Kata Markon

["Stefan L�cking" <stefan AT stefanluecking.de>]

For me Mack's book was one of the most exciting books about the gospel of
Mark I've read so far. But although I would recommend to read his book it
didn't convince me neither in his exegetical part nor with its ideology.
My impression is that Mack asks the right questions, but gives the wrong
answers.

Concerning the exegitical part I wrote a short critique on his treatment
of Mark 14:3-9 (on p. 172-207) in my book on the same text (published in
German: Stefan Lücking, Mimesis der Verachteten. Eine Studie zur
Erzählweise von Mk 14,1-11, SBS 152, Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches
Bibelwerk 1992, ISBN 3-460-04521-3; the critique of Mack can be found on
p. 73-75).
Mack uses the the ancient genre of chreia in order to give the good old
"Formkritik" a modern shape with more place for pure speculation.
Specially revealing is the fact that his "original" short version  of the
chreia (p. 200) contains an important addition: it is not an ordinary
woman that anoints Jesus, but a "disreputable" woman. Although Mack takes
this addition from Luke's version of the anointing it reveals a kind of
sexism for which women have to be either virgins, mothers or whores. As a
sexist cliché it looks to me like a later addition and I doubt if Mack
shares the same kind of sexism when deaclaring this element "original"
without even asking for a reason.
Also, I doubt that Mark 14:3-9 is even a chreia because it contains all
features that according to Theon distinguish the grenre of apomnemoneuma
from chreia.

Concerning his ideological critique I share his concerns against Christian
intolerance and Anti-Judaism and the Christian roots of imperialism and
racism. But I agree with the critique of Shawn Kelley that Mack's argument
contains so many problems that it is hard to know where to begin. This is
a pity because these concerns are worth a better treatment. The main
question is why a religion that proclaims love even to enemies can be the
origin for intolerance, violence and imperialism. The answer can only be
dialectical: the origin of Christian intolerance has to be found just in
its claim for universal love. If you understand universal love, tolerance
and justice in a simplistic way you are not far from the kind of
self-righteousness that is necessary to kill without remorse people with
other convictions or beliefs.
An excellent example for a dialectic critique of the origins of Christian
intolerance are the essays of Guy Stroumsa contained in his book:
Barbarian philosophy. The religious revolution of early Christianity, WUNT
112, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1999.

A word about Robert Gundry: The introduction to his book is very
refreshing.  His principle "Mark's meaning lies on the surface" (p. 1) is
an important clue against so many interpretations of Mark that read the
gospel against what it explicitly says, because of presuppostions about
the historical context or the real meaning behind the text. I only was
disapointed that Gundry himself doesn't always respect his principle, but
sometimes commits intentional or affective fallacy. But despite of this
it's still the best commentary of the last decade I know.

Stefan Lücking