From the earlier, funnier JW:
As has been noted Ad Nazorean in this Unholy Thread, GMark's genre parallels best with Greek Tragedy. I think "Mark" went beyond that though and actually created the genre of "Irony". The primary purpose would be then to compose a literary work in the genre of Irony. Secondary purposes could be:Here’s a summary of the Ironic components of "Mark’s" claimed prophecy fulfillment from the Tanakh:
1) The messenger of the Messiah was an unexpected person.
2) The claimed prophecies from the Jewish Bible are out of context so the fulfillments claimed by "Mark" would be unexpected by someone familiar with the Jewish Bible.
3) To support Jesus’ use of parables "Mark"? uses probably the only quote (out of context) available in the entire Jewish Bible while ignoring hundreds of quotes contradicting his prophecy claim.
4) The messenger of the Messiah would be mistreated when a natural expectation would be that such messenger would be well treated.
5) That "The Jews"? would reject the cornerstone when the prophecy was that "The Jews" would be the ones to accept the cornerstone.
6) That the disciples of the Messiah would all abandon the Messiah.
Compare the above to literal, straightforward, no tricks claimed Jewish Bible prophecy fulfillment by Jesus according to "Mark" not involving irony. Is there a single one? Someone, anyone, Buehder?
This lack by "Mark" of any straightforward prophecy fulfillment by Jesus from the Jewish Bible may have been intentional based on the following Markan verse:
11 "The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, asking him for a sign from heaven, to test him. 12 And he sighed deeply in his spirit and said, ‘Why does this generation ask for a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to this generation.’ 13 And he left them, and getting into the boat again, he went across to the other side."
There wasn't any straightforward prophecy fulfillment by Jesus because there wasn't supposed to be any type of Sign identifying Jesus as the Messiah to his generation.
The superior Skeptic should also note how this irony would coOrdinate with Paul, the only known significant Christian author before "Mark", as to Jesus being a hidden mystery in The Jewish Bible deduced by Paul with Divine assistance.
- 1) To promote Pauline Christianity.
2) To make fun of Pauline Christianity.
3) Just to describe Pauline Christianity.
Extent of Irony in Disciples Fleeing Jesus Story:
|Prophecy 5 Gospel Parallels||
||-||-||1. In "Mark's" original story having Disciples which were supposed to be models/teachers of following Jesus do the opposite is ironic enough, but then adding that this was important prophecy fulfillment?
2.As usual "Matthew" follows "Mark" closest (as always, evidence that "Matthew" was the next Gospeller) but softens the failure some by adding "this night" implying a relative rather than absolute failure.
3. "Luke" eliminates the problem at the source and exorcises the prophecy.
4."John" likewise eliminates the problem at the source and exorcises the prophecy.
||1. Note that in the original story "Mark" could have just said they all scattered thus claiming prophecy fulfillment but adds "they all forsook
him". There's a sub-text that it's more than just a physical action.
2. "Matthew" again follows closely (but probably did not enjoy it).
3. "Luke", more silence. What abandonment?
4. "John" though, can just not stay silent. As a reaction to "Mark" "John" provides his own claim of prophecy fulfillment, ""I told you that I am he; so, if you seek me, let these men go." 18.9 This was to fulfil the word which he had spoken, "Of those whom thou gavest me I lost not one." This is the opposite of "Mark's" claim of prophecy fulfillment. Jesus lost no one. Good literary criticism evidence that at the time "John" wrote, middle of second century, GMark was still recognized as the original Gospel narrative. In the process of doing so "John" loses Aristotle's required attribute for Greek Tragedy of plausibility by having Peter go so far as to cut an authority with his sword but not be arrested.
Skeptical Textual Criticism