Kartagraphy Markoff. Did "Mark" Get Any Geography Right?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Kartagraphy Markoff. Did "Mark" Get Any Geography Right?

Post by neilgodfrey »

Entirely speculative -- but tantalising.

Acts 16:11 11 Setting sail therefore from Tro′as, we made a direct voyage to Sam′othrace, and the following day to Ne-ap′olis, 12 and from there to Philippi, which is the leading city of the district[a] of Macedo′nia, and a Roman colony.

That is, from Troy to Philippi, leading city of the Hellenistic empire, and a Roman outpost, and the first outside Asia to hear the gospel -- as a direct result of a visionary call.

In John, the Greeks who wish to see Jesus go first to Philip who acts as the agent to bring them to Jesus.

Caesarea Philippi, the place at the junction between heaven and earth, place of visions, ascents and descents of angels.

It looks like there's something going on here in the shadows but I don't know what.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1584
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Kartagraphy Markoff. Did "Mark" Get Any Geography Right?

Post by JoeWallack »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: One might suspect that Mark wanted to connect both scenes by the insertion of the word "Φιλίππου" (Philippou). What connection could this be? What is the reason for this emphasis?

1 Thess 2:2-4Mark 8:27-33
2 But though we had already suffered and been shamefully treated at Philippi, as you know, we had boldness in our God to declare to you the gospel of God in the midst of much conflict. 3 For our appeal does not spring from error or impurity or any attempt to deceive, 4 but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please man, but to please God who tests our hearts. 27 And Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi. And on the way he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” 28 And they told him, “John the Baptist; and others say, Elijah; and others, one of the prophets.” 29 And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Christ.” 30 And he strictly charged them to tell no one about him. 31 And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again. 32 And he said this plainly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. 33 But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

JW:
As they say in your profession (the world's second oldest), "Asked and answered". In light of your astonishing revelation though I fear that you women will say nothing to no one about my favorite subject here, irony:

Mark 6
14 And king Herod heard [thereof]; for his name had become known: and he said, John the Baptizer is risen from the dead, and therefore do these powers work in him.

15 But others said, It is Elijah. And others said, [It is] a prophet, [even] as one of the prophets.

16 But Herod, when he heard [thereof], said, John, whom I beheaded, he is risen.

Mark 6:17 For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip`s wife; for he had married her.
Verses:

Mark 8
27 And Jesus went forth, and his disciples, into the villages of Caesarea Philippi: and on the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Who do men say that I am?

28 And they told him, saying, John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but others, One of the prophets.

29 And he asked them, But who say ye that I am? Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.

30 And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.

31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

32 And he spake the saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him.
[irony]King ("King"? Forget it, he's rolling) Herod is Jesus' supposed primary opponent in this supposed setting. King Herod believes in the most important part of Jesus' supposed mission, resurrection. Peter is Jesus' supposed primary disciple in this supposed setting. Peter does not believe in the most important part of Jesus' supposed mission, resurrection.[/irony]

As they say, the most important part of the game is picking your team mates.

Bonus material for Solo = One key question mark in GMark is who is Jesus' father. Who was the flesh father of the son in 15:21? (hint - look upwards).


Joseph

ErrancyWiki
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Kartagraphy Markoff. Did "Mark" Get Any Geography Right?

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

JoeWallack wrote:I fear that you women will say nothing to no one about my favorite subject here, irony:

[irony]King ("King"? Forget it, he's rolling) Herod is Jesus' supposed primary opponent in this supposed setting. King Herod believes in the most important part of Jesus' supposed mission, resurrection. Peter is Jesus' supposed primary disciple in this supposed setting. Peter does not believe in the most important part of Jesus' supposed mission, resurrection.[/irony]
Wonderful. I felt that something was missing. Now it's there.
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Kartagraphy Markoff. Did "Mark" Get Any Geography Right?

Post by Stephan Huller »

Is that really 'irony' though?

the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.

And then there is what 'irony' meant in antiquity. First Aristotle “Irony is saying something while pretending not to say it, or calling things by the opposite of their real names.” A similar definition is offered by Quintilian: “Irony (ironia) is that figure of speech or trope in which something trope in which something contrary to what is said is to be understood” (Inst. 9.22.44; cf. 6.2.15; 8.6.54); i.e., irony is saying something we mean by saying something contrary to it. The Greek term eipmveia was used to denote sly, deceptive speech or conduct during the 5th and 4th cent. B.C., saying one thing and meaning another, though in irony the intended meaning is not necessarily the opposite of its apparent just different from its apparent meaning (Holland 1997, 235). Don't we have to believe that Peter meant to be ironic for it to be ironic? You might be on to some literary device on the part of Mark but I don't think it can truly defined as 'irony' per se.

It would be interesting to see if you could dig up another example of 'irony' being used in antiquity to describe an author manipulating inanimate literary 'puppets' so to speak, where the 'irony' is understood to derive from the author speaking through acknowledged 'dead' figures in this way. I don't think it existed back then.

I am trying to think of a fictitious narrative where this could have occurred. When Oedipus is looking for the man who murdered his father, would things he says about the murderer (= himself) have been understood as 'irony' in antiquity? I don't think so.
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Kartagraphy Markoff. Did "Mark" Get Any Geography Right?

Post by Stephan Huller »

In Plato "the word gains a new association from the application of it to Socrates, who not only pretended ignorance with the view of gaining an advantage in argument, but sincerely believed it to be the natural condition of man."

https://books.google.com/books?id=Y8QzA ... ia&f=false
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1584
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Kartagraphy Markoff. Did "Mark" Get Any Geography Right?

Post by JoeWallack »

Stephan Huller wrote:Is that really 'irony' though?
the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.
JW:
Webster
: a situation that is strange or funny because things happen in a way that seems to be the opposite of what you expected
The most common description of GMark is "Reversed expectations". Here, I'll use "irony" in context:
  • That you would fail to present a primary definition of "irony" is not ironic.
Reversed expectation is simple irony. Here, that Herod would believe in resurrection is not what you would expect as Jesus is on a Mission (so to speak) to promote belief in resurrection yet his primary opponent, "King" Herod, already believes in it. [For those who need points sharply explained]Since Jesus' primary Mission is to promote belief in the unbelievable (resurrection) you would expect his primary opponent not to believe it. Believe it. [/For those who need points sharply explained].

"Mark" (author) is going beyond simple irony here to classic irony in that he gives it to you on both sides. The opponent who should not believe in resurrection does and the ally who should believe in resurrection does not. Jesus spends no time convincing King Herod to believe and all his time trying to convince Peter to believe (Is Jesus the all time greatest teacher or the all time worst?).

This is Oedipus' type (so to speak) irony. Oedipus who can literally see can not "see" his own life. Reverse to the blind "seer" who can not literally see but can "see" Oedipus' life. GMark just substitutes Tiresias with The Jewish Bible which can not literally see but can explain everything about Jesus' supposed life. As always, I really should be charging you guys for this.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Kartagraphy Markoff. Did "Mark" Get Any Geography Right?

Post by Stephan Huller »

Yes the modern definition of irony extends to unintentional misspeaking. But I don't think it would be so called in antiquity. I think at the time of the composition of the gospels Peter and Herod had to know that they were speaking falsely in order to be classified as 'speaking ironically' - like Socrates.

I am not sure however whether that would extend to outright fiction or if the ancients had another word for 'ignorant irony.'
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Kartagraphy Markoff. Did "Mark" Get Any Geography Right?

Post by Stephan Huller »

I think in the Old Comedy there was a stock character called Eiron who was an ignorant slave who said 'ironic' things. But the audience knew this was a literary device on the part of the playwright. If it can be demonstrated that interpreters believed that Peter or Herod were speaking 'ironically' then this would be a powerful argument they also accepted the gospels as essentially fiction.

I don't think that you can have a historical narrative with characters speaking with 'unintentional irony.' Someone has to be putting forward the words with an intentional 'other meaning.' If you accept that there is 'unintentional irony' then the narrative is essentially unhistorical and a mere voice piece for the author (Mark) who is indeed can be thought to be speaking ironically - but at the expense of any retrievable 'truth' to the narrative. Unless some genre can be found which acted like a comedy and a tragedy. I can't think of one off hand.

It might be satisfying to imagine that Mark was developing some 'big joke' crucifixion story but how did this develop into a serious religion, and who was 'in on this joke' - everyone? An inner circle of practical jokers? Unless the author is God I guess. If we are meant to be seeing things from the POV of god and he is both writing history and the narrative maybe it is possible to see 'irony' in his creation (both historical and literary). But that's a big concept to swallow (not unprecedented though at least by Paul's standards). That would explain perhaps why the gospel has no genre either. God hadn't written a narrative before (Moses wrote the Pentateuch). Interesting. But then Mark can't be understood to be the author of the gospel. Humans could either write comedy or tragedy but not a new genre which straddled both I don't think.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1584
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Kartagraphy Markoff. Did "Mark" Get Any Geography Right?

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
Regarding "Mark's" (author) Jesus supposedly coming from Nazareth of Galilee to the supposed baptism, this Thread has identified the following reasons to doubt:
  • 1 - We have problems in general with "Mark's" claimed geographical relationships.

    2 - The Protevangelium of James - = An attempted harmony of the Infancy narratives does not mention "Nazareth" and implies that Jesus grew up in Judea.

    3 - Sextus Julius Africanus = Says that "Nazara" is in Judea

    4 - History of Joseph the Carpenter = Says that "Nazareth" is by Jerusalem.

    5 - Justin Martyr = Implication that "Nazareth" was in Judea

    6 - The Acts of Peter and Paul and Mary says that Nazareth is in Judea.

    7 - Pseudo-Tertullian comments on 1:9 and has no mention of Nazareth

    8 - The parallel verse in GMatthew 3:13 "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him." lacks "Nazareth" (spin's favorite piece of evidence).

    9 - Hippolytus Fragments = Mainly GMatthew baptism story with no unique quote of GMark and no mention of Nazareth.

    10 - The parallel verse in GLuke 3:21 "Now it came to pass, when all the people were baptized, that, Jesus also having been baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened," lacks "Nazareth".

    11 - e-catena commentary on 3:21 - no mention of Nazareth.

    12 - The parallel verse in GJohn 1:29 "On the morrow he seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world!" - no mention of Nazareth.

    13 - e-catena GJohn - Obsession with "the lamb of god". No mentions of Nazareth of Galilee.

    14 - Origen gives a detailed commentary on the contradiction between the Synoptics and GJohn regarding where Jesus went after the baptism but makes no mention of such an issue regarding where Jesus came from for the baptism.

    15 - Sinaiticus, probably the most authoritative manuscript, has Nazareth as a city of Judea in Luke 1:26.
In addition, the ending of GMark in Sinaiticus:

16:6
And he saith unto them, Be not amazed: ye seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who hath been crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold, the place where they laid him! (ASV)
lacks the Nazarene

As you can see here [reproduction]:

Image

Across from verse 6 in the right hand column is "TONNAZAPNON" ("the Nazarene"), an edited addition which the original lacks.

Myself and others here have often indicated that "Mark" has a style of matching/paralleling things at the start and end of literary sections. Here a lack of "the Nazarene" at the end of GMark with Jesus going to Galilee at the end of the Gospel parallels/matches better with Jesus just coming from Galilee at the start of the Gospel rather than having one side have a Nazareth/Nazarene reference not balanced by the other side.

From a literary criticism standpoint there is also no reason for identification purposes to add "the Nazarene" here to the phrase "ye seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who hath been crucified" since the narrative has no competing crucified Jesus to possibly get confused with. For that matter, there is likewise no reason to add "who hath been crucified" since there is no other Jesus in the narrative as it stands. More support that has been long suspected for GMatthew's Barrabas, that the original had "Jesus Barabbas". And if GMatthew originally had "Jesus Barabbas", what might the source have been.

Really the evidence above indicates that there was no evidence through the 3rd century that GMark originally had "Nazareth" in 1:9. The simple explanation for why there is no related Patristic reference here to Nazareth in 1:9 and all related Patristic references indicate Jesus' Nazareth was in Judea is that there were no/few manuscripts through the 3rd century that had "Nazareth" This also helps explain why Christianity did not want to preserve Manuscripts of GMark this early.

Word.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki
Post Reply