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.
Mental flatliner
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 9:50 am

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

Post by Mental flatliner » Mon May 12, 2014 2:32 pm

JoeWallack wrote: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
Fun though it is, your irony is manufactured.

Jesus spoke Galilean Aramaic, not Greek.
"I am" is a Hebrew play on words, not Greek.


Andrew
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 7:14 pm

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

Post by Andrew » Mon May 12, 2014 9:12 pm

^LOL

Mental, you're missing the point. The gospel writers wrote in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. Thus, the play on words would have been in Greek. There need be no assumption that they copied Jesus' teachings and sayings verbatim, and it is far more likely than not that they didn't.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1364
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 » Tue May 13, 2014 1:56 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:In Mark 13, "I" is a false Christ.
In Mark 14, "I" is the Christ.
In my opinion, Mark is a staunch opponent of any form of mental idolatry. This also applies to any glorification of Jesus himself. It's just a natural progression to bring the Christ title into disrepute. Only unclean spirits and unclean people glorify Jesus in GMark. They must be silent to avoid the risk of mental idolatry.
I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God. And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him.

Mental flatliner
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 9:50 am

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

Post by Mental flatliner » Tue May 13, 2014 2:01 pm

Andrew wrote:^LOL

Mental, you're missing the point. The gospel writers wrote in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. Thus, the play on words would have been in Greek. There need be no assumption that they copied Jesus' teachings and sayings verbatim, and it is far more likely than not that they didn't.
This is an unprovable claim.

It would be more honest for you to say, "all of our extant copies are in Greek, but the original language has yet to be discovered".

It's far more reasonable to believe that the originals were written in the native languages of the writers.

(Come on, guys. Are you really going to commit errors on this fundamental a level?)

Andrew
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 7:14 pm

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

Post by Andrew » Tue May 13, 2014 2:13 pm

Mental flatliner wrote:
(Come on, guys. Are you really going to commit errors on this fundamental a level?)
No, they aren't, but you have shown that you are.

Mental flatliner
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 9:50 am

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

Post by Mental flatliner » Tue May 13, 2014 2:36 pm

Andrew wrote:
Mental flatliner wrote:
(Come on, guys. Are you really going to commit errors on this fundamental a level?)
No, they aren't, but you have shown that you are.
Show me my error.

beowulf
Posts: 498
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:09 am

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

Post by beowulf » Tue May 13, 2014 3:11 pm

Bernard Muller wrote: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
The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text
R T France
Series: New International Greek Testament Commentary
Hardcover: 757 pages
Publisher: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (February 7, 2002)
ISBN-10: 0802824463
ISBN-13: 978-0802824462
Page 510


France says that the same words will mean something very different later -- ironically the same words are used .


verse 13.6
Ἐγώ εἰμι,( ironically the very words which Jesus will use himself to establish his role in 14.62)

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3298
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Bernard Muller » Tue May 13, 2014 4:15 pm

to Kunigunde Kreuzerin,
In my opinion, Mark is a staunch opponent of any form of mental idolatry. This also applies to any glorification of Jesus himself. It's just a natural progression to bring the Christ title into disrepute.
I do not think so, because, from the very beginning of his gospel, "Mark" established Jesus as being Christ.
Mk 1:1"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ,"
And in Mk 14:61, the "I am" is also the alleged answer to "are you ..., the Son of the Blessed [God]"
Furthermore, "Mark" had Jesus saying he is the Christ (9:41), and also had God declaring Jesus is his Son (1:1 (disputed), 1:11 & 9:7).
So "Mark" is not against any glorification of Jesus.

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

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1364
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 » Thu May 15, 2014 7:39 am

Our Joe is a really nice guy. He quotes five words and ready is the probably best markan irony ever. Unfortunately I have to go a longer way to write about one of my beloved ironic remarks by Mark:

first step: A little story about unclean spirits and demons in GMark to understand the ...
second step: The moment of irony

First step: A little story

Problem: We all know that the priests and the scribes have crucified our best friend, the wise, glorious, unbeatable Mark. The priests (of Rome) say: There are really demons, Jesus fought against them and Mark knew that. The scribes (of the scholarly world) say: There are not really demons, but Mark firmly believed that as all the people in the ancient world.

Question: Are your hearts hardened also? Or can this unholy forum glorify the glorious Mark?

First demonic scene: The synagogue of Capernaum
-> All is possible. It could be real, it could be a historical kerygmatic story-telling, it could be a nice story of Mark.

Second demonic scene: In the country of the Gerasenes
-> No problem for the unholies. It could be a nice story of Mark. Little problems for the priest. Not all could be real: Gerasa by the sea of Galilee and the people from the city and the country (“came to see what it was that had happened”). Big problems for the scribes: What have this to do with a historical kerygmatic story-telling – with these tombs, these chaines, these pigs, with this Gerasa by the sea of Galilee, with these people from the city and the country, with this type of demon-possessed man (“begged him earnestly not to send them out of the country”, “begged him that he might be with him, but Jesus did not permit him”, “began to proclaim in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for him”). So the scribes must start the all-explaining oral-transmission-machine to explain how this story could arise in this form: two twists here three turns there at last Mark.

Third demonic scene: A house in the region of Tyre
-> No problem for the unholies. It could be a nice story of Mark. Problems for the priests and the scribes: Why the change of words of “unclean spirit” to “demon”? Why are Jesus and the Syrophoenician mother in the center of the story and not the daughter and the demon? Why the change of subject of demons to bread? Why did Jesus rejects the woman and insulted her? Why does Jesus not help immediately the sick daughter? Why the text does not say explicitly that Jesus cast out the demon (“For this statement you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter.”)

Fourth demonic scene: After the transfiguration
-> No problem for the unholies. It could be a nice story of Mark. Big problems for the priests and the scribes: The boy fell hard on the ground and rolled about, foaming at the mouth. The spirit convulsed the boy. But Jesus does not help. He has a good talk with the father about faith.

Now the unholies can understand: It's just a nice story of Mark. In this story the boy mirrors the father. It is the father who has the mute and deaf spirit (he has no faith, he can't pray). Jesus makes it clear that no help is to be expected without faith. Then the father managed to speak a kind of curious prayer “I believe; help my unbelief!” and the problem is solved. The disciples wanted to cast out a real demon out of the boy, but they did not understand that it was only the religious problems of the father (“Why could not we cast him out? And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer“).

The syrophoenician woman is a little bit crazy (has an unclean spirit), because she thinks that a demon lives in her daughter and she thinks that Jesus is an real exorcist. Therefore Jesus rejects a relationship with her. He provokes that she build a normal relationship with him. The woman managed that and now she gives a wise and clever answer. At the same moment also her daughter-problem is solved. Jesus drives no demon out.

The Gerasene is a great fan of mental idolatry (unclean spirit). He suffers from his obsessions, but also has a dependency relationship with it. He asks even that Jesus did not cast out the spirits out of the country, cause he wants to have back the objects of his obsession. Therefore, the unclean spirits were drowned. Now he have no object of his obsession. So he asks Jesus, that he may go with him, cause Jesus could be the new object of his obsession. Jesus forbids him, so the man can live independent from his obsession (“go in your house” - in your identity). But the man did not succeed. He proclaimed everywhere, how great Jesus is - his new obsession.

Conclusion: Mark does not believe in demons but he knows a lot about human obsessions.


Second step: The moment of irony

Mark does not believe in demons but he knows a lot about people und their obsessions. For these crazy people one must also organize some hocus-pocus even if the father had solved his religious problems a while ago:
Mark 9:25 And when Jesus saw that a crowd came running together, he rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, “You mute and deaf spirit, I command you, come out of him and never enter him again.”

Post Reply