JoeWallack

JW:
The offending Verse:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_4

JW:
Regarding textual variation Wieland Willker does not inventory 4:10. I have Faith that there is textual variation though and Willker is silent because he thinks the variation insignificant (and lacks the computer memory necessary to list all variants). On to Biblios:

http://biblos.com/mark/4-10.htm

You can see that the important root words are all the same, there is just some difference in grammar. As always, where the hell is Jeffery Gibson when you really need him? In an irony that the author of "Mark" would really appreciate, his sole technique of teaching us Greek is to point out that we do not know it.

Before looking at the details of the individual offending words I think it would be beneficial to consider some commentaries to help identify what to look for. R.T. France has the official detailed supposed critical commentary (or via: amazon.co.uk) but he always has an underlying assumption of historicity. Here he expresses obsession/confusion on the identity of those with the twelve (I can picture the author on The Daily Show explaining, "They were "with" Jesus, not with Jesus.")

There's really only a handful of Christian Bible scholars who properly understand "Mark" (in another irony that "Mark" would really appreciate, you have to first understand that "Mark" is not telling the truth in order to understand him).

We start with the Master of "Mark", Werner Kelber, and Mark's Story of Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) (in an especially interesting contrast, Kelber's is a little book of 96 pages while France's is a big book, small print, with 719 pages. You could know everything about France's book and not know anything important about "Mark".)

Kelber points out that 4:10 ties to 3:34:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_3

Jesus defines that whoever does what he says is "with" him. So before 4:10, "Mark's" Jesus had already defined who was with him. Kelber writes:

Next on the list, Robert Fowler, Let the Reader UNDERSTAND (or via: amazon.co.uk), unfortunately does not do the detailed analysis (which is left for us than) but gives the meaning:

Fowler describes the meaning of 4:10-13 as "opaque", the only way to read it based on the language, but I fear that would be somewhat hard to digest for critics. So on to the offending details:



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Solo

Yup, makes sense: I did a superficial scan of all the major MSS' and did not find significant variants. I doubt they would have not bubbled up, as they invariaby do if there is variant text - like say around the post Markan ideas in 3:14-3:16.

It's interesting that even someone as sharp as Wrede seems to have fallen for Mark's trick. He believed, and after him many, that being "by himself" relates to Jesus being alone with the disciples a la Matt 13.10, Lk 8.9. Raisanen, Meagher (who thinks 4:10 an example of 'clumsiness'), and Donald Juel follow. But, in Fowler apparently, Mark's access to Jesus is complex, and extends from Tiberius time to the liturgical time. My own reading of Mark is that the Twelve were not originally 'disciples' but a symbolic witness of Christ in Israel, of whom only Judas Iscariot was fleshed out to divide the house of Israel. This occured to me once as I was driving and passing a truck with a bumper sticker saying "Jesus Loves You but I am His Favourite". If only Peter and the Zebs received the Transfiguration manifest of the resurrected Lord, (there was no zombie Jesus in the tale), where did the other nine get it ?

Among the exegets I read, only Gundry seems aware Mark was cooking something special in 4:10-12 also regarding the grammar. He notes that Mark uses nowhere else 'peri auton' to refer to Peter and the Zebs, and says it is hard to escape the conclusion that Mark himself composed the formula 'syn tois dodeka'. But Gundry would not go as far as James Williams, in entertaining the exciting possibility that Mark wanted to obscure the identity of those who asked the question.

Funny, I have felt for quite a while that the problem with Mark is that he was telling the truth : you can't preach gospel as Paul did; you have to play the gospel as a farce for it to be taken seriously. Just imagine a Pauline pneumaticist reading about Joseph of Arimathea going to Pilate asking for a body that has light in it, and the prefect thinks he is asking for a corpse.

....which are missing. I have had Fowler's book on order since mid-September when I learned he proposed that the gar in Mk 16:8 connects to the beginning of the gospel. I arrived at the same conclusion independently - not because I am an expert in Greek - which I am not - but because I believe Mark is an allegory of the Spirit cycle.

As to the "opacity" of 4:10-12 - the [I quibble[/I] (which is what I call the three verses because they are a ploy) perhaps only seems opaque because people believe that there was a settled set of believes around Jesus at Mark's time, i.e. one church which all believed that Jesus rose from the dead (in the way that Paul defined 'resurrection'). In reality, the seeming opacity of Mark might have been a normal way that a cultus would protect itself against (a) proselytic rival(s) who claimed common ground but were introducing ideas or teachings at loggerheads with core beliefs.

Best,
Jiri

aa5874

What!!! You mean gMark was written for Scholars!!!

What!!!! The author of gMark is NOT telling the truth in order to understand him????

You are right. Only a handful can come up with such bizarre claims.

gMark is not really different to Plutarch's "Romulus" or any of the Myth fables of antiquity.

One does NOT have to be an EXPERT to understand Suetonius "The Lives of the Twelve Caesars".

On does NOT have to be an EXPERT to recognise that gMark is a mere MYTH Fable.

jakejonesiv

Dear AA5874,

What do you think of Mark as an allegory, rather than history?

aa5874

Please ANSWER your own questions.

I WANT to PRESENT the WRITTEN EVIDENCE. I am NO longer interested in IMAGINATION and SPECULATION.

ALL I KNOW is that gMark as found written contains Fiction and IMPLAUSIBILITIES with respect to Jesus and his disciples.

For example, the Specific Gravity of Jesus was FAR LESS than sea water when the disciples SAW Jesus walk on the sea.

ALL I KNOW is that gMark's Jesus as described was a PHANTOM.

All I KNOW is that gMark's Jesus as described supports the Myth Jesus theory.

Those are some of the things that I know.

Answer your OWN questions.

I told you what I KNOW based on the evidence from antiquity.

Now, it is YOUR turn to ANSWER your own questions.

JoeWallack

JW:
The offending Verse:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_4

JW:
http://biblos.com/mark/4-10.htm

Greek	Transliteration	Strong's	Morphology	English
Καὶ	kai	2532	CONJ	and
ὅτε	ote	3753	ADV	soon
ἐγένετο	egeneto	1096	V-2ADI-3S	he became
κατὰ	kata	2596	PREP	according to
μόνας	monas	3441	A-APF	alone
ἠρώτων	ērōtōn	2065	V-IAI-3P	asking
αὐτὸν	auton	846	P-ASM	him
οἱ	oi	3588	T-NPM	followers
περὶ	peri	4012	PREP	about
αὐτὸν	auton	846	P-ASM	him
σὺν	sun	4862	PREP	along
τοῖς	tois	3588	T-DPM	followers
δώδεκα	dōdeka	1427	A-DPM	twelve
τὰς	tas	3588	T-APF	followers
παραβολάς	parabolas	3850	N-APF	parables

The offending word:

I think the first question here is who exactly does the offending word apply to? Jeff, Jeff? Jeffrey Gibson always reminds me of the three hired guns from High Plains Drifter who are hired to protect the town from 3 outlaws and go and get themselves killed by picking a fight when they are alone with Clint Eastwood before the outlaws ever get there:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8sNeozweTM

Let's look at the grammar for the offending word:

A-APF = Adjective - Accusative, Plural Feminine

Plural feminine? Doesn't sound like an adjective just for Jesus (unless you are arguing for the trinity). Presumably it communicates that Jesus is alone with something else. But is it just the others (not the 12) or others and the 12? The related Greek looks like it translates to:

"Those alone with him (Jesus) who are with the twelve"

Oy! Jeff! If you try to read it sequentially, than those alone with Jesus are only those who were with the 12 in general but not specifically here. Go to the best translation, RSV:

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/...1&byte=4697892

Seems fair. "those who were about him" are doing the asking and "with the twelve" is only an adjective here and not part of the setting. But in English there is some implication that the 12 are also there and maybe even participating. You can see every type of variation in translation here:

http://bible.cc/mark/4-10.htm

Further analysis of the grammar of the offending word though:

A-APF = Adjective - Accusative, Plural Feminine

yields the Accusative case which is usually connected to the nominative case. Here we see that the others are:

οἱ oi 3588 T-NPM followers = Nominative case

So it would appear that the asking is limited to the others. I think the combination of a group being alone here with Jeus, the sequence of the others mentioned first and the case limiting the asking to the others makes it clear that the 12 were somewhere else (so to speak).

Regarding Solo's claim that what is reMarkable here is the use of "alone" the related question is whether the offending word can be used as relative instead of just absolute as it usually is. Since "Mark" and the other Gospellers also use it relatively, it's safe to say that "Mark" is using it relatively in 4:10. Ironically Solo is right here. But for the wrong reason.

Unless Toto can resurrect Gibson, we'll have to continue with the related grammar.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Solo

Never mind the other gospellers; they made their own use of Mark. Where else does Mark use μονος relatively ? From what I am looking at, there are only two other mentions of Jesus alone and they are both absolute !

6:47 And when evening came, the boat was out on the sea, and he was alone (καὶ αυτος μονος) on the land.

9:8 And suddenly looking around they no longer saw any one with them but Jesus only (αλλα τον Ἰησουν μονον).

Best,
Jiri

JoeWallack

JW:
Continuing lab analysis of the offending Verse:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_4

JW:
http://biblos.com/mark/4-10.htm

Greek	Transliteration	Strong's	Morphology	English
Καὶ	kai	2532	CONJ	and
ὅτε	ote	3753	ADV	soon
ἐγένετο	egeneto	1096	V-2ADI-3S	he became
κατὰ	kata	2596	PREP	according to
μόνας	monas	3441	A-APF	alone
ἠρώτων	ērōtōn	2065	V-IAI-3P	asking
αὐτὸν	auton	846	P-ASM	him
οἱ	oi	3588	T-NPM	followers
περὶ	peri	4012	PREP	about
αὐτὸν	auton	846	P-ASM	him
σὺν	sun	4862	PREP	along
τοῖς	tois	3588	T-DPM	followers
δώδεκα	dōdeka	1427	A-DPM	twelve
τὰς	tas	3588	T-APF	followers
παραβολάς	parabolas	3850	N-APF	parables

Let's look at the main verb:

ἠρώτων ērōtōn 2065 V-IAI-3P asking

Grammar = Imperfect Active Indicative Third Person Plural

Translated as our present tense = "asking". ReMarkable?

"Matthew" =

http://biblos.com/matthew/13-10.htm

εἶπαν eipan 3004 V-2AAI-3P said = Aorist

"Luke" =

http://biblos.com/luke/8-9.htm

Ἐπηρώτων epērōtōn 1905 V-IAI-3P questioning = Imperfect

Since "Luke" has kept the Imperfect aspect and the imperfect mainly means more than a single question here (questioning), understandable since the context is that they do not understand, "Mark's" use of the imperfect here does not seem overly reMarkable. On the other hand, "Mark's" overall preference for the Imperfect does favor a Sub-text intent (for the audience (if not an outright play)).

What I do find reMarkable is the same grammar is used for:

μόνας monas 3441 A-APF alone

τὰς tas 3588 T-APF followers

παραβολάς parabolas 3850 N-APF parables

"Followers" is just a mistake by Biblios I think, "τὰς" is just the definite article = "the parables" (It would be interesting though to read "The followers of the followers asked about following parables.") Note that the key offending adjective, "alone" and "the parables" are all Accusative Plural Feminine. "Matthew"/"Luke" don't have this matching.

Note at the end:

http://biblos.com/mark/15-41.htm

it's only the feminine plural who are still following Jesus. "Matthew" converts to it was mainly women there and "Luke" further converts to women were part of a larger group ("John" of course goes all the Way and says disciples were there). So it would appear that "Mark" does want to tie the feminine who are alone with Jesus in the offending verse to the remaining followers at the end. I submit his use of grammar to do that is just another Stylish way of contrasting real followers ("family") of Jesus to the supposed male disciples.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

archibald

Is there any evidence that Mark may have written this passage with his left hand while viewing the papyrus in a mirror, or with his toga rolled up and making goat noises? If so, these might be clues.

Sorry. Couldn't resist.