Kata Markon

["Shawn J. Kelley" <skelley AT daemen.edu>]

I was going to withhold my opinion on Burton Mack's "The Myth of Innocence", 
but
since I've been prodded I figure I'll throw my 2 cents in.

The book really has two very different kinds of arguments to it: a particular
reading of Mark, and an ideological critique based on and informed by that
reading.  I have very different reactions to each kind of argument, although I
am not overwhelmed by either.

i) If one buys into his method of reading Mark (i.e. reconstruct the sources
behind the text, posit the means by which he edited these hypothetical 
sources,
and then use that framework to interpret the text), then one would find his
analysis compelling.  I, myself, don't place much stock in reconstructed 
sources
and do not find the "Jesus was a cynic" argument terribly compelling.  I tend 
to
sympathize with literary critical methodology and, therefore with literary
readings of Mark, which prove to be quite different than Mack's.  In short, I
didn't buy the argument that there were these (virtually secular) early
cynic-like Jesus movements which produced benign sayings that were 
domesticated
and ruined by Mark- but it is, at least, a serious argument that is worth
entertaining.

ii)  I must say, however, that the "myth of innocence" business, which gives 
the
book its title, is extremely problematic.  There are, in fact, so many 
problems
with the way that he constructs his argument that it is almost hard to know
where to begin.  (I wish there were some other way to say this, some way that
was somewhat appreciative while remaining critical- but there simply isn't).
The basic problem is this.  He is trying to develop a (generically leftist)
critique of Mark, of the NT, and of Christianity in general.  He sets out to
develop this critique, using European and American imperialism, racism and the
holocaust as touchstones.  I am very much in support of this goal (which gives
me a chance to shamelessly plug my recently released "Racializing Jesus: Race,
Ideology and the Formation of Modern Biblical Scholarship", Routledge 2002).
Perhaps my disappointment with the book stems from my general sympathy with 
the
goals.
    Let me give a few examples.  Mack wants to argue that Mark is anti-Semitic
and that Mark, and the form of Christianity it produces, is "a holocaust 
event"-
or some such nonsense.  I know many Christians are outraged at this comment,
which, I suspect, pleases Mack immensely.  I am disturbed for other reasons.
The claim utterly fails to take the holocaust seriously, and refuses to engage
the mountain of holocaust scholarship that engages the roots of modern
anti-Semitism and the role that it does- and does not- play in the
implementation of the final solution.  (Mack is actually implicitly endorsing 
an
extreme version of the "the straight path" explanation for the Shoah, which 
is a
minority position within the field.  But since he traces the straight path 
back
to Mark, rather than, say, to 19th century racist anstiSemites, his version of
the straight path would be rejected even by those few Holocaust scholars who
still hold onto this framework.  I could take a small amount of comfort in 
this
idiosyncratic position if I had a sense that he knew the contours of the 
debate
and were consciously taking an iconoclastic position.  Instead I think he's 
just
blowing smoke).  He also wants to claim some connection between Mark,
Christianity, and American imperialism.  Again, this is a serious topic (if 
one
excludes Mark from the analysis, but that's another topic for discussion).  
Not
only is his argument incomprehensible at this point (I've read it several 
times
and still can't figure out how he sees the connection), it also completely 
fails
to address the mountain of serious scholarship on the question of imperialism
and it's ideological roots and justification.  One could say the same thing
about what he says about race, and almost any other ideological topic he
broaches.  As far as I can tell, "the Myth of Innocence", which purports to do
ideological criticism, has in almost nothing its bibliography (i.e. 1 
relatively
dated book and 1 newspaper op ed piece) on the topic of ideological criticism-
even though this field (or cluster of fields) is extremely vocal, extremely
serious, and extremely contentious.  To do a serious job on the topic one must
wade into the field, read widely, and begin to stake out a position.  But Mack
doesn't do that, and doesn't seem to think he needs to.  His book does not 
turn
to cultural criticism, to holocaust scholarship, to critical race discourse, 
to
queer theory, to imperialism studies, etc.  Each of these fields is a
substantial and as well developed as Biblical scholarship.  (How can one write
an academic book about imperialism and not talk about Edward Said's
"Orientalism"?)  Mack drops a reference or two to Foucault and then proceeds 
to
construct and argument that would make Foucault turn over in his grave.  (I
mean, really, why call it a Foucaultian archaeology if you have no intention 
of
doing anything Foucault did and instead do the sort of analysis Foucault
explicitly rejected?  Why not just leave the poor guy out of it?).  As far as 
I
can remember, Mack's major source for his political-ideological views was 1
relatively dated book and 1 newspaper op ed piece.  And, as careful analysis 
of
Mack's political and ideological arguments would show that his failure to do
research here is reflected in unconvincing arguments.
    Now, there usually need not be such topics in the bibliography of a book 
on
Mark.  But if biblical scholars are going to broach the topic of ideological
criticism, then they should take it seriously and do the heavy lifting- just 
as
they would if they were talking about Mark or Qumran or the rule of Herod the
Great.

Like I said, you asked.

Shawn Kelley
Daemen College