of Psalm 110 and warning to beware of scribes

The B-B’ and C-C’ brackets form neat parallels to the Pauline epistles. Further, if we return to 1 Corinthians 15, we find that there is the same citation of Psalm 110 that the writer of Mark uses. Further, it is located in 1 Cor 15:25-6, right between the two blocs of material that the writer of Mark is echoing. This yields:

Table 4.
A Mk 12:10-11 Citation of Psalm 118 and warning that the scribes want to kill Jesus
B Romans 13:1-7 Obey your government = (Mk 12:13-17 Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's)
C 1 Corinthians 15:12-14 (What if there is no resurrection?) = (Mk 12:18-23 Sadduccees denial)
C' 1 Corinthians 15:35-50 (What is the resurrection body like?) = (Mk 12:25-27 Like Angels)
B' Romans 13:8-10 (Love is fulfillment of the Law) = (Mk 12:28-34 Commandment to Love)
A' 1 Corinthians 15:25-26 cites same passage from Psalm 110 as Mk 12:35-7

All that is needed to complete the chiasm is a citation of Psalm 118 in Romans. Sure enough, there is one in Romans 8 (recall that there were probably no chapter divisions in the letters that the writer of Mark used). Thus, our complete chiasm is:

Table 5.
A Romans 8:31 cites Psalm 118:6 Mk 12:10-11 Citation of Psalm 118 and warning
B Romans 13:1-7 Obey your government = (Mk 12:13-17 Render unto Caesar)
C 1 Corinthians 15:12-14 (What if there is no resurrection?) = (Mk 12:18-23 Sadduccees denial)
C' 1 Corinthians 15:35-50 (What is the resurrection body like?) = (Mk 12:25-27 Like Angels)
B' Romans 13:8-10 (Love is fulfillment of the Law) = (Mk 12:28-34 Commandment to Love)
A' 1 Corinthians 15:25-26 cites same passage from Psalm 110 as Mk 12:35-7

Or, in simplified form:

A: Romans 8
B: Romans 13
C: 1 Corinthians 15
C': 1 Corinthians 15
B': Romans 13
A': 1 Corinthians 15

If we return to the dispute that centers around Mark 12:24, we can construct an ABB’A’ chiasm that I believe is typical of the interior of Markan chiasms.

A Chreia A: Whose wife is she, anyway? (Setting)
B Mk 12:24: Jesus says you don't know the Scriptures and God's Power
B' Jesus says the dead are raised, and cites Scriptures: "I am the God of ..... Jacob"
A' Chreia A': You fools! He's the God of the living, not the Dead! (response)

The A-A’ bracket provides the setting and response of the chreia. Mark 12:24 is actually two opposed ideas; here the versification obscures the way the writer of Mark composed the interior of the chiasm. Note that the B-B’ structure is actually a miniature ABB’A’ structure, in which the first half offers the Scriptures and God’s Power, while the second half provides an example of each, respectively raising the dead (B’), and a citation of scripture (A’):

B Mk 12:24: Jesus says you don't know the Scriptures and God's Power
B' Jesus says the dead are raised, and cites Scriptures: "I am the God of Abraham....of Jacob"

The entire chiasm, assembled, is the most complex one in the Gospel of Mark. The table below depicts the entire construction:

Table 6.
A Romans 8:31 = Mk 12:10-11
B Romans 13:1-7 = Mk 12:13-17
C 1 Corinthians 15:12-14 = Mk 12:18-23
D-A Chreia A: Whose wife is she, anyway? (Setting)
D-B Mk 12:24: Jesus says you don't know the Scriptures and God's Power
C' 1 Corinthians 15:35-50 = Mk 12:25-27
D'-B' Jesus says the dead are raised, and cites Scriptures:
D'-A' Chreia A': You fools! He's the God of the living, not the Dead! (response)
B' Romans 13:8-10 = Mk 12:28-34
A' 1 Corinthians 15:25-26 = Mk 12:35-7

The writer has constructed a variation on his usual pattern of complex interiors, with a CD-CD pattern that contains his typical ABB’A’ structure, in this case interpolated between the C-C’ brackets.

The heart of this structure, however, is the arrangement of Pauline parallels. It is difficult, at least for this writer, to look at those parallels and not conclude that the writer of Mark directly knew and used at least some of the writings of Paul.

However, if the foregoing chiasm was insufficient to persuade, Mark 12:10-37 contains another structure that may clarify the writer’s intention of how these parallels were to be understood. In this other structure in Mark 12:10-37 the writer appears to emphasize the importance of the theme of "scripture." The fact is that this chiasm is draped over a ping-pong match about scripture between Jesus and various discussants. Consider the following:

(Jesus) 12:10: Have you not read this scripture:
(Discussant) 12:19: "Teacher, Moses wrote:
(Jesus) 12:24: Jesus said to them, "Is not this why you are wrong, that you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God?

(Jesus) 12:26: And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses
(Discussant) 12:28: And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, "Which commandment is the first of all?"
(Jesus) 12:35: And as Jesus taught in the temple, he said, "How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? 36: David himself, inspired by the Holy Spirit, declared,

Observe how Jesus' actions and Markan keywords structure this sequence. Jesus cites Scripture and identifies it four times. Each time when Jesus names and cites Scripture, his remarks are sandwiching something about scripture being asked or quoted at him by someone else. The keywords that tie together the sequence are clear even in the English translation: scribe, writing, and scripture are keywords throughout the sequence. And yet, in the parallels that underlie this, the scripture being cited is Paul. The writer has also dropped another broad hint: this sequence is the first time in the Gospel that the word scripture appears. And there it is, on Jesus' lips, citing a "scripture" that occurs in both Paul and Mark, in a section which consists of discussions of what scripture says, filled with parallels to Pauline thought. The entire passage seems to indicate that the writer of Mark not only directly used Paul, but regarded Paul as scripture.

2. Implications

A. Local Structural Features
At the level of narrative composition, the chiasm in 12:10-37 may explain why the Sadduccees appear here, and only here, in the Gospel of Mark. Their most conspicuous trait is a disbelief in the Resurrection, as the writer of Mark explicitly reminds us at the beginning of the pericope. Because of this, they make convenient foils for a discussion on denial of the Resurrection.

B. Explaining Some Features of the Gospel of Mark
The writer's familiarity with the Pauline scriptures explains many puzzling features of the Gospel of Mark, as well as accounts for certain pieces of "historical" knowledge.

1. Markan use of Paul may also explain what the writer meant when he has Jesus exclaim “Let the Scriptures be fulfilled!” without any apparent reference to the Old Testament (Mk 14:49), or when Jesus makes his Passion Predictions with the implied reference to scripture that cannot be readily identified. In that case, he most likely means Paul, which apparently functioned as scripture for him.

2. Many historical features of Mark may be attributed to the writer's use of Paul.

A. Jesus was designated, not born, the Son of God
Philippians 2:6-11
B. Jesus was of Davidic Descent
Romans 1:3
C. Jesus was handed over (betrayed)
1 Cor 11:23
D. Importance of Peter, James and John
Galatians 2:9
E. Pharisees hate Jesus
Philippians 3:5-6
F. Peter = Cephas
Several places in the Paulines, including 1 Cor 9:5 in some manuscripts
G. Peter is married and has a mother-in-law
1 Cor 9: 5
H. Abba, Father
Galatians 4:6
I. Divorce in Mark 10:12
1 Cor 7
J. Last Supper
1 Cor 11:23-5
H. Jesus Raised on the Third Day
1 Cor 15:4

3. It is widely argued that the Gospel of Mark is about discipleship, and that an important aspect of it is imitating Jesus. "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." A possible source for this would be 1 Cor 4:15-6, where Paul writes: "Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. Therefore I urge you to imitate me." Similarly, "Food" and "eating" as a metaphor for the message of Jesus and its reception may stem ultimately from 1 Cor 10:1-4, where Paul writes: "I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ." The term "seed" is used as a metaphor for teaching and the message of God several times in 1 Cor and once in 2 Cor.

4. The writer of Mark's knowledge of Paul would also explain why the Crucifixion scene, as Crossan and others have pointed out, appears to be a complete fiction. While Paul lays great emphasis on the Crucifixion of Jesus, he never gives any details of the event. Paul's lack of detail compelled the writer of Mark to invent the Crucifixion scene from the Old Testament through his usual "midrashic" techniques. Similarly, the writer of Mark ignores Jesus' early life because Paul does.

5. Peter in Mark: the writer's attitude toward Peter is puzzling on its face. While he attributes narrative prominence to Peter, and by implication, historical prominence, he does not appear to know of the story that Peter was the first pope. Hence, nowhere in Mark is a prominent leadership position for Peter alluded to. This may indicate an earlier date for Mark, prior to the development of that legend. However, looking at the issue through the lens of Mark's connection to Paul, it seems plausible that the writer of Mark does not attribute formal status to Peter because Paul does not either. Further, Mark's negative attitude toward the leadership in Jerusalem may also be explained by Paul's attacks on them.

6. Mark 13:9-11 says:

9: "But take heed to yourselves; for they will deliver you up to councils; and you will be beaten in synagogues; and you will stand before governors and kings for my sake, to bear testimony before them. 10: And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. 11: And when they bring you to trial and deliver you up, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say; but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit.

while 13:21-22 add:

21: And then if any one says to you, `Look, here is the Christ!' or `Look, there he is!' do not believe it. 22: False Christs and false prophets will arise and show signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.

Could these passages have the stories told in Paul's epistles in mind?

7. More speculatively, I do not believe in Q. A few of the Mark-Q overlaps, for example, the pronouncements on divorce, the reliance on the holy spirit to speak through the believer in a trial, the "sign" remarks, taking up one's cross, the mustard seed (to "seed" metaphors in 1 Cor) seem traceable ultimately to Paul through Mark, providing additional arguments against Q.

C. Implications for Historical Methodology

A commonly-used criterion in historical Jesus studies is that of multiple attestation. It can no longer be regarded as valid where it involves relationships between Paul and the Synoptics.

Similarly, the putative but flimsily-supported oral tradition is no longer needed to explain the writer of Mark's knowledge of the early days of the Christian movement. Under this view, he sources everything about it from Paul, or invents it from older Jewish literature.

This also puts to rest the claim of Papias, currently held largely by conservatives, that the source of the Gospel of Mark was Peter. It was clearly not.

Finally, the idea of Mark as a Pauline gospel also raises another issue: which gospel did Marcion really have? The Patristic fathers indicate that it was a version of the Gospel of Luke. However, the writer of Mark apparently considered the Pauline letters to be scripture, a trait he had in common with Marcion.

To view this chiasm more clearly than this format permits, please see the slightly shorter version of this in my Mark commentary.

Coming Soon....

*Mark as a Pauline Gospel: Evidence and Implications

The smoking gun: A complex chiasm in Mark 12 that pins Mark to Paul. What are the implications for the historical information in the Gospel of Mark?

*The Questionable Argument from Shame:

There's a variation of the embarrassment criterion applied to the Crucifixion that runs something like this: "Crucifixion at the hands of the Romans would present a prima facie case that Jesus was not the Messiah. It seems grossly improbable to suppose that any Christian would have made it up." (Patrick Narkinsky, post to XTALK) Is that valid as an argument for the historicity of the Crucifixion?

To Taipei and Back!

I ran up to Taipei for the last couple of days, most to peruse the journals at Fujen U, the beautiful Catholic university outside of Taipei. They are the only place on the island with a decent collection of New Testament stuff. So I'll be back on Thursday morning sometime, armed and ready to go.

Michael

Is Mark 15:40-7 a Doublet of Mark 16:1-8? or a Chiasm?

There's some kind of literary relationship between Mark 15:40-7 and Mark 16:1-8. I'm toying with it as a doublet for now, but it may prove to be a chiasm.

The passages run (RSV):

42: And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, 43: Joseph of Arimathe'a, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus. 44: And Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he was already dead. 45: And when he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph.46: And he bought a linen shroud, and taking him down, wrapped him in the linen shroud, and laid him in a tomb which had been hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. 47: Mary Mag'dalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid. 1: And when the sabbath was past, Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salo'me, bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. 2: And very early on the first day of the week they went to the tomb when the sun had risen. 3: And they were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb?" 4: And looking up, they saw that the stone was rolled back; -- it was very large. 5: And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe; and they were amazed.6: And he said to them, "Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him. 7: But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you." 8: And they went out and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.

I've constructed a doublet but it doesn't work very well in the interior.

Mark 15:40-47
Mark 16:1-8

40: There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salo'me,
1a: And when the sabbath was past, Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salo'me...

41: who, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered to him; and also many other women who came up with him to Jerusalem. 1b:....bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.

42: And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath,
2: And very early on the first day of the week they went to the tomb when the sun had risen.

43: Joseph of Arimathe'a, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus.
3: And they were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb?" 4: And looking up, they saw that the stone was rolled back; -- it was very large.

44: And Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he was already dead.
5: And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe; and they were amazed.

45: And when he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph.
6: And he said to them, "Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him.

46: And he bought a linen shroud, and taking him down, wrapped him in the linen shroud, and laid him in a tomb which had been hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb.
7: But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you."

47: Mary Mag'dalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid.
8: And they went out and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.

A chiasm is suggested by two possible brackets that deal with fear and speaking:

43: Joseph of Arimathe'a, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus.
8: And they went out and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.

In this bracket, Joseph's courage is opposed to the women's fear, and Joseph's asking is opposed to their silence. There may be a chiastic structure lurking in there.

Any help?

Review of Bernard Muller's website Jesus: A Historical Reconstruction. Part I

Bernard Muller has built a large and seemingly well-researched website on the historical Jesus. He has also been a presence at many of the forums where skeptics and mythicists hang out, contending with them. For some time now I have been looking forward to going over Bernard Muller's website. Bernard and I agree on quite a bit, but we disagree profoundly on how much history is recoverable.

We'll start with some excerpts from his introduction.

MULLER: For a long time, the Homeric 'Iliad' was considered a most unreliable collection of legendary tales. Then came Schliemann. Believing the ancient book was partly factual, he made many related archaeological discoveries. Whenever a narrative is susceptible to be considered (and for good cause) as "unreliably" embellished and laced with extraordinary feats, then-known genuine matter-of-fact data can be inserted in order to instill some credibility. In the gospels (and some other N.T. writings), we have "down to earth", anecdotal and "against the grain" bits & pieces. They are without any suspicious & "unreliable" features and make a lot of sense on a human, social, cultural & historical standpoint. But how can we be sure of their truthfulness? Could these insertions be outright inventions?

Muller here presents the reader with the idea that many exegetes believe, that the Gospels in their 'against-the-grain' presentations offer information that may go back to Jesus. "Against the grain" refers to information that may tend to conflict with theological understandings, or present Jesus in a bad light; information, in other words, that should have been removed from the tradition as time went on. Many exegetes have argued that the preservation of such material indicates that it goes back to the historical Jesus.

This assumption is faulty for several reasons, but two are outstanding. First, the judgment of whether something goes 'against-the-grain' has a strong subjective element. Second, in most cases, what appears to be 'against-the-grain' is actually material that fits well with some goal of the writer's, and thus, is not really 'against-the-grain.' Most of these assertions, as we will see, stem from erroneous understandings on Muller's part.

Muller then goes on to titillate his readers with a list of tidbits that just might go back to Jesus:

- Why give Jesus four brothers and at least two sisters (Mk6:3), rather than emphasize his uniqueness?
- Why start his public life right after the arrest of John the Baptist, who attracted a much larger audience: "The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him [John]" (Mk1:5a)?
- Why have Jesus declare "among those born of women there is no one greater than John [the Baptist]" (Lk7:28a/Mt11:11a)?
- Why base him among the uneducated villagers of Capernaum, his new home (Mt4:13), a poor town in Galilee?
- Why bother to have him get a "mother-in-law" (Mk1:30) out of bed?
- Why give him a few "unschooled" fishermen (Mk1:16-20, Ac4:13) as his main followers?
- Why have him say: "you are worth more than many sparrows" (Lk12:7/Mt10:31)?
- Why tell of his family wanting "to take charge of him" and saying: "he is out of his mind" (Mk3:21)?
- Why should the disciples be "questioning what the rising from the dead meant" (Mk9:10), after they supposedly saw an alive Moses?
- Why would the alleged resurrection of Jairus' daughter be kept secret: "But He commanded them [disciples & parents] strictly that no one should know it" (Mk5:42b-43a) and the disciples (suspiciously!) be "strictly warned ... that they should tell no one about Him [as being the Christ!]" (Mk8:30)?
- Why write "Now as the people were in expectation, and all reasoned in their hearts about John [the Baptist], whether he was the Christ or not" (Lk3:15)?
- Why relate, after John's execution, ""Who do people say that I am?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah"" (Mk8:27b-28a), when Christ is set far above John (and John himself as Elijah: Mk9:12-13)?
- Why have Jesus disowned by his companions and crucified as "king of the Jews" (Mk15:26) for the benefit of Gentile Christians?
- Why would the most reliable early manuscripts of Mark's gospel end as such: "... And they [the women who allegedly witnessed the empty tomb] said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid." (Mk16:8), and with no reappearance?

Many of these points, and a lot of other ones, were certainly not meant to support Jesus as the Son of God, Lord or Christ (Anointed One). And some of them were troublesome for the early Christian writers/preachers, as for Paul:
1Co1:23 Darby "... Christ crucified, to Jews an offence, and to nations foolishness;"
Gal5:11 "... the offense of the cross ..."
2Co13:4 Darby "... indeed he has been crucified in weakness ..."

Let's go over some of the Mark-related bits of this, because it goes a long way toward showing how Muller misunderstands the texts he is reading.

MULLER: Why give Jesus four brothers and at least two sisters (Mk6:3), rather than emphasize his uniqueness?

The passage in Mark 6 makes Jesus one of five sons. Not by coincidence, for it is one of the writer's programs to compare Jesus to the Maccabees, who were also a group of five sons, and above all to Simon Maccabaeus, who, like Jesus, became King and High Priest and secured an independent Jewish state. The writer of Mark does this by twice citing Psalm 118, which celebrates Simon's entry into Jerusalem, and by citing Psalm 110, which has Simon's name in an acrostic in Hebrew. The writer of Mark also makes other allusions to the Maccabee tales, especially in the Temple Cleansing scene, which is reminiscent of the story of Onias III in 2 Macc. In other words, the presence of brothers is easily shown to be fiction.

As John Meier (A Marginal Jew, Vol 1, 1987) suggests additional fictional origins for Jesus' family:

"It is probably not by accident that, like himself, all of Jesus' relatives bear names that hark back to the patriarchs, the exodus from Egypt, and the entrane into the promised land. His putative father was Joseph, the name of one of the twelve sons of Jacob/Israel and the progenitor, through Ephraim and Manasseh, of two of the twelve tribes. His mother was Mary, in Hebrew Miriam, the name of the sister of Moses. His four brothers, James, Joses, Simon, and Jude, were named after the patriarchs who begot the twelve sons/tribes of Israel (James =Jacob) and after three of those twelve sons (Joses=Joseph, Simon=Simon, and Jude=Judah)"(p207).

Further, the sisters relate to the "family" saying of Mark 3:31-5, where Jesus establishes who his real family is. They parallel the situation there, of mother, brothers, and sisters. Finally, the literary structure of this pericope, too complex to represent here, reveals the constructed nature of Jesus' family.

In this pericope Jesus utters a famous saying that is a commonplace throughout antiquity:

4: And Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house."

The family is there simply to serve as a foil for this saying. There is no historicity whatsoever in this pericope.

MULLER: Why start his public life right after the arrest of John the Baptist, who attracted a much larger audience: "The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him [John]" (Mk1:5a)?

Muller has his chronology confused. Jesus leaves John and immediately starts his public ministry. See the sequence in Mark 1 and 2. Sometime later John the Baptist is arrested. Whether John attracted a much larger audience than Jesus is not possible to decide; Mark's comment that "all the people of Jerusalem" being an absurd bit of hyperbole. In short, there is no support for Muller's observation here from the text itself.

MULLER: Why base him among the uneducated villagers of Capernaum, his new home (Mt4:13), a poor town in Galilee?

The situation is far more complicated than that. However, let me point out that the reason that Jesus is based in Galilee is easy to find: the writer of Mark invented it off the OT, like so much else in Mark:

Isa 9:1 Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the Jordan- (NIV)

Note the mention of important themes in Mark, including the sea (in the gospel of Mark, the narrative function of the Sea of Galilee is to divide the Jews and the Gentiles. When Jesus crosses it, he is crossing from one ethnos to the other), gentiles, and the Jordan. In the Gospel of Matthew this association is made plain in Mt 4:15. Additionally, the rest of Isaiah 9 provides the writer of Mark with the motivation to place Jesus in Galilee:

6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this.(NIV)

There are other reasons as well, but we need not get into those.

MULLER: Why bother to have him get a "mother-in-law" (Mk1:30) out of bed?

The writer of Mark seems to have been familiar with the Pauline corpus, and borrowed the detail of Peter's mother-in-law from 1 Cor 9:5. As Joanna Mitchell points out, the scene is presented as a conventional raising of the dead, even using the same Greek terminology. The story the writer of Mark presents in v29-31, of Jesus curing Peter's mother-in-law and then she in turn serving him dinner, smacks of "folklore apocrypha" (Price, The Incredibly Shrinking Son of Man, p149).

MULLER: Why give him a few "unschooled" fishermen (Mk1:16-20, Ac4:13) as his main followers?

Muller has definitely not done his homework, and it shows. As Thomas Brodie has shown, the story of the disciple call in Mark 1:16-20 is taken from the calling of Elisha in the Old Testament. The motif of fisherman stems from Jeremiah 16:16, which offers a reference to "fishers of men" which, as Donahue and Harrington (2002, p75) and Meier (2001, p194n122) point out, occurs in an eschatological context:

Lo, I am sending for many fishers, An affirmation of Jehovah, And they have fished them, And after this I send for many hunters, And they have hunted them from off every mountain, And from off every hill, and from holes of the rocks.(YLT)

Meier (2001, p194-195n122) observes that Mark uses the same term for "fishers," haleeis, as the LXX. In the OT, he further notes, fishing for humans is a regular metaphor in the context of judgment and destruction (Habakkuk 1:14-17, Amos 4:2). Lucian, discussing Cynic philosophers, writes:

"Even if you are quite ordinary - a tanner, fisherman, carpenter, money-changer - there's nothing to stop you annoying others, so long as you have the cheek, the nerve... How about boat-man or gardener? Lucian, Philosophies for Sale, II." (Cited in Downing 1988, p5)

Many of the sayings in the Gospel of Mark have Cynic affinities (like Mk 6:4, cited above).

MULLER: Why tell of his family wanting "to take charge of him" and saying: "he is out of his mind" (Mk3:21)?

Muller does not really understand Mark. In Mark, Jesus is not presented as the born son of God, but as his Adopted Son, adopted at the baptism. Thus, it is perfectly natural and compatible with the writer's view of Jesus' relationship to God to have his family think he is out of his mind -- wouldn't you if your son suddenly started acting like Jesus? This gives the writer a chance to indulge in a bit of Markan irony. Jesus' family ironically identifies him correctly -- they claim he is possessed by a demon. According to the writer of Mark, Jesus really is possessed, but by God. This kind of irony is quite common in Mark.

MULLER: Why should the disciples be "questioning what the rising from the dead meant" (Mk9:10), after they supposedly saw an alive Moses?

As I noted before, Muller misses prominent themes in Mark, and here is another example. It is one of the most basic themes in Mark that the disciples were too stupid to understand Jesus, and never paid attention to his commands and instructions, finally denying him at the end. Tolbert (1989, p207), points out that once again the writer is poking fun at the disciples. The disciples question each other, instead of Jesus. Further, the absurdity is heightened as Peter, James, and John have already seen Jairus' daughter rising from the dead, and so have some idea of what Jesus might mean. In other words, the reason for the 3 disciples accompanying Jesus to see the daughter raised from the dead has now become apparent. It is so that, once again, the writer can skewer them for being clueless. Tolbert drives this home by pointing out that Peter, James, and John have even witnessed Moses and Elijah raised, and still haven't the foggiest notion of what Jesus might mean.

Fiction, again.

MULLER: Why would the alleged resurrection of Jairus' daughter be kept secret: "But He commanded them [disciples & parents] strictly that no one should know it" (Mk5:42b-43a) and the disciples (suspiciously!) be "strictly warned ... that they should tell no one about Him [as being the Christ!]" (Mk8:30)?

Many years ago the Markan scholar Ted Weeden argued that the writer of Mark was writing an attack on the disciples, who claimed to have secret knowledge of Jesus, and thus, superiority. The Gospel of Mark parodies this claim by pointing out that such knowledge could hardly have been kept secret. Muller has missed the vital context. Why are injunctions to secrecy juxtaposed with open declarations of who Jesus is (the demons), crowds following him everywhere, and events that can't possibly be concealed, like the raising of Jairus' daughter (what was the family going to do, pretend the girl was still dead?). Clearly, once the reader grasps the context of the "messianic secret" it is easy to see that it is a literary invention of the writer.

MULLER: Why relate, after John's execution, ""Who do people say that I am?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah"" (Mk8:27b-28a), when Christ is set far above John (and John himself as Elijah: Mk9:12-13)?

Muller has missed the third part of this trio, for the same theme crops up in Mark 6:14-17. The writer of Mark has a program of comparing Jesus to Elijah, borrowing many of the latter's miracles for his stories about Jesus. Elijah is thus an important theme of the writer's that has nothing to do with history. Similarly, the mention of John relates to the rivalry between the followers of John and the followers of Jesus that crops out occasionally in later Christian texts, like the Gospel of John, where Jesus is depicted poaching John's disciples, and Acts 19, where Paul meets some who have no idea that John was the precursor of Jesus.

MULLER: Why have Jesus disowned by his companions and crucified as "king of the Jews" (Mk15:26) for the benefit of Gentile Christians?

Muller's errors multiply here. Jesus is not disowned by his companions (the women are still there in 15:40-1). The Crucifixion scene in Mark is a fivefold structure, in which Jesus is recognized as a king in fve different ways. The Crucifixion scene is entirely fictional and does not appear to have any historical elements at all, except for the presence of Pilate, and the Crucifixion itself. Jesus' disciples flee because that is the final realization of the writer's plan to denigrate the disciples, depicting them as weak and disloyal, the rocky ground of the Parable of the Sower (note how Peter's name is "rock").

MULLER: Why would the most reliable early manuscripts of Mark's gospel end as such: "... And they [the women who allegedly witnessed the empty tomb] said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid." (Mk16:8), and with no reappearance?

Obviously because the ending disappeared prior to our earliest manuscripts!

MULLER: Many of these points, and a lot of other ones, were certainly not meant to support Jesus as the Son of God, Lord or Christ (Anointed One). And some of them were troublesome for the early Christian writers/preachers, as for Paul:
1Co1:23 Darby "... Christ crucified, to Jews an offence, and to nations foolishness;"
Gal5:11 "... the offense of the cross ..."
2Co13:4 Darby "... indeed he has been crucified in weakness ..."

Neither of these is cogent. Muller assumes that the Gospel accounts were intended to support Jesus as the Son of God, although at least in the case of Mark that is highly arguable. Further, he also misinterprets Paul. Paul did not find the stories of Jesus' Crucifixion troubling; the Greeks and Jews did. Paul rather gloried in the idea.

Muller finishes with a bit of a rhetorical flourish:

My approach, as an investigative and critical historian, will appear radically new. The research was not based on studying extensively scholarly works; but instead by inquiring about contextual facts, scrutinizing primary sources, getting free from past indoctrinations and, above all, doing a lot of thinking. Never interested in learned opinions, lofty intellectualism, slick rhetoric, agenda-driven "studies" or ill-validated theories (click here for the newest of those!), I strived to discover the bottom of things, the facts and the bare truth, as naive as it may sound.

I'll let this paragraph speak for itself. But one point: Muller is being modest; there's quite a bit of familiarity with scholarly work in there.

On to Part Two.

Book Review: Graves, King Jesus

King Jesusby Robert GravesNew York: Creative Age Press, 1946

King Jesus is Robert Graves' version of the events of the gospels, a mythopoetic retelling of Jesus' life and times. Grave's work is infused with his belief that religion and myth records the story of the victory of male-dominated religions over the original religion of the Goddess, and the frontispiece of the work begins with a quote from Clement of Alexandria describing the Gospel of the Egyptians: "I have come to destroy the works of the Female." Therein lies Jesus' tragedy, and the tragedy of Christianity.

I first read this book nearly twenty years ago, and put it away because I hadn't a clue as to what it meant. Only now, after having developed some familiarity with the canonical and extracanonical literature, as well as with Graves' ideas regarding the origin of myth and the Goddess religion, can I truly appreciate the complex interplay of myth, history, and gospel Graves orchestrated in this mighty work.

Graves' underlying theory of the Historical Jesus is relatively simple. Mary was indeed a virgin, a Temple Virgin at the Jerusalem Temple, dedicated there by her parents as a child, raised there, intended to perform ritual acts and then later married out to a wealthy man. In Graves' story Mary is one of the line of David. As such, she secretly marries Herod the Great's son Antipater, who at the time of the marriage is the Royal Heir. Herod later has him killed, while Mary is pregnant with the child Jesus. In other words, Jesus is the Royal Heir to both the Jewish Kingship and the Roman-granted Kingship of Palestine.

This idea was sparked by Graves' observation that Pilate, who grants a private audience to Jesus, would not have done so for anyone but a Roman citizen, and his inscription on the cross, which clearly identifies Jesus as the rightful claimant to the throne. Although the story is presented in the form of a historical fiction, Graves clearly intended that it be seen as a valid solution to the problem of the Historical Jesus.

Using the Gospel of Luke as the basis for his novel, but drawing from a voluminous collection of writings, Graves then builds the story of Jesus' life. In it Jesus is a prodigy, disputing in the Temple, traveling to Egypt to study magic, slowly beginning to develop his own dream. For Jesus does not want to merely fulfill the political role King. Instead, he begins to imagine himself a spiritual and political leader who will redeem his people and usher in a golden age.

As it is, the story is interesting enough, but Graves pushes it one step further; he enriches and enlightens it with a leavening of his brilliant mythological understandings. For in Graves' book, the major actions are driven by the plans and desires of women. It is Luke's Anna the Prophetess who ensures that Mary is born to Hannah, and then that she is wedded to Antipater. What looks like the destiny of the god YHWH is instead presented as a subversive conspiracy of the Goddess working within the heart of the Jerusalem Temple. It is Augustus' wife Livia who fatefully prevents her husband from intervening in favor of Antipater and preserving his life. When Jesus appears before Herod Antipas, it is Herodias who bargains with him. At the end, the resurrected Jesus is not taken up into Heaven, but instead disappears into a cloud while in the presence of three women. The men may propose, but the Goddess disposes. More I will not say.

As a book, King Jesus begins with a slyly witty introduction from its putative narrator, one Agabus, writing in 93 AD. The history of Christianity he sketches is drawn from the extracanonical writings, but presented with great humor, and not a little sympathy. The first hundred pages go by at a romp, and the events leading up to the birth of Mary are told with great relish. After that, the book becomes the tale, briefly, of Antipater and his eventual doom, and then Jesus' birth.

As Jesus grows and gets further into his mission, the book begins to bog down for a while in speeches by Jesus and long discussions of myth, as well as hymns and poems. It picks up finally as Jesus is arrested and brought before Pilate. There Jesus' wealthy, behind-the-scenes supporter Nicodemon works out a deal with Pilate to save Jesus' life, and make him the King of Palestine. But Jesus will have none of it.

The best scenes in the whole book involve Pilate, who is presented as a well-fed, witty, amoral and thoroughly engaging rogue who likes nothing better than to twit the Sanhedrin. Expanding on scripture, Graves has Pilate say:

Pilate cried scornfully: "What is truth? Every so-called truth has its antithetical truth, equally valid in logic. The salt of life is humour: the realization that, in the long run ? praise to the Gods! ? nothing really matters."

Despite our familiarity with the gospel story, there are several shocking insights, twists and reconceptualizations. The framework of Graves' mythic insight, once accepted, offers surprising explanatory power. For example, Herod's mad slaughter of his own relatives is made sensible by Graves' reinterpretation of his behavior in light of Goddess-belief. Jesus' crucifixion is made necessary not by some cosmic joke of YHWH's, but by the raising of Lazarus. There is a surprise twist at the end: the real tragedy of Jesus' crucifixion, and the real betrayal of Judas. For Jesus is the King in not one, not two, but three ways: the eldest son of an eldest son of an eldest son, married to the youngest daughter of a youngest daughter of a youngest daughter, he is also the chosen of the Goddess, her ritual consort. Ultimately, the Kingdom of Peace does not arrive on this earth not because of what Judas did, but because of what he failed to do. It is this realization that drives him to kill himself.

I highly recommend this remarkable and beautiful book. Graves' characters display his wit and erudition in their every spoken word. His intellectual reach is breathtaking; as a scholar, he is at equally at home with Jesus disputing in the Law Courts, or in a discussion between Greeks, Jews and Arabs in a merchants' caravan on its way to distant cities. As the reader reaches the end, prepared for one tragedy, she is offered another one, one ultimately more profound, moving, and sorrowful than anything that the early Christian writers ever imagined.

Book Review: Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture

The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: the Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament
Bart D. Ehrman

Reviewed by Michael Turton

The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: the Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament, offers a simultaneous presentation of methodologies for performing text criticism, a glimpse into the theological controversies of early Christianity, and a discussion of the evolution of the early Christian texts. Ehrman's view is that the instability of the early texts is matched by the instability of the scribes, who did not make changes in any systematic way, oftimes ignoring what might appear to modern readers to be dangerous passages, while at the same time working over the most minor prepositions several times. Despite the ubiquity of textual alterations, and their deliberate nature, Ehrman emphasizes that scribes do not appear to have been motivated by malice (there are few cases of deliberate changes of meaning so that the text says the opposite of what a natural reading might make it say). Instead, orthodox corrupters of the text generally changed it to bring it in line with what they thought it should be saying. Ehrman points out that even as orthodox apologists claimed their opponents were corrupting the text, they also acknowledged that their enemies felt they were only correcting them. Surely the orthodox were no different themselves, Ehrman argues.

The work is divided into 6 chapters, the meat of which are four chapters on textual corruptions aimed at Adoptionism, Separationism (Ehrman's term for a loose collection of alternative Christianities), Docetism, and Patripassianism. The focus is on changes in the Canonical gospels and, to a lesser extent, the non-Pauline epistles. The letters of Paul, while discussed, are generally presented as secondary examples of major points. In fact, Ehrman consistently ignores the major questions of Pauline interpolations (for example, 1 Thess 2:14-16; 1 Thess is not even mentioned in the book!).

Despite the eye-catching title, which contains the tantalizingly explosive word "corruption," the volume is a model of scholarly restraint, focusing largely on textual controversies more of interest to text critics than lay readers. Ehrman is intent on establishing that many of textual changes that other scholars have dismissed as "harmonizations" or "errors" actually have an underlying apologetic thrust logic that betrays their deliberate nature. The book contains long sections aimed at establishing Ehrman's arguments against critics and against the consensus, often with the simple goal of showing that an alteration was deliberate apologetic attempt to render the text unusable to "heretics" rather than a simple act of harmonization. These passages are of great value for their methodological skill and critical depth, and will repay close study.

Part of the reason that so many textual critics have missed the deliberate nature of textual alterations by the early scribes, Ehrman argues, is that the proto-orthodox Church's position on the nature of Jesus was fundamentally paradoxical. On one side Jesus had to be a real living human, while on the other, he had to be god, and both at the same time. This paradox acted as a brake on orthodox corruption by limiting its extent. If reinforcing Jesus' humanity, proto-orthodox scribes could not go too far, or they would create ammunition for other Christians who felt Jesus was just a man. By the same token, Jesus' divinity had to be carefully handled, or textual support would be offered to those who believed that Jesus' humanity was an illusion.

Further fallout from this position was that changes are often haphazard and lacking in clear direction, since they can go either way. Some changes reinforce Jesus' humanity, others his divinity, aimed as they were at different types of "heresy." The reason that there are no systematic changes is that there was no systematic opposition; all heresies had to be accounted for in the textual controversies. Thus, the only direction of change was in the direction of compromise, a direction that is hard to see since it naturally rejects identifiable extremes.

As far it as it goes, this is a useful work, especially on the methodological front. The problem for this reviewer is that it doesn't go far enough. By pointing to strong tendencies in the orthodox Church for adjusting the gospels to reinforce the orthodox view, Ehrman automatically raises the issue of why those documents were written in the first place. Despite the clear demonstration of this overarching tendenz, Ehrman refrains from exploring its repercussions for the stories as a whole. The other problem, far more disturbing, and far more urgent, is the text of the Pauline letters. Ehrman essentially cops out by not exploring them in greater detail. Our only texts of the Pauline canon basically date from the start of the third century, yet Ehrman shows that the "corruption" of the scriptures was well under way by then. It is hard to avoid concluding that the Pauline canon must be extensively booby-trapped against heretics as well (Ehrman points to numerous minor emendations) but there is simply no discussion of this. Indeed, the issue is not even raised. That is why, in the final analysis, this book should probably be entitled The Orthodox Corruption of the Gospels.

Book Review: Goodacre, The Case Against Q

---

The Case Against Q
By Mark Goodacre
2002. Trinity Press International 227 pages.

"One might guess at a further reason for the excessive rhetoric. I suspect that for many there is a certain feeling of frustration that debates over the Synoptic Problem continue to rage on from year to year, that Q skeptics obstinately refuse to acknowledge the supposed triumph of the two-source theory...not only are Q skeptics a nuisance, but also they appear to have a certain arrogance, the surprising and implausible notion that they might be able to overturn the consensus of a century."-- Mark Goodacre, The Case Against Q

Mark Goodacre's The Case Against Q is the latest and most comprehensive installment in a long-running argument over Q that Q proponents will wish had ended before Goodacre stepped into the ring. Here is a book that offers everything a good academic work should provide: fresh perspectives, an iconoclastic viewpoint, multidisciplinary approaches, a very high degree of accessibility and readability, and of course, pertinent commentary on a major controversy. This is one of those wonderful works that the reader plops down with in front of a roaring fire, cool jazz in the background, the phone off the hook, and the family cat purring away on one's lap. Poor cat! With so many Aha! moments on the way, it is unlikely to get any rest at all.

The Case against Q weighs in at a surprisingly slim 228 pages, a slender Greek goddess among the 500 page Norse giants that populate the NT scholarly world. It is divided into 9 chapters and an Epilogue, covering "First Impressions" to the devastating finale "Narrative Sequence in a Sayings Gospel? Reflections on a Contrast between Thomas and Q" that is the proverbial final nail.

From the opening chapter, Goodacre sets forth a thesis that rests on several pillars. First, belief in Q is largely the result Q's widespread acceptance, rather than any solid argument for it. The fact there exists a consensus in favor of Q has become an argument for its existence. Second, arguments for Q are effective in large part because they deploy such strong rhetoric. In a subsection entitled "Rhetoric in the Case for Q" Goodacre instances many examples of overblown language, complaining: "It seems that scholars are unable to talk about the hypothesis of Luke's use of Matthew without resorting to strings of rhetorical questions, with exclamation marks, joke quotation marks, humorous imagery, and, at times, even ridicule."(p78) Third, scholars have not given enough credit to Luke's creative use of Matthew and Mark, and have not understood how Luke used his sources. In addition to constituting powerful arguments against Q, Goodacre's discussion of Lukan creativity, originality, and theology will also aid in understanding that most beautiful of the gospels.

Goodacre then plays Magellen in the undiscovered worlds of narrative criticism and comparative literature. Narrative criticism is a relatively new methodology that seeks to understand the document as a work of literature "from the perspective of its implied author." The Case against Q utilizes narrative criticism to test some of the assumptions of source criticism, attacking the common source-critical assumption that Luke's ordering of events is inexplicable if he used Matthew. Both sides consider the "argument from Luke's re-ordering of Matthew" to be the strongest one, the key passage for this being the Sermon on the Mount, often cited as conclusive evidence in this argument by Q proponents. Using the narrative critical study of Joel Green (a monster of 850 pages with the understated title The Gospel of Luke) as his foundation, Goodacre attacks this argument by observing that Luke's use is completely consistent with his theological and literary goals. In short, the assertion that Luke's re-ordering of Matthew is inexplicable cannot hold. In fact, as Goodacre argues, the reason that Luke's gospel has so much historical-biographical plausibility is precisely because Luke has re-arranged Matthew so that it flows more smoothly and makes more sense.

The next chapter, "The Synoptic Jesus and the Celluloid Christ" makes a Robert Price-like leap into modernity with a comparison of the way the Jesus story has been used in modern film with the way Luke broke up and redistributed the story. Warning: much forehead slapping ahead. Goodacre's intention is to utterly demolish the idea that Luke's re-ordering of Matthew is "inexplicable," this time from a comparative perspective. According to Goodacre, far from following the gospel order, movies typically cheerfully re-arrange it to accommodate the varying demands of cinematic storytelling(he even uses The Life of Brian which he obviously loves and terms "seminal"). Once again he focuses on the Sermon on the Mount, needling scholars who have built imposed castles of rhetoric on assumptions of sand by showing that like Luke, who could not have "destroyed" the Sermon on the Mount, was but one of many borrowers of Matthew's story who ruthlessly re-arranged its content and occurrence in the narrative for his own purposes. If Luke "destroyed" Matthew then so did a dozen film-makers, none of who used Q. Indeed, Pasolini's Gospel According to St. Matthew does almost the same thing with the Sermon that Luke does! The reader will not only find this chapter studded with epiphanies, but darn good fun as well.

In the final chapter chapter, which contrasts Q and Thomas, Goodacre once again opens by citing the fine rhetoric of his opponents, then undercuts their arguments by showing how they have misunderstood the issues. Traditionally, Thomas has been used to buttress Q by demonstrating that the existence of a Sayings Gospel is plausible -- look! here's another example of the genre. Goodacre shows, however, that unlike Thomas, Q contains "clear signs of narrative properties." Thomas, on the other hand, is simply a disconnected collection of sayings that contains no hint of a narrative. Thus, Thomas is a horse of a different color, and cannot be used as a prop for Q.

The Case against Q is an extremely convincing book and a worthy addition to any collection of NT scholarly works. However, as a Jesus-skeptic, I should add that I couldn't help noticing (and chuckling at) the fact that Goodacre's complaints about Q proponents are exactly the same ones Jesus-skeptics make about the historicist position: the overblown rhetoric supported by methodologies that are simply exercises in discovering one's own assumptions, the misunderstandings of basic issues, the sloppy logic and argumentation, and the deployment of the fact of consensus as an argument for the consensus. Perhaps his experiences as a Q skeptic will give him some sympathy for those of us "nuisances" who are as equally, and as cogently, so "arrogantly" critical of his field's historicist assumptions.

Book Review: Donahue and Harrington, The Gospel of Mark

The Gospel of Mark
by John R. Donahue and Daniel J. Harrington
Sacra Pagina Series, Daniel J. Harrington, Editor
Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press. 2002. 488 pages. $39.95

On that day when the aliens finally arrive at our planet and ask for samples of objects that represent the achievements of Earth's civilization, someone is certain to nominate the book as one of humanity's major steps forward. And when they do, the book they'll have in mind to represent the highest in human progress will undoubtedly be the Sacra Pagina Mark.

In every way this efficient, well-written text is a pleasure to interact with. The Commentary is long enough to present significant detail without piling on erudition for erudition's sake. The gentle, unobtrusive style draws the reader in by subordinating the personality of the writer to the needs of the text, rather than vice versa, as is so common in New Testament scholarly writings. Thus, sitting on the couch, book in hand, is like reading the Gospel of Mark with Donahue and Harrington perched one on each shoulder, helpfully pointing out problems, issues, meanings, and possibilities. Even at the physical level the book is sheer joy: perfectly balanced for the hand, the pages having a faint creamy texture that is easy on the eyes and feels wonderful under the fingers.

The opening chapters of the text are taken up with a general introduction to the structure, characters, style, and dating of the Gospel of Mark. A pericope by pericope commentary follows. Each pericope of Mark is presented in an orderly fashion, with the authors' translation, a set of notes, an interpretation, and a small bibliography focusing on major issues. The notes cover text critical issues, OT relationships, and historical points. They also explain the action, and the interrelationships among the various parts of Mark's gospel as well as with the other canonical gospels, and extracanonical writings. The interpretation explains the text in greater detail, and also offers a guide to actualizing the lessons of the gospel in the reader's own life. Historical judgments play a minor role. An index gives important parallels to the Gospel events in other writings.

The meat of the book is in the notes. A typical note, like this one on 4:38, states:

• 38. he himself was in the stern of the boat, sleeping on a cushion" the image is of Jesus on the raised afterdeck, sleeping on a sailor's cushion (or perhaps on a gan of sand used for both ballast and comfort). "Sleeping" (katheduon) recalls the farmer of 4:27 whose unconcerned sleep is a prelude to the miracle of growth and harvest. Also, an untroubled sleep is a sign of trust in the power and protection of God (Prov 3:32-34; Pss 3:5; 4:8; Job 11:18-19). The almost comic contrasts among the deep sleep of Jesus, the raging sea, and the terror of the disciples heighten the power of the word of Jesus.(p158)

Most of the notes follow this format, illuminating the passage, linking it to other Markan pericopes and Jewish tradition, and giving some historical insight into the possible meaning of the text. The prose itself is simple, clear, and unadorned, and stays entirely out of the way of the information. Knowledge of Greek is unnecessary, since the authors helpfully present the meaning of the Greek terms they use.

A welcome aspect of this volume is the way in which it presents possibilities rather than determines realities, again in opposition to the prevailing trend in NT writing. Donahue and Harrington have no theory of their own to demonstrate in this book, and so the text lacks a polemical slant and defensive critique. The result is that the reader can concentrate fully on the information they present, instead of always having to swat aside tenditious comments intended to impress rather than clarify.

Perhaps the only interpretive problem they create for themselves is their firm date of Mark at 70. This often leaves them in silence or confusion when they encounter possible evidence for second century construction of Mark. For example, discussing Mark 9:5 and 10:51, they write that the term "rabbi" probably had not yet become a technical term for "teacher" when Mark's gospel was written. This could perhaps be re-interpreted as evidence for a later date of Mark, but they do not take that step. Yet, that is but a minor failing in a work swarming with major strengths.

In sum, Donahue and Harrington have produced a first rate work that is reliable, balanced, easy to read, and extremely helpful. This volume should be a welcome addition to the library of anyone who receives good scholarship gladly.

Book Review: Robert Gundry, Mark

---

Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross
by Robert H. Gundry. Published by Erdmans (1993) 1069 pages.

Gundry's masterwork Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross is 1069 pages of scholarship on the Gospel of Mark, reviewed. The tome manages to be an amazingly useful book despite the fact that it is simply a purblind review of the Gospel of Mark with its eye firmly fixed on the task of demonstrating that the scholars who have other-than-reactionary views of Jesus are all wrong.

Gundry announces his project in the opening paragraph of the work:

• The Gospel of Mark contains no ciphers, no hidden meanings, no sleight of hand:
  
  No messiac secret designed to mask a theologically embarrassing absence of messianism from the ministry of the historical Jesus. No messianic secret designed to mask a politically dangerous presence of messianism in his ministry. No freezing of Jesuanic tradition in writing so as to halt oral pronouncements of prophets speaking in Jesus' name. No Christology of irony that means the reverse of what it says. No back-handed slap at Davidic messianism. No covert attack on divine man Christology. No pitting of the Son of man against the Christ, the Son of David, or the Son of god.(p1)

The list goes on for two more paragraphs. Then Gundry finishes:

• None of these. Mark's meaning lies on the surface. He writes a straightforward apology for the Cross, for the shameful way in which the object of Christian faith and subject of Christian proclamation died, and hence for Jesus as the Crucified One."(p1)

There it is. NT scholars do not lack for hubris; most of us would feel obligated to at least explore the ideas enumerated therein, and show where they have gone wrong, but Gundry isn't going to waste his time on penny-ante stuff like that. He intends this as a serious work of scholarship which will simply take the story of Jesus as given, assume it is actually history, and not bother with other possibilities, except to show that they have erred. In other words, this is the apotheosis of the declarative method: It's True Because I Say It Is, to which he has added the Gundry Corollary: Other Scholars are Wrong Because I Say They Are.

The commentary itself consists of a pericope by pericope review of the Gospel of Mark. Each review offers a commentary on the pericope, and then is followed by a set of notes in 10 point font. The pericopes are always given a title that often comically reflects Gundry's confessional positions. Whereas most exegetes might title Mark 8:10-12 something like "Jesus refuses to give a sign," Gundry would never opt for anything so pedestrian, for him that is "THE POWER OF JESUS' DENYING THE REQUEST FOR A SIGN" in all caps for special emphasis. Other pericope titles include:

JESUS' POWER TO PREDICT HIS OWN FATE AND THAT OF OTHERS

THE POWER OF JESUS TO FEED FOUR THOUSAND PEOPLE WITH SEVEN LOAVES AND A FEW SMALL FISH

and of course, when the reader grows bored with the repetition of "POWER" Gundry offers us:

THE SUPERPOWER OF JESUS IN A SPECIALLY DIFFICULT EXORCISM

The real meat of the book is in the notes; this is essentially a thousand page monster written in a ten point font (!). The notes themselves attempt to cover various controversies, observations, and arguments about Mark, reviewing the Greek first, and then moving onto other issues. Although Gundry appears to be displaying vast erudition as the cites roll by, the careful reader will soon note that Gundry is primarily carrying on a conversation with conservatives like R. Pesch, J Gnilka, J. Jeremias, and his own previous works. Other authors are cited on particular topics, and liberal scholars are mentioned only for squelching. This places some limits on the usefulness of the commentary because so often Gundry is adjudicating among various conservative standpoints, rather than really exploring a multiplicity of perspectives on the gospel. An additional problem is that the work is now more than a decade old and in serious need of revision and update.

Nevertheless, there is quite a bit to be learned from this work. It is basically an encyclopedia about the Gospel of Mark, and it can be profitably treated as such. Gundry is thorough on text critical issues, and I picked up quite a few useful tidbits. For example, not being able to read Greek, I had never known that when Jesus' disciples are criticized for not washing in Mark 7:1-13, they are eating not just any food, but the magic bread that Jesus had created in the previous pericope. "The anaphoric definite article refers back to the five loaves broken by Jesus and eaten by the five thousand..."(p348). The RSV and NIV have just "food" there while the YLT and Darby have "bread" but without indicating that it is the magic bread from the previous scene. This changed my whole view of the pericope. Similarly Verse 3 in that same pericope has "clenched fist" in Greek although most translations change this to "hands." Thus it is truly said that until you read the NT in Greek, you haven't read it. Gundry is usually conscientious in bringing out a variety of views on the meaning of a given pericope, so there is a harvest to be gathered if one ignores his facile if dominating dismissals.

However, Gundry's work runs aground when he leaves the stamp collecting and ventures into actual historical analysis. When it comes to adjudicating between different points of view, he is extremely skilled at presenting himself as the forceful judge of what is right and wrong, a position he often ascribes to Jesus (who is in reality a projection of Gundry's own decisive persona). His historical analysis verges on comical, however. Because he has declared that Mark has no hidden intentions or meanings, repeated themes, such as Jesus' injunction to secrecy, are treated as unrelated events with only local explanations. For example, the injunction to secrecy to the healed leper in Mark 1 is explained as Jesus' way of getting the leper to hurry up and show himself to the priest so Jesus can get authenticated testimony of the miracle out to the public. Similarly, the injunction to secrecy in the healing of Jairus' daughter is treated as a ruse by Jesus to buy time to permit him to get away before anyone has realized he has raised the dead. Alas, Mark has already solved that problem by simply writing the crowd out of the narrative; Jesus' command has some other purpose, probably for the parents to prove to themselves that the girl is not a ghost (a double/foreshadowing for resurrection appearances at the end of Mark, which I believe are now in John 21, in which Jesus eats to prove that he is not a ghost). Gundry, in other, words, refuses to recognize that Mark has created a narrative that might have a complex structure, wider significations, and its own agenda. Thus, he spends just a hair over 3 pages at the end of the book explaining Mark's purpose, but more than 20 trying to defend the pious position that Mark's gospel was dictated to him by Peter in Rome.

To demonstrate that all is history Gundry magics up his own set of criteria, each one adjusted for the pericope in question. Were it not for the fact that Gundry is deadly serious, it would almost be possible to read them as parody of NT historical Jesus scholarship. Here are some of his arguments:

• Argument from Awkwardness: (7:1-20) in which he argues that Mark must be writing history because the grammar is awkward (but see 623 for his argument that the awkwardness there exists for emphasis). Awkwardness means, essentially, Whatever Gundry Wants.

• Argument from Apparently Useless Details (p387), in which Gundry argues that no one would have made up the circuitous route through Tyre and Sidon, and the "functionally useless" reference to Sidon.It's useless, so it must be true. Of course, it is useless because Gundry has in essence ruled out all forms of explanation that rely on interpreting the text in more robust ways than he is willing to permit.

• Argument from Opaque Reference (p403) about Dalmanutha he writes "For who would insert a regional name of opaque reference?"

• Argument from Repeated Structures (p466) "Features of 9:1 that tend toward its authenticity include the characteristically Jesuanic asseveration, "Truly I say unto you." Gundry's imagination seems not to encompass the realm of fiction.

• Argument from Uniqueness: (p520) where John's solo role in 9:38-40 is "unique" and therefore argues for historicity.

• Argument from Twoness and Fervor (p627) The twoness and anonymity of the disciples sent to fetch the colt and characteristically Jesuanic [greek] "go," support the authenticity of vv1-7.

There are many more, but the reader will have gotten the flavor of Gundry's "historical" analysis by now. Whenever Gundry wants to denigrate more complex views of Mark, he always uses the word "fabrication" with its overtone of malicious intent ("If Mark had wanted to fabricate___we would expect___"). Gundry rarely takes on the issue of OT parallels head on; instead, he slides by them, either ignoring them (in the healing of the withered hand no attempt is made to deal with the obvious parallel in the OT), or arguing (for example) that people who think Mark 11:1-7 is dependent on 1 Sam 10 are making a philosophical judgment that rejects Jesus' predictive ability, or else by using absurd arguments that boil down to rejecting parallels because the details are not the same -- much as if someone argued that Barb Wire cannot be paralleling Casablanca because, well, Barb is a woman while Rick is a man.

Gundry's naive view of history often leads him to play up some of the more absurd details in the text, often in ways that reveal its inherent implausibility. For example, he expostulates:

• Gundry (1993) notes: "Though Mark does not tell the mileage to Jerusalem (it is about two miles), the paving of the road from a point farther away than Bethpage and Bthany makes for a "red carpet" the astoundingness of whose length magnifies the VIP that Jesus is...the doubling of the pavement with straw as well as with garmnets despite the fact that since Jesus is sitting on the colt instead of walking on foot he does not need any pavement at all adds to the astoundingness of its length" (p626).

In other words, Jesus' path is lined with straw and garments for two miles! A more philosophically balanced scholar might see that as evidence that the scene as it stands is historically implausible, but for Gundry it is simply one more testimony to the glorious power of Jesus.

More serious than his amusing acceptance of historical absurdities is his attack on other scholarship. In his introduction Gundry essentially denies that the various forms of NT critical apparatus, such as form criticism or redaction criticism, are useful in studying Mark. To deny, as Gundry does, that redaction criticism is useful is to deny, essentially, that authors have identifiable styles, or that such styles can be identified. It is to negate not merely a vast mine of data in NT studies, but outside of it as well. And finally, it negates the very humanity of Mark. Everything is on the surface, says Gundry, as if Mark was a human being less complicated than Gundry himself, a sort of gospel writer in blackface, putting on a Jesus show for the evangelical crowd. The reality is, as anyone who has plumbed Mark’s complex use of the OT in his story knows, that Mark was a marvelously subtle and creative writer, well at home with different kinds of irony, and able to deploy his OT references in ways that highlight what is going on in his own story.

In the end, Gundry's vast erudition cannot quite overcome the limitations of his confessional position. Sadly, in many ways Gundry has written a book that is fertile, not because its point of view is fecund, but because it is fertilizer.