Mark.How Much Ironic Contrast,Transfer&Reversal Did He kraM?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Mark.How Much Ironic Contrast,Transfer&Reversal Did He kraM?

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:04 am

.
It would be interesting to know what Joe is thinking about that presumed ring-composition. Is it pressed to hard? Or something to add?

Mark 1:14 Handing over of John the Baptist
„Now after John was arrested ...“

..... Mark 1:14 Jesus is preaching
..... „Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God,“

.......... Mark 1:16 Calling disciples, two by two
.......... „he saw Simon and Andrew … And Jesus said to them, “Follow me … And going on a little farther, he saw James the son of Zebedee
.......... and John his brother ...“

............... Mark 1:21 First teaching in a synagogue, on the Sabbath, Jesus authority is claimed, the crowds were astonished
............... „And they went into Capernaum, and immediately on the Sabbath he entered the synagogue and was teaching. 22 And they were
............... astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who had authority ...“

.................... Mark 1:29 A „move“ is made to a house
.................... „And immediately he left the synagogue and entered the house“

......................... Mark 1:29 Simon, Andrew, James and John are mentioned, a woman lays ill, Jesus came to the woman, took her
......................... by the hand and lifted her up, the woman is healed and serves them

......................... „and entered the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John“, „Now Simon’s mother-in-law lay ill with a fever“,
......................... „And he came and took her by the hand and lifted her up,“ „and the fever left her, and she began to serve them.“


......................... Mark 5:37 Simon, Andrew, James and John are mentioned, a girl lays dead, Jesus came to the girl, took her by
......................... the hand and lifted her up, the girl is alive and should be served

......................... „And he allowed no one to follow him except Peter and James and John the brother of James.“ „The child is not dead but
......................... sleeping“, „and went in where the child was. Taking her by the hand he said to her, “Talitha cumi,” which means, “Little
......................... girl, I say to you, arise.” And immediately the girl got up“, „… and told them to give her something to eat“

.................... Mark 6:1 A „move“ is made from Jairus' house
.................... „He went away from there and came to his hometown ...“

............... Mark 6:2 Last teaching in a synagogue, on the Sabbath, Jesus authority is questioned, the crowds were astonished
............... „And on the Sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man
............... get these things?“

.......... Mark 6:7 Sending out the disciples, two by two
.......... „And he called the twelve and began to send them out two by two“

..... Mark 6:12 Disciples are preaching
..... „So they went out and proclaimed ...“

Mark 6:14ff Death of John the Baptist
„when Herod heard of it, he said, “John, whom I beheaded,“

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1049
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Mark.How Much Ironic Contrast,Transfer&Reversal Did He kraM?

Post by JoeWallack » Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:10 pm

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:04 am
.
It would be interesting to know what Joe is thinking about that presumed ring-composition. Is it pressed to hard? Or something to add?

Mark 1:14 Handing over of John the Baptist
„Now after John was arrested ...“

..... Mark 1:14 Jesus is preaching
..... „Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God,“

.......... Mark 1:16 Calling disciples, two by two
.......... „he saw Simon and Andrew … And Jesus said to them, “Follow me … And going on a little farther, he saw James the son of Zebedee
.......... and John his brother ...“

............... Mark 1:21 First teaching in a synagogue, on the Sabbath, Jesus authority is claimed, the crowds were astonished
............... „And they went into Capernaum, and immediately on the Sabbath he entered the synagogue and was teaching. 22 And they were
............... astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who had authority ...“

.................... Mark 1:29 A „move“ is made to a house
.................... „And immediately he left the synagogue and entered the house“

......................... Mark 1:29 Simon, Andrew, James and John are mentioned, a woman lays ill, Jesus came to the woman, took her
......................... by the hand and lifted her up, the woman is healed and serves them

......................... „and entered the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John“, „Now Simon’s mother-in-law lay ill with a fever“,
......................... „And he came and took her by the hand and lifted her up,“ „and the fever left her, and she began to serve them.“


......................... Mark 5:37 Simon, Andrew, James and John are mentioned, a girl lays dead, Jesus came to the girl, took her by
......................... the hand and lifted her up, the girl is alive and should be served

......................... „And he allowed no one to follow him except Peter and James and John the brother of James.“ „The child is not dead but
......................... sleeping“, „and went in where the child was. Taking her by the hand he said to her, “Talitha cumi,” which means, “Little
......................... girl, I say to you, arise.” And immediately the girl got up“, „… and told them to give her something to eat“

.................... Mark 6:1 A „move“ is made from Jairus' house
.................... „He went away from there and came to his hometown ...“

............... Mark 6:2 Last teaching in a synagogue, on the Sabbath, Jesus authority is questioned, the crowds were astonished
............... „And on the Sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man
............... get these things?“

.......... Mark 6:7 Sending out the disciples, two by two
.......... „And he called the twelve and began to send them out two by two“

..... Mark 6:12 Disciples are preaching
..... „So they went out and proclaimed ...“

Mark 6:14ff Death of John the Baptist
„when Herod heard of it, he said, “John, whom I beheaded,“
JW:
[understatement]Interesting.[/understatement]
You see these different types of chiasms all over GMark. This is general evidence that if you are uncertain about whether a specific analysis like the above is an intended chiasm, it is. All subsequent Gospels tend to reduce the chiasmic structures.

Regarding the above the beginning and ending of a story is often very important to the author regarding their message. The beginning is often the question/problem while the ending is the answer/solution:

1
1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
question/problem = What is the gospel of Jesus Christ ("son of God" is obvious forgery).
4 John came, who baptized in the wilderness and preached the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins.
Connection =
8 I baptized you in water; But he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit.
Verses:
14 Now after John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God,
15 and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe in the gospel.
Thus "Mark" (author) has created a comparative relationship between JtB and JC (not just "Jesus" since Separationism is key to GMark) and this comparative relationship is significant to GMark as a whole. I think "Mark's" intention was to present JtB as representing History and JC as representing Revelation. Josephus was likely a primary source of history for "Mark" (it would have been most accessible in Rome) and JtB was historical as portrayed by Josephus. "Mark's" JtB baptizing represents the historical. "Mark's" JtB prophesying that JC would baptize in the holy spirit is not history, it is Revelation.

Note that in GMark JC never baptizes in the holy spirit (JC never baptizes at all). Thus, the baptism of JC is not for JC's audience in GMark but for The Reader of the Gospel. This is Pauline. The ending of GMark is best explained by this observation. There is no awareness of a resurrected Jesus based on history (supposed historical witness). Awareness of resurrected Jesus is based on Revelation (Paul).

I have faith that your above chiasm can largely be explained under this Historical/Revelation diecathomy:

Mark 1:14 Handing over of John the Baptist [Historical = Per Josephus JtB was arrested]
„Now after John was arrested ...“

..... Mark 1:14 Jesus is preaching [Historical = Historical Jesus had a teaching ministry]
..... „Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God,“

.......... Mark 1:16 Calling disciples, two by two
.......... „he saw Simon and Andrew … And Jesus said to them, “Follow me … And going on a little farther, he saw James the son of Zebedee
.......... and John his brother ...“

............... Mark 1:21 First teaching in a synagogue, on the Sabbath, Jesus authority is claimed, the crowds were astonished
............... „And they went into Capernaum, and immediately on the Sabbath he entered the synagogue and was teaching. 22 And they were
............... astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who had authority ...“ [Historical = Historical Jesus was a teacher and impressed his audience]

.................... Mark 1:29 A „move“ is made to a house
.................... „And immediately he left the synagogue and entered the house“

......................... Mark 1:29 Simon, Andrew, James and John are mentioned, a woman lays ill, Jesus came to the woman, took her
......................... by the hand and lifted her up, the woman is healed and serves them

......................... „and entered the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John“, „Now Simon’s mother-in-law lay ill with a fever“,
......................... „And he came and took her by the hand and lifted her up,“ „and the fever left her, and she began to serve them.“ [Historical = Historical Jesus was a faith healer]


......................... Mark 5:37 Simon, Andrew, James and John are mentioned, a girl lays dead, Jesus came to the girl, took her by
......................... the hand and lifted her up, the girl is alive and should be served

......................... „And he allowed no one to follow him except Peter and James and John the brother of James.“ „The child is not dead but
......................... sleeping“, „and went in where the child was. Taking her by the hand he said to her, “Talitha cumi,” which means, “Little
......................... girl, I say to you, arise.” And immediately the girl got up“, „… and told them to give her something to eat“ [Revelation = JC can resurrect]

.................... Mark 6:1 A „move“ is made from Jairus' house
.................... „He went away from there and came to his hometown ...“

............... Mark 6:2 Last teaching in a synagogue, on the Sabbath, Jesus authority is questioned, the crowds were astonished
............... „And on the Sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man
............... get these things?“ [Revelation = JC's supposed audience did not understand him]

.......... Mark 6:7 Sending out the disciples, two by two
.......... „And he called the twelve and began to send them out two by two“

..... Mark 6:12 Disciples are preaching [Revelation = Apostles of Jesus will teach about Jesus [note - these are "apostles" not disciples. Understand Dear Reader.]
..... „So they went out and proclaimed ...“

Mark 6:14ff Death of John the Baptist [Revelation = this is not how JtB historically died but fits GMark's theme]
„when Herod heard of it, he said, “John, whom I beheaded,“
[/quote]


Joseph

The New Porphyry

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Mark.How Much Ironic Contrast,Transfer&Reversal Did He kraM?

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:55 pm

JoeWallack wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:10 pm
Thus "Mark" (author) has created a comparative relationship between JtB and JC (not just "Jesus" since Separationism is key to GMark) and this comparative relationship is significant to GMark as a whole. I think "Mark's" intention was to present JtB as representing History and JC as representing Revelation. Josephus was likely a primary source of history for "Mark" (it would have been most accessible in Rome) and JtB was historical as portrayed by Josephus. "Mark's" JtB baptizing represents the historical. "Mark's" JtB prophesying that JC would baptize in the holy spirit is not history, it is Revelation.

Note that in GMark JC never baptizes in the holy spirit (JC never baptizes at all). Thus, the baptism of JC is not for JC's audience in GMark but for The Reader of the Gospel. This is Pauline. The ending of GMark is best explained by this observation. There is no awareness of a resurrected Jesus based on history (supposed historical witness). Awareness of resurrected Jesus is based on Revelation (Paul).

I have faith that your above chiasm can largely be explained under this Historical/Revelation diecathomy:
Thank you for the added comments. Really interesting.

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1049
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

A Hanukkah Candle

Post by JoeWallack » Thu Dec 14, 2017 7:54 am

JW:
eBeneezer will be visited by 3 ghosts.

The (holy) ghost of Christianity past:

7:19

Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology Commentary
3754 [e] hoti ὅτι because Conj -
3756 [e] ouk οὐκ not Adv -
1531 [e] eisporeuetai εἰσπορεύεται it enters V-PIM/P-3S -
846 [e] autou αὐτοῦ of him PPro-GM3S -
1519 [e] eis εἰς into Prep -
3588 [e] tēn τὴν the Art-AFS -
2588 [e] kardian καρδίαν heart, N-AFS -
235 [e] all’ ἀλλ’ but Conj -
1519 [e] eis εἰς into Prep -
3588 [e] tēn τὴν the Art-AFS -
2836 [e] koilian κοιλίαν, belly, N-AFS -
2532 [e] kai καὶ and Conj -
1519 [e] eis εἰς into Prep -
3588 [e] ton τὸν the Art-AMS -
856 [e] aphedrōna ἀφεδρῶνα draught N-AMS Shitter/Latrine. Child of 7:30: "He (Mark's Jesus) said a bad word."
1607 [e] ekporeuetai ἐκπορεύεται, goes out. V-PIM/P-3S -
2511 [e] katharizōn καθαρίζων purifying V-PPA-NMS Physical and spiritual cleaning. Just the right word for someone whose narrative is literally physical but has a spiritual meaning (for the reader). Put the two together and the literal and figurative meaning is food is physically cleaned/ritually purified by being turned into shit. What an ironic, contrast, transfer, reversal! Too much of course for "Matthew"/"Luke". Christians commonly think of "Mark" as unsophisticated compared to "Matthew"/"Luke" but he was as far above them as Holy Oil is to holy water.
3956 [e] panta πάντα all Adj-ANP -
3588 [e] ta τὰ the Art-ANP -
1033 [e] brōmata βρώματα; food. N-ANP -

eBeneezer, our clever author has worked over time (so to speak) to give a physical story a spiritual meaning. Food is the subject of the analogy here. The clean/unclean contrast/connection links food to spirits (I can see!). Both can go inside/outside. Thus our "unclean" spirits link to unclean food. For those who need points sharply explained, like iskandor, the literal food stories are all intended fiction deSigned to present a spiritual truth, good morals and ethics is more important than ritual laws thus making "Mark's" Jesus the first Reform Rabbi.

Bonus material for Solo = What was "Mark's" source here?


Joseph

The New Porphyry

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1049
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

The BArprentice

Post by JoeWallack » Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:54 am

The BArprentice:
Clodius Trumpeerius: Okay, here's the situation. You've just put down a rebellion by "The Blues" (states) and captured their leader. They then bring you a Fake leader and say they want you to release the real leader of the rebellion and crucify the fake leader. What do you do?
Scatius Moochamuch: You stab both of them in the front. Front stabs!
Clodius Trumpeerius: You're fired!
Giarius Boozeamuch: Ask you what I should do?
Clodius Trumpeerius: Close. But what would I do?
Serious Huckabunch Stanturdius Polisius: The Emperor never said he would kill or release the leader of the rebellion. The problem is that the previous Emperor started a tradition of releasing leaders of rebellions. The Emperor is studying the situation and will soon make a decision.
Clodius Trumpeerius: You're hired!

15
7 And there was one called Barabbas, [lying] bound with them that had made insurrection, men who in the insurrection had committed murder.
8 And the multitude went up and began to ask him [to do] as he was wont to do unto them.
9 And Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews?
10 For he perceived that for envy the chief priests had delivered him up.
11 But the chief priests stirred up the multitude, that he should rather release Barabbas unto them.
12 And Pilate again answered and said unto them, What then shall I do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews?
13 And they cried out again, Crucify him.
14 And Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out exceedingly, Crucify him.
15 And Pilate, wishing to content the multitude, released unto them Barabbas, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified.
So, in summary:

At the request/demand of "The Crowd" Pilate releases a real crowd leader of insurrection to the crowd- Barabbas (Jesus?)

and

takes away from the crowd someone he knows is not a real crowd leader of insurrection - Bar Abbas (Jesus)

The normal motivation for the tradition is reversed. Release is because of who the crowd does not want.


Joseph

The New Porphyry

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1049
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Who Is Guilty of Blasphemy?

Post by JoeWallack » Fri Mar 16, 2018 7:30 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9ALiADrJro

JW:
Who is guilty of blasphemy in GMark?

Verse Definition
Prediction
Fulfillment
Commentary
3
28 Verily I say unto you, All their sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and their blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:
29 but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin:
Definition The only serious blasphemy is against the holy spirit which can not be forgiven and is an eternal sin.
13
9 But take ye heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in synagogues shall ye be beaten; and before governors and kings shall ye stand for my sake, for a testimony unto them.
10 And the gospel must first be preached unto all the nations.
11 And when they lead you [to judgment], and deliver you up, be not anxious beforehand what ye shall speak: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye; for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Spirit.
Prediction Betrayal and synagogues and kings oh my!(story). This foreshadows Jesus of course. Interestingly, "Luke" adds Herod here. The prediction is that the witness to Jesus should/will remain silent and let the holy spirit speak for them.
14
60 And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?
61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and saith unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.
63 And the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What further need have we of witnesses?
64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be worthy of death.
Fulfillment Now before a Council/synagogue/governor Jesus follows his own advice from the previous chapter and remains silent, "he held his peace, and answered nothing". The holy spirit than speaks for Jesus "I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven". In GMark only God has defined Christ as the son of God. The High Priest and Council then say that what the holy spirit has said is blasphemy, which, by GMark's Jesus' definition is itself blasphemy. So you have the typical Markan irony that by claiming that Jesus is guilty of blasphemy the High priest and Council themselves are guilty of blasphemy. You have the further irony in total that while the trial is supposed to be about trying and convicting Jesus by using Jesus as witness it is really trying and convicting the Jewish religious leaders by using them as witness, "ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven".

Regarding your related Thread Ben I think you are on the wrong Tract so to speak. "Mark's" (author) point is that Jesus was not guilty of blasphemy, the Jewish religious leaders were. "Mark's Jesus' intentional avoidance of anything that could be considered a name blasphemy is actually comical, "the Blessed", "right hand of Power". The reason the only evidence in the text for Jesus' blasphemy, the accusation, is there, is only to provide the irony that the accusers are guilty of what they falsely accused and convicted Jesus of. This is why you can not find any evidence in the text to support the accusation. If you are further interested in looking at someone who goes on and on and on about whether or not Jesus was in any way guilty of blasphemy check out Brown's Death.


Joseph

The New Porphyry

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1108
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Mark.How Much Ironic Contrast,Transfer&Reversal Did He kraM?

Post by Charles Wilson » Fri Mar 16, 2018 9:54 am

Nice point, Joe.

The problem is that the Holy Spirit hasn't clocked in for his shift yet. He doesn't show up until Jesus goes off duty. The High Priest et. al. have absolutely no idea that there is such a thing as a Holy Spirit.

Of course Jesus has blasphemed. The High Priest is the only game in town correct?

This echoes the old conundrum of whether Jesus was guilty of Sin since he could have removed himself from the cross while Judas was not guilty of Sin since he was possessed at the time and could not have chosen to kill Jesus.

Some Epochs you just can't win.

CW

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5545
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Who Is Guilty of Blasphemy?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:28 pm

JoeWallack wrote:
Fri Mar 16, 2018 7:30 am
Regarding your related Thread Ben I think you are on the wrong Tract so to speak. "Mark's" (author) point is that Jesus was not guilty of blasphemy, the Jewish religious leaders were.
You know from past conversations about this that in essence I agree here. I am not sure that Mark knows what he has on his hands in this passage (as my very first thread on this topic already implies), but I do see the connections between someone under interrogation speaking by the spirit, blasphemy of the spirit being the unforgivable sin, and the high priest blaspheming Jesus, as it were.
"Mark's Jesus' intentional avoidance of anything that could be considered a name blasphemy is actually comical, "the Blessed", "right hand of Power".
Jesus does this only once, with "the right hand of power." The "son of the blessed" is part of the high priest's question, not part of Jesus' statement. But it sounds like you are saying that the Mishnah passage is relevant, but capital blasphemy of the name is something which Jesus strenuously avoids doing, by saying "power" instead of "Yahweh."
The reason the only evidence in the text for Jesus' blasphemy, the accusation, is there, is only to provide the irony that the accusers are guilty of what they falsely accused and convicted Jesus of.
As things stand, however, the high priest reacts, in Mishnaic terms, exactly as if Jesus had uttered the name. Was he just waiting for Jesus to use a euphemism for Yahweh? If he was going to lie about it all along, why not just cut right to it in the first place? The narrative reads more as if the priests are struggling to make some sort of sedition good enough to hand over to Pilate stick ("he wants to destroy the temple!"), and all of a sudden they are gifted with something which (A) condemns Jesus to death automatically under Mishnaic law (he said Yahweh, and "power" was the euphemism used in telling the story) and (B) can easily be translated into a different kind of sedition for Pilate's sake: Jesus is claiming to be the king of the Jews ("the son of the blessed," "sitting at the right hand"). It is a two-for-one special, and the high priest understandably jumps on it immediately.

I have elsewhere given reasons for suspecting that Mark is dealing with a story which already existed, and which his readers already knew at least a few things about. And this pericope succumbs nicely to that sort of analysis:
  1. There existed a Judaic version of this pericope in which Jesus did utter the divine name, and the high priest reacted accordingly. No pious Jew would pass on the name itself in the story, so a euphemism was chosen ("power"). The original tradents and their hearers would have understood what was going on here.
  2. Later, when the story began to be transmitted in wider circles, especially in Greek, knowledge of what constituted capital blasphemy was lost, and virtually all extant Christian interpretations of this passage fail to notice what was at stake in the name. In Mark this pericope is used to implicate the high priest in blasphemy; whether the original story did the same I do not know, but I suspect that the redactor of Mark was not aware of all the implications of the story s/he was passing on, else s/he would have explained it in the manner of Mark 7.3-4.
This scenario just strikes me as more likely than that Mark set up something so spot-on for the Mishnaic definition of capital blasphemy either without realizing it or with all the distractions of trying to convict him on grounds other than a blasphemy which was going to be fabricated all along.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1049
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

The Jesus Maze Through The Passion

Post by JoeWallack » Sun Apr 01, 2018 4:40 pm

JW:
Interaction Group Expected Role Irony Commentary
Disciples 1. Follow Jesus
2. Promote dead Jesus
1. Run away from Jesus
2. Say nothing to no one
Followers run away from Jesus and never say anything about him.
Jewish Religious Leaders 1. Identify Messiah
2. Proclaim Messiah
After Messiah is identified they hand him over for elimination Jesus is silent so the High Priest is the one who mentions "Messiah". Jesus' confirmation is used to convict. The only significant purpose of The Jewish Religious Leaders for eternity (so to speak) was to identify the Messiah and proclaim him to the people. But once the messiah is identified they immediately proclaim him as whatever is the opposite of Messiah and hand him over for elimination.
Governor 1. Identify Rebels
2. Eliminate Rebels
1. Identifies Jesus as not a Rebel and eliminates
2. Identified Rebel is handed back to avoid elimination
I fear the combined irony is lost on most here as the ironic reactions of the Jewish Religious Leaders and The Governor are coordinated with each other. Combined, they each do exactly the opposite of what their primary purpose is. Also lost is that the polemic debate on the feasibility of Jesus' supposed trial by The Council overshadows the Roman Governor releasing a Rebel which is even more unlikely.


Joseph

The New Porphyry

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1049
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Ironic Lack Of Recognition

Post by JoeWallack » Sat May 12, 2018 1:36 pm

JW:

Verse What is Being Searched For? Who Found It? Recognized by Finder? Ironic Lack of Recognition Commentary
1
7 And he preached, saying, There cometh after me he that is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose.
8 I baptized you in water; But he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit.
9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in the Jordan.
10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens rent asunder, and the Spirit as a dove descending upon him:
11 And a voice came out of the heavens, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased.
12 And straightway the Spirit driveth him forth into the wilderness.
13 And he was in the wilderness forty days tempted of Satan; And he was with the wild beasts; And the angels ministered unto him.
14 Now after John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God,
15 and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe in the gospel.
The one who will bring the Kingdom of God John the Baptist No John the Baptist's only prophecy was that one would come who was mightier than himself. There is no indication from the Text that John the Baptist
recognized that Jesus was the one he prophesied before, during or after the baptism of Jesus.
In the big Gospel Baalgame John the Baptist is the set-up man for the Kingdom of God closer Jesus. John predicts the coming of Jesus and is the one who officially anoints Jesus for his Mission and is even present and accounted for when God Herself announces that Jesus is the one. Yet there is nothing in the text explicitly indicating that John recognized Jesus was the one so the implication is that John did not recognize Jesus as the one (note the related apologies/uncertainties in the subsequent Gospels which as always for Ben is evidence that the subsequent Gospels' source for their Baptism stories was GMark and not whatever GMark's source was).

As always in GMark, the ironic lack of recognition is not explicitly noted in the text. The recognition of the irony is left to the Reader.
15
43 there came Joseph of Arimathaea, a councillor of honorable estate, who also himself was looking for the kingdom of God; and he boldly went in unto Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus.
44 And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead.
45 And when he learned it of the centurion, he granted the corpse to Joseph.
46 And he bought a linen cloth, and taking him down, wound him in the linen cloth, and laid him in a tomb which had been hewn out of a rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb.
The Kingdom of God Joseph of Arimathea No Joseph, who was looking for the Kingdom of God, literally receives the Kingdom of God (dead Jesus) but ironically doesn't recognize it. In typical Markan fashion (so to speak) Joseph's lack of recognition (he knew what he had physically but not spiritually) that he had found and possessed exactly what he had been looking for is what is needed at this point to achieve God's Plan. If Joseph had recognized what he had God knows what he and The Young Man might have done with Jesus' body. By only thinking tribally that he needed to bury the dead he unwittingly put Jesus in his place (so to speak) for the supposed resurrection.

Note the connection between the ironic lack of recognition regarding the Kingdom of God at the start and end of Jesus' mission. In both there is no explicit identification of irony at the Text level. That is left to the reader.

Once upon a time the Young Wolf was on me like Lechner on Myggs regarding my theory that in general:

Named character in GMark = negative

Unnamed character in GMark = positive.

For those who need points sharply explained, while there are positive adjectives for Joseph of Arimathea, honorable and looking for Mr. GoodBar, I have faith that their purpose is to set-up the irony I have described which than makes Joseph's lack of recognition negative, same as John's.

Bonus material for Solo = Clearly in the original Gospel belief in Jesus should be based on Faith, not evidence. That is why "Mark" (author) does not have any evidence for a resurrected Jesus (such as supposed named historical witness which would be evidence). Just faith (a nameless person proclaiming that Jesus was resurrected). Now, a Skeptic like me, who understands GMark because I know none of it is true, has to explain to Christians the meaning of the original Gospel. Ironic. So, Solo, what is "Mark's" source for believing based on faith and not evidence?


Joseph

The New Porphyry

Post Reply