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.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 832
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

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

Post by JoeWallack » Sat May 10, 2014 6:22 pm

Mark "I Am IronyMan". How Much Ironic Contrast, Transfer and Reversal Did He kraM?

The purpose of this Thread will be to explore the use of irony in GMarK. I have faith that I became the foremost authority the world has ever known on the use of irony in GMark some time ago.

The offending verses:

Mark 13
5 And Jesus began to say unto them, Take heed that no man lead you astray.

6 Many shall come in my name, saying, I am [he]; and shall lead many astray.
JW:
Note that GMark's Jesus says the Way to identify a false Christ is by the false Christ saying "I am". Let's get that in the original:

http://biblehub.com/text/mark/13-6.htm
Ἐγώ εἰμι,
In the next Chapter, when Jesus is asked by the High Priest (who's job is to identify the Christ) if he is the Christ:

Mark 14
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?
Jesus' answer is:
62 And Jesus said, I am
In the original:

Mark 14:62:
Ἐγώ εἰμι,
an exact match. So GMark's Jesus says that the way to identify a false Christ is by the false Christ saying "I am" and than when Jesus is asked by the High Priest if he is the Christ, this Jesus says "I am". No wonder GMark's High Priest said, "What further need have we of witnesses?". By Jesus' own words and prediction, Jesus is a false Christ.

With only the above you just have a proof-text that GMark is showing its Jesus as a failure (although this proof-text is exponentially better than the "proofs" Paul uses to demonstrate his Jesus in The Jewish Bible). GMark as a whole though does show Jesus' mission as a failure at the text level. The theory than that GMark intended to show its Jesus as a failure is a serious one and requires further study.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Charles Wilson
Posts: 839
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

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

Post by Charles Wilson » Sat May 10, 2014 7:12 pm

JW-

Great Subject!

Mark 13: 30 (RSV):

[30] Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place.

You want Irony? The Ironic thing in Mark 13 is that all of this has ALREADY HAPPENED!
I've gotten in a whole bunch of trouble today without even tryin' so I'll let some of this go.
Of course this generation shall not pass before all these things take place!

The events described happened years ago!

CW

Bernard Muller
Posts: 2575
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Bernard Muller » Sat May 10, 2014 8:40 pm

In Mark 13, "I" is a false Christ.
In Mark 14, "I" is the Christ.
The "I" in Mk 14 is not meant to be a false Christ, but the true Christ.
I do not see the irony here.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Bernard Muller
Posts: 2575
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Bernard Muller » Sat May 10, 2014 8:54 pm

Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place.
"these things" includes the fall of Jerusalem and its destruction.
Sure it happens before the gospel was published, but it is certain that gospel was presented as being written much earlier.
I do not see any irony here. Just "Mark" having Jesus predicting Jerusalem demise while some of Jesus' generation were still alive.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

maryhelena
Posts: 1477
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

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

Post by maryhelena » Sun May 11, 2014 12:24 am

Bernard Muller wrote:
Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place.
"these things" includes the fall of Jerusalem and its destruction.
Sure it happens before the gospel was published, but it is certain that gospel was presented as being written much earlier.
I do not see any irony here. Just "Mark" having Jesus predicting Jerusalem demise while some of Jesus' generation were still alive.

Cordially, Bernard
Bernard, I think Charles has some other time in mind..... ;)

New Testament Origins
The Passover Slaughter of 4 BCE

Charles O Wilson

http://www.amazon.co.uk/New-Testament-O ... s+o+wilson

Methinks, Charles should lay his cards on the table instead of making obscure or undefined references to the theory in his book. A theory that centers around the events of 4 b.c., and goes on to take up the path of Atwill to Vespasian and Titus. i.e. the Roman conspiracy theory.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats

Charles Wilson
Posts: 839
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

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

Post by Charles Wilson » Sun May 11, 2014 9:13 am

1. Let the world note that I am sending out a thank you to Maryhelena.

2. She is correct in stating that I am thinking of another time.
Mark 13 is telling what Josephus wrote of Jannaeus in Antiquities..., Book 13.

The Anchor Verse is:

Mark 13: 17 (RSV):

[17] And alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days!

Josephus, Antiquities..., 13, 14, 2:

[[Jannaeus]] "...brought them to Jerusalem, and did one of the most barbarous actions in the world to them; for as he was feasting with his concubines, in the sight of all the city, he ordered about eight hundred of them to be crucified; and while they were living, he ordered the throats of their children and wives to be cut before their eyes."

With other verses under consideration ("Hannah the Prophetess", Revelation 5 +), you may piece together Sequence: That Demetrius Eucerus committed the Abomination of Desolation at Gerizim, near Shechem. At the least, when you read Josephus here, you realize that he is hiding what he knows and not very well at that. Demetrius destroys Jannaeus in Battle and the Jewish Mercenaries take pity on Jannaeus. Demetrius gets "Scared" and leaves the country. ABSURD on the face of it (Let the reader note this).

The point, however, is a simple one: Mark has rewritten part of the Story of Jannaeus. The "Holy Spirit" makes an appearance and that points to Domitian - Mark is composed no earlier than Domitian or certain redactors have smoothly inserted Domitian into the reading. The last part of Mark 13 is a rewrite of Peter's Story. Peter was a child at the Passover of 4 BCE (He is of the Service Group Immer) and he saves a Priest who should have been killed. He returns to the Passover of 9 CE, a "Duplicate Passover" of 4 BCE (Immer on Duty), expecting God to stand with them this time.

So: The Irony! This generation shall see these things. In fact, they've already seen these things. The events already occurred.

3. On to Atwill. I have tremendous respect for Joe Atwill. I think he is substantially correct. After blocking out my thesis, Posting about it on another site, I found Caesar's Messiah. I went through every Gospel Story and discovered that if you limit yourself to the material Joe covers in CM, you miss out on the depth of the Roman Creation. If Joe Atwill had never written CM, however, my thesis would still stand. We are on opposite sides of a divide, Joe is looking ahead in time, I am looking back. If you look, for example, at Michael Turton's Great Work on Chiastic Structures, over and over again he will state that there is no Historicity in the Markan material, that there was no persecution in the 30s. He is correct if the implications of a Jesus-in-the-30s are the only times studied. Jannaeus and the Hasmoneans, Mishmarot and the reasons for the Temple Service are hidden. When these items are considered, an entire new Development makes its appearance.

I know that many feel that Joe has cooties or something but if you bypass the language that inflames you (Most do not like his use of "Puzzles" and Statistics, for example), you will find that there is a substantial message there. It is a "Systems" book and most academics are more comfortable with single word/phrase analysis. "Systems" are, "OMG, IT'S A CONSPIRACY BOOK!!!" . Well, maybe yes and maybe no.

4. Yes. I wrote a book but I do not feel that I should "push it". I have no problem admiring Jay's book on this site, f'rinstance. Christs and Christianities, if you've forgotten the name. My book is in print, it's got an ISBN number and I'm told that's what counts. AS Vonnegut said, "This book is a failure because it was written by a pillar of salt". I know that "pillar of salt" is an idiom. I can give a good linguistic analysis of the phrase. After all, I've been doing linguistic analysis for decades. Lot's wife was awestruck. She's dead now. So it goes. I've written an updated version of the book that I must upload to help the dreadfully opaque last third of the thing and then onto Acts. Acts is more in-your-face Roman than the Gospels.

5. If there's something I Post that you don't understand, ask a question and I'll try to explain. That's all I can do.

Thank you, Maryhelena.

Charles
Last edited by Charles Wilson on Sun May 11, 2014 8:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1113
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

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

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Sun May 11, 2014 11:36 am

JoeWallack wrote:
an exact match.
superb

Adam
Posts: 641
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:28 pm

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

Post by Adam » Sun May 11, 2014 2:24 pm

Charles Wilson wrote:1. Let the world note that I a sending out a thank you to Maryhelena.
....
I know that many feel that Joe [Atwill] has cooties or something but if you bypass the language that inflames you (Most do not like his use of "Puzzles" and Statistics, for example), you will find that there is a substantial message there. It is a "Systems" book and most academics are more comfortable with single word/phrase analysis. "Systems" are, "OMG, IT'S A CONSPIRACY BOOK!!!" . Well, maybe yes and maybe no.

4. Yes.... I've written an updated version of the book that I must upload to help the dreadfully opaque last third of the thing and then onto Acts. Acts is more in-your-face Roman than the Gospels.

5. If there's something I Post that you don't understand, ask a question and I'll try to explain. That's all I can do.

Thank you, Maryhelena.

Charles
As Vorkosigan (aka Mixchael Turton) has {sort of} said, "Ya ain't no Galileo, Adam!"
Yes, Maryhelena, Charles, Joe, Carotta, Reuchlin, Huller, etc., these are more what I expected as a viable refutation of my thesis that there are seven written eyewitness records of Jesus. Early eyewitnesses be damned, if they're all liars, conspirators, or simply purveyors of a romance that got mistaken for objective reality! These I'll concede can do me in, or at least be harder to dispense with. The issue then becomes could a suitable set of literate (intentional or unintentlonal) deceivers be tracked down that could heve put together the NT in the fashion we can see it was constructed.

From the preconceived world-view that there is no God (or at least not the Christian God) such a monumental concoction must NECESSARILY be what happened. From my point of view as a Christian believer, the New Testament as we find it is possible and is much more simply explained my way that from the presumption that it is all a gigantic hoax, romance, or phony new religion (on the order of Islam, LDS, or Scientology).

Charles Wilson
Posts: 839
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

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

Post by Charles Wilson » Sun May 11, 2014 2:33 pm

Adam wrote:Early eyewitnesses be damned, if they're all liars, conspirators, or simply purveyors of a romance that got mistaken for objective reality!
How dare you say this about Nicholas of Damascus!

CW

User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 520
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

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

Post by arnoldo » Sun May 11, 2014 5:52 pm

JoeWallack wrote:Mark "I Am IronyMan". How Much Ironic Contrast, Transfer and Reversal Did He kraM?. . .
Joseph
ErrancyWiki
When he testified, that his shoelaces he wouldn’t UntiE. . .

So when John the Baptist allegedly said the following;
And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=NIV
The gospel writer must've written it tongue in cheek since he later has the character of Jesus basically confess he is not the one via his confession to the high priest. :popcorn:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bernard Muller, Google [Bot], hakeem and 26 guests