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.
Ulan
Posts: 1326
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

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

Post by Ulan » Thu May 15, 2014 9:31 am

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: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
Beautiful. Sometimes I think Mark was a bit too clever for his own good. People took his stuff too seriously.

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

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

Post by JoeWallack » Tue May 20, 2014 7:14 am

We are crossing borders,
the New world order, is heeeeere.
Give a great big smile,
everyone sigma heil.
To meeee, wonderful meee.


Poster ad on Forum for Rome's hottest new play - The Soul Producers

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: 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.
JW:
As the chain-smoking Chinese lady said in the classic Kung Fu Hustle, "I sense another Master."

In his classic Mark's Story of Jesus Kelber writes regarding Jesus' supposed travels [38]:
No sooner has Jesus legitimized what today we would call an open society than he further stretches its borderlines far to the north and away from the center of Jerusalem. In his dealing with the Syrophoenician woman (7:24-30) he pushes the new communal identity to its limits geographically, ethnically and sexually. He journeys all the way up to the largely Gentile territory around Tyre (7:24)-geographical extension. His encounter there is with a Gentile person (7:26)-ethnic expansion. In effect he is helping two female sufferers, a mother and her daughter-sexual inclusiveness.
JW:
So GMark's Jesus is literally crossing (so to speak) borders to spiritually cross borders at the text level but never literally crossed a border at the sub-text level. Ironic. Understand dear Reader?


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

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 20, 2014 9:59 am

JoeWallack wrote:Understand dear Reader?
Not very well. I find it often very difficult to understand your ironic English. :)
JoeWallack wrote: JW:
As the chain-smoking Chinese lady said in the classic Kung Fu Hustle, "I sense another Master."
No sooner has Jesus legitimized what today we would call an open society than he further stretches its borderlines far to the north and away from the center of Jerusalem. In his dealing with the Syrophoenician woman (7:24-30) he pushes the new communal identity to its limits geographically, ethnically and sexually. He journeys all the way up to the largely Gentile territory around Tyre (7:24)-geographical extension. His encounter there is with a Gentile person (7:26)-ethnic expansion. In effect he is helping two female sufferers, a mother and her daughter-sexual inclusiveness.
If I have understood correctly, you prefer the explanation of Kelber. Kelber has been a very nice explanation. No demons. We can sleep very well.

But I find it hard to believe that you're telling me that the subject of demons and unclean spirits does not occur in the story of the Syro-Phoenician woman. It seemed to me until now that logic would be a pleasure for you. 8-)

ghost
Posts: 503
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2013 9:12 am

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

Post by ghost » Tue May 20, 2014 10:43 am

Why is she called Syro-Phoenician anyway?

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 20, 2014 1:57 pm

ghost wrote:Why is she called Syro-Phoenician anyway?
To me the "true" question is: Why rejects Jesus the woman and called the woman indirectly a dog? David D. M. King has written an overview (pdf) of the scholarly opinions on this issue a month ago:
Six possible solutions are identified:
1) Jesus is on vacation,
2) Jesus is playing,
3) Jesus has a more important mission,
4) Jesus is bested in debate,
5) Jesus is racist, and
6) Jesus is sexist.

Each of these solutions is evaluated for whether it can satisfactorily answer all of three questions:
1) why does Jesus refuse the Syrophoenician woman’s request for exorcism?
2) why does Jesus indirectly refer to her as a dog?
3) why does Jesus change his mind and grant her request?
I would say a convincing explanation has to face the problem. So it seems a closer look offers theoretically these options:
Mark 7:26: Now the woman was a Gentile, a Syrophoenician by birth. And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter.
- woman
- Gentile
- Syrophoenician
- begged him to cast out the demon

The Markan Jesus teaches some verses before:
Mark 7:18 And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?”6 (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20 And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. 21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”


It seems that the hard markan logic says: It could not something what the woman is. It must be something what she had done.

I have dealt with the Syro-Phoenician woman for three months and I see no better explanation.

A good match: Michael Turnton has constructed a chiasm. In the center stand
E "And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter.
E And he said to her, "Let the children first be fed, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs."
Good night Gentleman

ghost
Posts: 503
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2013 9:12 am

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

Post by ghost » Tue May 20, 2014 5:41 pm

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:I have dealt with the Syro-Phoenician woman for three months and I see no better explanation.
Carotta explains it on pp 273–276.

http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/wj ... ar1999.pdf

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

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

Post by JoeWallack » Sat May 24, 2014 8:16 am

arnoldo wrote:
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:
JW:
Speaking of John the Baptist (JtB) in GMark, the related (obligatory) irony:

Mark 1
1:2 Even as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall prepare thy way.

3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make ye ready the way of the Lord, Make his paths straight;

4 John came, who baptized in the wilderness and preached the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins.

5 And there went out unto him all the country of Judaea, and all they of Jerusalem; And they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

6 And John was clothed with camel`s hair, and [had] a leathern girdle about his loins, and did eat locusts and wild honey.

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.
Note the irony here in GMark is that JtB is presented as God's official MC for JC but the implication from the text is that JtB does not recognize that Jesus is the one. This is part of "Mark's" (author of GMark) primary theme that everyone important in Jesus' supposed time either did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah or did not recognize what that meant. This theme comes from Paul who taught that the significance of Jesus was not understood by his historical audience but was understood subsequently by Paul via Revelation.

It's instructive to observe how the copycathethists react:

The Baptism of Jesus

Matthew = JtB recognizes who Jesus is before he is baptized but later has doubts.
3.13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him

3.14 John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" 3.15 But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness." Then he consented. 3.16 And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; 3.17 and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."
Luke = Follows GMark closer here than GMatthew does but edits to provide a reason why JtB did not recognize Jesus here, this identification of Jesus from above is after the Baptism. Interestingly, GLuke's JtB also later has doubts about Jesus, apparently following GMatthew, even though GLuke's JtB never recognized Jesus in the first place.
3.21 Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, 3.22 and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form, as a dove, and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased."
John = Recognizes who Jesus is on sight. No explicit baptism of Jesus. No doubts.
1.29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 1.30 This is he of whom I said, 'After me comes a man who ranks before me, for he was before me.' 1.31 I myself did not know him; but for this I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel." 1.32 And John bore witness, "I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. 1.33 I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.' 1.34 And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God."
As a side note, the above is representative of good Literary Criticism evidence for Markan priority. The irony is clear in GMark and than untied in different ways in subsequent Gospels.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

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

Post by JoeWallack » Fri Oct 31, 2014 12:41 pm

You and me we ain't no Superstars, what we are is what we are, we share some bread, a little fish and JC

JW:
I've stated in my previous post The Parallels of PauLines that I think Paul had a major theme of contrasting Judaism/Physical with Gentiles/Spiritual. The body of Paul generally stops here. There are Pauline extremities that appear to go beyond the contrast, into comparison, with the implication that the Judaism/Physical is inferior. Using the relationship of Judaism/Physical with Gentiles/Spiritual as a framework to compare Christian works is instructive in showing a possible development of Christian theology:
  • Paul = Emphasis is on and mostly limited to the contrast.

    Fake Paul = Movement beyond contrast to comparison with Gentiles/Spiritual superior.

    GMark = Emphasis is on comparison and goes beyond The physical part of Judaism being inferior to being evil.

    GMatthew = Movement away from all of GMark's extremes. Less contrast, comparison and negative description of physical Judaism.

    GLuke = Movement away from GMark's use of negative to use of positive. How to act (as opposed to how not to act).

    GJohn = Emphasis of contrast/comparison moved from physical verses spiritual to believing or not believing in Jesus.
Now onto some ironic contrast, transfer and reversal. Paul uses a very relevant word in the context of contrast here:

1 Thessalonians 2:15
who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove out us, and pleased not God, and are contrary to all men; (ASV)
contrary = ἐναντίων

Note that this goes well beyond contrast to comparison/evil and is thus more evidence of forgery here in what is commonly thought to be the earliest extant Pauline epistle (I've noted many times now that this epistle makes no mention of Jesus being crucified = amazing that an entire epistle and possibly the first one would make no mention of it - if it was historical).

The offending word is used again in what is clearly Fake Paul:

Titus 2:8
sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of us. (ASV)
You have to go to the previous chapter for a "who" part of the contrast:
10 For there are many unruly men, vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision,

11 whose mouths must be stopped; men who overthrow whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre`s sake.

12 One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, idle gluttons.

13 This testimony is true. For which cause reprove them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith,

14 not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men who turn away from the truth.

15 To the pure all things are pure: but to them that are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but both their mind and their conscience are defiled.

16 They profess that they know God; but by their works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.
Sadly, perhaps the only irony beyond "Mark" (author) is that there was/is/will be nothing evil or wicked about "The Jews". Only the words of Fake Paul above are evil and wicked.

So than, a key word in Paul/Fake Paul for a key theme = contrary (ἐναντίων). How does "Mark" use the word:

Mark 6
46 And after he had taken leave of them, he departed into the mountain to pray.

47 And when even was come, the boat was in the midst of the sea, and he alone on the land.

48 And seeing them distressed in rowing, for the wind was contrary unto them, about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them, walking on the sea; and he would have passed by them:

49 but they, when they saw him walking on the sea, supposed that it was a ghost, and cried out;

50 for they all saw him, and were troubled. But he straightway spake with them, and saith unto them, Be of good cheer: it is I; be not afraid.

51 And he went up unto them into the boat; and the wind ceased: and they were sore amazed in themselves;

52 for they understood not concerning the loaves, but their heart was hardened.
The contrast here is that the Jewish/physical disciples are physically with Jesus but they are not spiritually with Jesus ("for they understood not concerning the loaves, but their heart was hardened"). "Mark's" literary magic here is using the offending word to show the disciples going (rowing) against the spirit (wind). Understand dear Reader? "Mark" uses the water as a symbolic (and physical) representation of the boundary between Jews and Gentiles. "Mark" explicitly says the disciples do not spiritually understand Jesus and accompanies this with an image of the disciples physically going against the spirit (rowing). Nice. In GMark this also looks like the point where the disciples lose the Spirit.

In contrast/comparison, "Mark's" only other use of the offending word:

Mark 15
37 And Jesus uttered a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.

38 And the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top to the bottom.

39 And when the centurion, who stood by over against him, saw that he so gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.
"over against him" has the underlying offending word in Greek. The contrast here is that the Gentile who was not physically with Jesus (as opposed to the Jewish disciples who were) is now spiritually with Jesus ("Truly this man was the Son of God") as opposed to the Jewish disciples who were not. For those who need points sharply explained, per "Mark", the Jewish disciples who had a tradition of Judaism and were trained by Jesus, saw the crucifixion as failure. In contrast/comparison, at this defining moment for each side, the Gentile who had no tradition of Judaism and did not know Jesus saw the crucifixion as success. As usual, note the careful placement of the offending word at the key points in the narrative to help connect them and the jewdicious avoidance of the word anywhere else in the narrative.

Word.

Bonus material for Solo. What key section of GMark does the "going against the spirit" section foreshadow (I kind of gave it away)? Perhaps KK can find a related nice picture of the disciples going against the spirit.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

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 » Mon Nov 03, 2014 3:07 am

JoeWallack wrote:Perhaps KK can find a related nice picture of the disciples going against the spirit.
& Simon Peter as captain ;)

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

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

Post by JoeWallack » Wed Mar 18, 2015 8:30 am

JW:
Mark 3

Text Pharisee Context Jesus Context Commentary
1 And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there who had his hand withered. - - -
2 And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him. Physical. The Law prohibits working on the Sabbath. - Jewish sources indicate the Pharisees of this supposed time had an interpretation that healing would be permitted on the Sabbath which is evidence that the story here is a literary construction and not a historical situation
3 And he saith unto the man that had his hand withered, Stand forth. - - -
4 And he saith unto them, Is it lawful on the sabbath day to do good, or to do harm? to save a life, or to kill? But they held their peace. - Spiritual. The Law permits healing on the Sabbath The first irony. The Pharisees are ready to accuse Jesus. This accusation is the basis of Jesus' reverse accusation of the accusers.
5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their heart, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he stretched it forth; and his hand was restored. - - 1. Here Jesus has passion (anger/grief) and his opponents are silent. This flips in the Passion where Jesus is silent and his opponents have passion. In order to follow Paul's "crucifying your passion" you first must have passion. Note that Jesus' Galilean mission is framed with anger at the start (1:41) and end (here).
2. Second irony. Jesus' supposed miracles are generally referred to as "the work of his hands". Here his miracle is the healing of a hand.
3. GMark has a primary theme that the cause of miracles is faith. Here there is no invocation of faith because that is not the primary point in this story.
6 And the Pharisees went out, and straightway with the Herodians took counsel against him, how they might destroy him. - - The third and primary irony of the story. As a reaction to their position that Jesus violated the Sabbath by working (healing) on it, the Pharisees go to work planning how to destroy Jesus. On the Sabbath. The Pharisees than are convicted of violating the Sabbath because of their convicting Jesus of violating the Sabbath.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Post Reply