Who Wrote Mark? Hint: Not Mark

[Snow]

Most people know that the Gospels are anonymous and that the names given each was a later guess. What some may not know is that the Gospels tell us as much about the authors or about milieu in which they were written as they do about the actual history of Jesus.

So who actually wrote Mark or what do we know about who might of written it?

Markan authorship is an incorrect, 2nd century guess that we know about because of a 4th century record. Eusebius, the Christian historian tells us that there was a fragment of writing from Papias, the 2nd century Bishop of Hieraplois - who was a collector of oral traditions of early Christianity. Papias guessed that it was Mark, a personal associate of Peter who wrote the gospel. Already in the 2nd century it is apparent that this Gospel, like all the Gospels, were not eyewitness accounts. The reason that we know that Papias was mistaken in his 2nd century guess about the author is because we can compare it to the author of Luke’s 1st century account of Peter and John Mark (the supposed author). In Act’s 12 Luke speaks of Peter and his associate John Mark so we know he was aware of the him. We also know that Luke possessed a copy of the Gospel of Mark (much of the Book of Luke - and Matthew- comes from the earlier Mark), and yet Luke never makes a connection between the two. Why? Because the authorship was as anonymous to Luke as it is to us.

We can tell from the text that this “Mark” was not a close associate of Peter. Most of the text is a collection of what had previously been unconnected fragments, units of oral tradition and brief written stories and sayings that clearly had a long history of transmission before Mark collected them. It lacks any clear chronology It looks nothing like what Peter’s “reminiscences” would have been.

The opening verses of Mark demonstrate that their origin is pre-Markan, rather than Peter’s recollection:

“In the prophet Isaiah it stands written: “Here is my herald whom I send on ahead of you, and he will prepare your way. A voice crying aloud in the wilderness, ‘Prepare a way for the Lord; clear a straight path for him.’” (Mark 1:2-3)

The problem is that that DOESN’T stand written in Isaiah; it is a merging of the the first nine words of the Greek Septuagint version of Exodus 23:20, with a paraphrase of the Hebrew Malachi 3:1, then joined with the Septuagint Isaiah 40:3.

It is clear that Mark is writing with a pre-composed text and not with a copy of Isaiah in front of him. Mark is at least a 2nd remove from Peter and a 3rd remove from Jesus - and more likely a 4th remove. That Mark is not an intimate of an intimate of Jesus is clear from the disconnected way that he presents Jesus’ ministry. He places the birth first and the crucifixion at the end but the stuff in between is guesswork - in terms of chronology. On way of saying it is that Mark didn’t care about chronology - you can see that from how stories are introduced. Phrases are used like: Once, When after some days, Once more, When Jesus was at a table, On another occasion, On leaving those parts, etc.

[Snow]

Mark was likely not from Palestine as he confuses the geography. In Mark 11 he speaking as approaching Jerusalem from Jericho but he confuses the order in which one would reach Bethany and then Bethphage. He knew so little of the area that he reported Jesus going from the Tyrian territory “by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the territory of the Ten Towns, which is like saying you are going from London to Paris by way of Rome and Edinburg.

In Mark 9 Mark says that Jesus tells his disciples that “there are some of those standing here who will not taste death before they have seen the kingdom of God already come in power,” and later in chapter 13 that after the destruction of the temple, there will be a period of great distress on earth and disorder in heaven followed immediately by the 2nd coming.

On the dating of Mark... he writes for an audience that knows about the destruction of the temple, accepts as it as a preliminary pointer towards the apocalypse and wonders why the apocalypse didn’t happened immediately afterwards. At about the time Mark was written, after 70 AD, there would have been some contemporaries of Jesus still alive - aged about 75 or so. Had Mark known any of them they might have corrected his account (his views of the the apocalypse and 2nd coming were mistaken) , so again we see that Mark was from outside Palestine and clearly did not know any eyewitnesses. It is possible to date Mark more closely than simply “after 70 AD” by references to the Book of Daniel, chapter 12. The exact mechanics of why aren’t that interesting, I think, for the general reader. At any rate Mark was an apocalyptic Christian who mistakenly expected the 2nd coming in about 74 AD, writing a year or two before that date, living outside of Palestine, but not two far... Mark wrote in a not too literate Koine Greek and knew Aramaic, quoting some of the Jesus sayings in Greek letters transliterated from Aramaic. That leads some scholars to place Mark in Syria where Greek was common but Aramaic survived as a secondary language.

[Snow]

That Mark and his audience were not Jewish is clear from the text. He knows enough about Jewish customs but just enough to get them wrong. In chapter 7 he explains that some “followers” were eating food with “defiled” hands - not washing them. But he confused the practice that was common in his own time with the custom in Jesus’s time which was different - then only the priests were obliged to wash their hands before meals. Mark, as mentioned before, quotes his source but in doing so misquotes scripture or fails to correct errors. For example in Mark 10:19 he has Jesus misquote the Decalogue:

“You know the commandments: “Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false evidence, do not defraud , honor your father and mother.”

He invents a new commandment - defraud. As in the case in many examples, when Matthew and Luke use Mark as one of their sources, they correct him - dropping “defraud” assuming that Jesus would certainly know the 10 commandments. In another example that shows Mark’s lack of OT knowledge and/or uncritically assuming that his sources are correct in Mark 2:25-26 he incorrectly identifies the High Priest from 1 Sam 21. Other such examples exist.

Interestingly Mark had a different view of why Jesus spoke in parables than Matthew. For Matthew Jesus spoke in parables to clarify his message, not obscure it. In Mark 4:10-12 he says that Jesus spoke in parables to ensure that the un-elect would not be “turn to God and be forgiven.” He does not seem to understand that his verse 12 - from his source - is a paraphrase of Isaiah 6:9-10. Had he known he might have presented a view that more closely matched Matthew - who corrected Mark’s version. However, it bears mentioning that mistake or not, Mark’s presentation meshes well with his view of a “secret kingdom of God” not meant for mass consumption. An example of his “Messianic secret” view can be seen in the very last, and puzzling, verse of Mark. After the resurrection only three women at the tomb are told about it and “They said nothing to anybody, for they were afraid” (Mark 16:8)... it was part of the secret, Jesus, taught, not to teach, but to obscure and demanded secrecy about his acts of power. Matthew and Luke dropped that last verse and presented the women going out and telling the good news to the disciples and to prove the point even added post-resurrection appearances. By the way, most people know it, but maybe not all who exclusively read the KJV... the “long ending of Mark” (16:9-20) is not part of the original text - the verses are missing from all the earliest manuscripts and were a later interpolation/corruption to the text. And finally, not all these points or conclusions are fact, though some are and some are opinion that I’ve gleamed or directly borrowed from recent readings.

[BenRaines]

I wish I had or made the time to study that you do Snow. Very interesting.

Ben Raines

[Snow]

I wish I had or made the time to study that you do Snow. Very interesting.

Ben Raines

I know that my presentation will come across as skeptical and heretical to some, but to me it is testimony building - understanding how, or possibly how, scriptures came to be. Having an appreciation for it helps us to understand the why the Bible is so ambiguous that so very many conflicting interpretation of it are possible and why modern revelation and inspiration are part and parcel of living religion.

[TruthSeekerToo]

Thank you for taking the time to post all that. Facinating!

[StallionMcBeastly]

I plan to read it all, but so far great post Snow. I think you're almost as smart as me.

[prisonchaplain]

Just so you know...most still believe John Mark to be the author...so to suggest that this is absolutely not so seems a bit over-confident, imho: http://www.theopedia.com/Gospel_of_Mark

[Snow]

Just so you know...most still believe John Mark to be the author...so to suggest that this is absolutely not so seems a bit over-confident, imho: http://www.theopedia.com/Gospel_of_Mark

Well - no.

Your post links to a evangelical wiki page wherein an anonymous user/editor makes a unsubstantiated claim that most still believe that John Mark was the author.

It is worth noting that the entire wiki website you linked to is an evangelical website. The website makes very clear that it is not interested, and in fact is opposed to, unbiased reporting... saying that it "openly maintains a bias." Specifically that bias is an fundamentalist or conservative evangelistic bias. That equates to propaganda, not an emphasis on unbiased truth.

The citations in the article you linked to are simply conservative apologetic references. In fact, to even be a user or editor of the website you have to agree to a particular primary statement of faith.... which, given the topic is kind of ironic. One of the criteria in the statement of faith is that one must accept that the Bible is without error - that is, someone couldn't even contribute to the wiki unless one agrees to a position that precludes the very problems that exist in the authorship of Mark.

Which kind of prompts the question... assuming you believe your link to be credible, how do you explain Luke and Matthew's consistent correction of Mark? They freely tampered with the text and so obviously could not have believed it to be inerrant.

Edited November 4, 2009 by Snow

[Moksha]

On those TV programs about the history of the Bible, the dates for the texts given seem to be past the lifespan of the suggested authors.

[prisonchaplain]

Well - no.

Your post links to a evangelical wiki page wherein an anonymous user/editor makes a unsubstantiated claim that most still believe that John Mark was the author.

Academia, like politics, has its liberal and conservative "schools," or camps. To assume that liberals are more objective is presumptious. A good conservative scholar can look at evidence that leads to a "liberal" conclusion and make that conclusion.

Here's a more academic source that draws the same conclusion: THE GOSPEL OF MARK He's still conservative...a Baptist...but a Canadian Baptist. The school seems to be broadly evangelical, and even welcomes those from different creeds. So, it would probably be like the Cooperative Baptists in the U.S.--or even the Conservative Baptists (who are actually very moderate).

My whole point is not that John Mark had to be the author, but that there are still substantive scholars who believe so.

[Carl62]

Wow! A VERY interesting and educational thread! Thanks Snow. Out of any and all books of scripture and even modern revelation that we have, the four gospels have always been my favorite. I've always wondered if everybody in this world could truly master all the teachings and sayings that are contained in just the four gospels, would we really have a need for anything else? The parts about 'love your enemies', 'do good to those that despitefully use you', 'turn the other cheek', 'give all you have to the poor' etc., are things that are insanely difficult for us to follow through with in our daily lives. If we could just learn to master those commandments, I believe then that the rest (spirituality, love, peace, humility, charity, happiness, contentment, etc.) would automatically follow.:) Only in a perfect dream world, I guess.

[Snow]

Academia, like politics, has its liberal and conservative "schools," or camps. To assume that liberals are more objective is presumptious. A good conservative scholar can look at evidence that leads to a "liberal" conclusion and make that conclusion.

Here's a more academic source that draws the same conclusion: THE GOSPEL OF MARK He's still conservative...a Baptist...but a Canadian Baptist. The school seems to be broadly evangelical, and even welcomes those from different creeds. So, it would probably be like the Cooperative Baptists in the U.S.--or even the Conservative Baptists (who are actually very moderate).

My whole point is not that John Mark had to be the author, but that there are still substantive scholars who believe so.

I’ve read that before. To be straight PC, that article (correct me I am wrong) does not address your point that most [scholars] still believe that Mark was written by John Mark, Peter’s intimate.

The link you posted takes you to a course outline or sorts from a small Baptist college. That the author is an apologist is obvious. What, from the course text, is unclear is whether or not he is a legitimate scholar - or better said employs scholarly rigor. Having read his course material I was struck by how “unscholarly” his approach was. He didn’t review the evidence. He pick and chose that bits of evidence or supposed evidence that matched his already drawn conclusion, barely mentioning or not even mentioning the contradictory evidence. He then claimed, incredibly, “In spite of the evidence, however, many New Testament scholars are reluctant to identify the author of the Gospel of Mark as (John) Mark and to trace its contents to the apostle Peter.” The referenced scholars aren’t reluctant IN SPITE of the evidence. The disagree with his conclusions BECAUSE of the evidence, all of it - not just the cherry picked stuff.

In an example of Professor Smith’s rigor (lack of), one of his points is that the author must have been an eyewitness (or a once remove of an eyewitness) because of the vividness of the accounts. I won’t bother to point out how absurd that is but I’ll comment on his opinion of “vividness.” His very first example of vividness in the account is: “Without delay he called them, and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men and followed him.” Seriously - that’s hardly vivid. It’s cold and almost drab compared to a real vivid account.

He concludes that the author of Mark is likely a resident of Jerusalem but ignores completely the evidence to the contrary... and so on and on.

On a side note... how small (and local) is the Baptist college in question? To put it in perspective, on their website, on the About Us section you can click on Location. It says:

“On the TCH (Route 2) take exit 452, Gorge Road. At the stop sign, turn left.”

[Snow]

The Secret Gospel of Mark

yep - they took washing/anointing temple ordinances, and turned it into some perverted thing. Sad.

It should be noted that no such letter exists and many scholars think that it never existed.

[prisonchaplain]

I’ve read that before. To be straight PC, that article (correct me I am wrong) does not address your point that most [scholars] still believe that Mark was written by John Mark, Peter’s intimate.

But that wasn't my point. That was a conclusion you mentioned from the first article I cited. I've not surveyed the scholarly writings enough to say more than that there are substantive scholars who still believe John Mark did so.

The link you posted takes you to a course outline or sorts from a small Baptist college. That the author is an apologist is obvious.

By that you mean that he has made a conclusion, and defends that conclusion. Well, yes.

What, from the course text, is unclear is whether or not he is a legitimate scholar - or better said employs scholarly rigor. Having read his course material I was struck by how “unscholarly” his approach was. He didn’t review the evidence. He pick and chose that bits of evidence or supposed evidence that matched his already drawn conclusion, barely mentioning or not even mentioning the contradictory evidence.

His approach may be more indicative of the reality that he's teaching an introductory course, than that he himself has not done the proper work to draw his conclusions. To be over simple, in Bible colleges students learn what the scholars have discovered, and in seminaries we learn how to make our own discoveries.

Snow, you go on to make your case against his case, and to have fun with the location and size of the professor's college. I won't respond by arguing that the guy is "top-5 in his field." On the other hand, the job market for theology profs is horrific, and just about any professor that has earned a faculty position at an well-accredited Bible college, university, or seminary is likely to be at least solidly competent.

(Oh please, don't torture me with a few exceptions that I'm sure are out there...)

By the way, here is yet a third source, which seems to go with John Mark as the author. The church appears to be mainstream, rather than evangelical, and the primary resource for the class is authored by a Princeton Seminary grad. Mark_2 And again, my argument is not that John Mark must be the author, nor that all or most scholars think so--but rather that the traditional view has not been completely discarded--there are still scholars who see him as the most likely source of the gospel.

Edited November 6, 2009 by prisonchaplain

[Snow]

But that wasn't my point. That was a conclusion you mentioned from the first article I cited. I've not surveyed the scholarly writings enough to say more than that there are substantive scholars who still believe John Mark did so.

I'm not sure why we are debating this but yes, that was your exact first point. You said:

"Just so you know...most still believe John Mark to be the author."

By "most" I assumed you meant scholars* or at least the well informed, most of the uninformed masses don't even know that the author is anonymous.

By that you mean that he has made a conclusion, and defends that conclusion. Well, yes.

No. By that I mean that he believes a dogma and then picks and choose bit of information that he think supports his dogma. It seems obvious that he is not considering the evidence, weighing the import and then rationally moving towards a conclusion called for in the evidence.

His approach may be more indicative of the reality that he's teaching an introductory course, than that he himself has not done the proper work to draw his conclusions. To be over simple, in Bible colleges students learn what the scholars have discovered, and in seminaries we learn how to make our own discoveries.

Frankly, I suspect he's probably a bright guy and is probably aware of the counter arguments and the problems with his dogma but is so married to his dogma that he discounts anything contradictory without giving it a second thought.

Snow, you go on to make your case against his case, and to have fun with the location and size of the professor's college. I won't respond by arguing that the guy is "top-5 in his field." On the other hand, the job market for theology profs is horrific, and just about any professor that has earned a faculty position at an well-accredited Bible college, university, or seminary is likely to be at least solidly competent.

(Oh please, don't torture me with a few exceptions that I'm sure are out there...)

I thought it was funny. I am sure that there are high quality small colleges, just as their are low quality ones. I have no idea which type Crandall is. I do note that they "teach from a biblical worldview." That's code for conservative evangelical propaganda.

By the way, here is yet a third source, which seems to go with John Mark as the author. The church appears to be mainstream, rather than evangelical, and the primary resource for the class is authored by a Princeton Seminary grad. Mark_2 And again, my argument is not that John Mark must be the author, nor that all or most scholars think so--but rather that the traditional view has not been completely discarded--there are still scholars who see him as the most likely source of the gospel.

Again - yes, it was your point that most [scholars?] believe that JM was the author. See your own post. But I do agree with your current point that some informed people believe that he was. My point is that they are likely wrong.

[prisonchaplain]

And I concede that "most" was an overly strong word in post.

[Snow]

And I concede that "most" was an overly strong word in post.

I must have been confused too - when I saw you say most and then followed your link, I was sure that the wiki type article said most scholars... now I can't find that exact statement and there is no history showing an edit in the last couple days. I must have had multiple windows open and saw it somewhere else about something else.

[prisonchaplain]

I must have been confused too - when I saw you say most and then followed your link, I was sure that the wiki type article said most scholars... now I can't find that exact statement and there is no history showing an edit in the last couple days. I must have had multiple windows open and saw it somewhere else about something else.

The theopedia article did say most scholars go with Mark...you disputed that, and pointed out the site's exclusive evangelical apologetic approach. I thought I'd countered by saying that there are substantive scholars who still believe it was John Mark.

To be over-simple, conservatives tend to be biased towards more ancient dating of the books, and liberals towards later dating. Conservatives look more to the text itself, and to history, liberals also look much to literary criticism. Yet, I've seen conservatives argue for a later date in specific instances, and make some reference to literary styles.

Personally, I'm biased towards traditional interpretations, authorship, etc. It would not blow my theology at all if John Mark wasn't the author of Mark. But I'm slow to change (classic conservatism, not political rightwingism).

[Guest jewsause]

niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz niggerz