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.
yakovzutolmai
Posts: 296
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 6:03 am

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

Post by yakovzutolmai »

I have begun to see Mark as a tragic parody. One which fools later readers, since the narrative voice of Mark is sincere. It's the writer who understands that the audience will have the context to know this is a parody. That is, the truth of Mark and the gospel narrative generally has evaded scholars because Mark itself is sarcastic.

My theory is that Theudas, James and Simon were the sons of Judas of Gamala, active from 44-70. That the author of Mark was part of the Flavian household aligned with the Alexandrian Jews and Herodians. They had disdain for the "James community".

Mark was a celebration of the defeat of this faction's messianic dreams, and a mocking of their beliefs. Theudas and James, maybe even Simon (the zealot? Cephas?) are made into a composite. 26 years are compressed into three.

The narrative is neither instructive nor historical. It is dramatic. The audience knows that they are laughing at failure, the story isn't real, it's even surreal relative to history in order to serve the parody. The tone of Mark, therefore, is dripping with sincerity in order to maximize the irony for the audience.

My theory is that Mark resurfaces 50-70 years later to combat the reemergence of Ebionite/Elchasaite/Marcionite/Gnostic beliefs into Asia. As a second irony, they love Mark without getting the joke. Thus, the anti-Gnostics have to play catch up and generate a series of texts that reframe this parodic invention, "Jesus of Nazareth" as a serious representation of cosmopolitan Jewish beliefs (Philo).

Thus, the character of Jesus of Nazareth is born.

(I have also, in conjunction with this hypothesis, wondered if the Pauline epistles were meant to combat Ebionite beliefs in Asia during the 90s; the author pretends to be Paul from the 50s, who masquerades as a good guy and Christian, only to ultimately counter Ebionite doctrines, and frame Christ in Philonic and not Gnostic terms - this makes the core Christian canon, ultimately, ironic)
Secret Alias
Posts: 18042
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias »

If you can't sum up your theory of "what Christianity is" into the character limits of a tweet, chances are your theory is garbage.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

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

Post by mlinssen »

yakovzutolmai wrote: Tue Aug 17, 2021 6:08 pm I have begun to see Mark as a tragic parody. One which fools later readers, since the narrative voice of Mark is sincere. It's the writer who understands that the audience will have the context to know this is a parody. That is, the truth of Mark and the gospel narrative generally has evaded scholars because Mark itself is sarcastic.

My theory is that Theudas, James and Simon were the sons of Judas of Gamala, active from 44-70. That the author of Mark was part of the Flavian household aligned with the Alexandrian Jews and Herodians. They had disdain for the "James community".

Mark was a celebration of the defeat of this faction's messianic dreams, and a mocking of their beliefs. Theudas and James, maybe even Simon (the zealot? Cephas?) are made into a composite. 26 years are compressed into three.

The narrative is neither instructive nor historical. It is dramatic. The audience knows that they are laughing at failure, the story isn't real, it's even surreal relative to history in order to serve the parody. The tone of Mark, therefore, is dripping with sincerity in order to maximize the irony for the audience.

My theory is that Mark resurfaces 50-70 years later to combat the reemergence of Ebionite/Elchasaite/Marcionite/Gnostic beliefs into Asia. As a second irony, they love Mark without getting the joke. Thus, the anti-Gnostics have to play catch up and generate a series of texts that reframe this parodic invention, "Jesus of Nazareth" as a serious representation of cosmopolitan Jewish beliefs (Philo).

Thus, the character of Jesus of Nazareth is born.

(I have also, in conjunction with this hypothesis, wondered if the Pauline epistles were meant to combat Ebionite beliefs in Asia during the 90s; the author pretends to be Paul from the 50s, who masquerades as a good guy and Christian, only to ultimately counter Ebionite doctrines, and frame Christ in Philonic and not Gnostic terms - this makes the core Christian canon, ultimately, ironic)
Mark is sarcastic and comedy at the same time. He fully exploits the disciples as if they were a satyr choir, and overdoes everything. The travelling by boat on the "sea" of Galilee, the incorrect place names and geography, it is all plain satire.
Perhaps his was a parody on Marcion's, who knows. But the many links to Greek mythology, which has some roots in Egyptian mythology as well, disclose that this was somewhat of a play to be performed for a Roman audience, with the intention to ridicule
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1577
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Movers & Shandas

Post by JoeWallack »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI5NQ-0Ubfs

JW:
The major theme of GMark is the contrast between the Spiritual verses the Physical, seasoned with Irony. One way this is illustrated is with
the recognition/lack of recognition of Jesusness by different characters/groups of characters. The start in this Xcurses is John the Baptist.
Noting how subsequent Gospellers edited GMark here helps highlight the high contrast and irony in GMark. Enjoy!:

Description Mark Matthew Luke John Commentary
John the Baptist baptizes Jesus 5 Gospel Parallels
1.9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 1.10 And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove; 1.11 and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased."
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."
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."
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."
-
John the Baptist/Recognition of Jesus No recognition. JtB (John the Baptist) not only knows that he is the Introduction to Jesus Acts (so to speak) but he will also be the one baptizing Jesus. yet he fails to recognize Jesus. Now what's the word for that. He receives the physical Jesus (remember that phrase) but does not recognize the spiritual. GMatthew uses GMark as a base but edits GMark so that JtB knows exactly who Jesus is without explicitly saying how. And how is this? Because "Matthew" and everyone else in his time knew it from reading GMark. GLuke wrote next but preserves JtB's lack of recognition. Last and least GJohn has his JtB not only recognize exactly who/what Jesus is but goes so far as to make his JtB the narrator. The Gospels are primarily defined from each other by their position on witness to Jesus (something Christian Bible scholarship still has not come to terms with). GMark has a primary theme that there was no historical witness to Jesus and this gradually is completely reversed by GJohn which claims multiple historical witness to Jesus. Keep in mind for later that generally in GMark characters that followed Jesus physically are named while those that follow Jesus spiritually (like good ol what'sherface) are not. That subsequent Gospellers wanted named historical witness while GMark did not, yet they still used GMark as a base, suggests there was no other significant source to use, GMark was the original narrative and there was no significant oral tradition.


Joseph

EDITOR, n. A person who combines the judicial functions of Minos, Rhadamanthus and Aeacus, but is placable with an obolus; a severely virtuous censor, but so charitable withal that he tolerates the virtues of others and the vices of himself; who flings about him the splintering lightning and sturdy thunders of admonition till he resembles a bunch of firecrackers petulantly uttering his mind at the tail of a dog; then straightway murmurs a mild, melodious lay, soft as the cooing of a donkey intoning its prayer to the evening star. Master of mysteries and lord of law, high-pinnacled upon the throne of thought, his face suffused with the dim splendors of the Transfiguration, his legs intertwisted and his tongue a-cheek, the editor spills his will along the paper and cuts it off in lengths to suit. And at intervals from behind the veil of the temple is heard the voice of the foreman demanding three inches of wit and six lines of religious meditation, or bidding him turn off the wisdom and whack up some pathos.

The New Porphyry
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1577
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Not So Secret Mark

Post by JoeWallack »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNiie_zmSr8

JW:
The major theme of GMark is the contrast between the Spiritual verses the Physical, seasoned with Irony. One way this is illustrated is with
the recognition/lack of recognition of Jesusness by different characters/groups of characters. The start in this Xcurses is John the Baptist.
Noting how subsequent Gospellers edited GMark here helps highlight the high contrast and irony in GMark. Enjoy!:

Description Mark Matthew Luke John Commentary
John the Baptist baptizes Jesus 5 Gospel Parallels
1.9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 1.10 And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove; 1.11 and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased."
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."
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."
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."
-
John the Baptist/Recognition of Jesus No recognition. JtB (John the Baptist) not only knows that he is the Introduction to Jesus Acts (so to speak) but he will also be the one baptizing Jesus. yet he fails to recognize Jesus. Now what's the word for that. He receives the physical Jesus (remember that phrase) but does not recognize the spiritual. GMatthew uses GMark as a base but edits GMark so that JtB knows exactly who Jesus is without explicitly saying how. And how is this? Because "Matthew" and everyone else in his time knew it from reading GMark. GLuke wrote next but preserves JtB's lack of recognition. Last and least GJohn has his JtB not only recognize exactly who/what Jesus is but goes so far as to make his JtB the narrator. The Gospels are primarily defined from each other by their position on witness to Jesus (something Christian Bible scholarship still has not come to terms with). GMark has a primary theme that there was no historical witness to Jesus and this gradually is completely reversed by GJohn which claims multiple historical witness to Jesus. Keep in mind for later that generally in GMark characters that followed Jesus physically are named while those that follow Jesus spiritually (like good ol what'sherface) are not. That subsequent Gospellers wanted named historical witness while GMark did not, yet they still used GMark as a base, suggests there was no other significant source to use, GMark was the original narrative and there was no significant oral tradition.
Joseph of Arimathea receives the body of Jesus
15.42 And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, 15.43 Joseph of Arimathe'a, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus. 15.44 And Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he was already dead. 15.45 And when he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph. 15.46 And he bought a linen shroud, and taking him down, wrapped him in the linen shroud, and laid him in a tomb which had been hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb.
27.57 When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathe'a, named Joseph, who also was a disciple of Jesus
27.58 He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered it to be given to him. 27.59 And Joseph took the body, and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud, 27.60 and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn in the rock; and he rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb, and departed.
23.50 Now there was a man named Joseph from the Jewish town of Arimathe'a. He was a member of the council, a good and righteous man, 23.51 who had not consented to their purpose and deed, and he was looking for the kingdom of God. 23.52 This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. 23.53 Then he took it down and wrapped it in a linen shroud, and laid him in a rock-hewn tomb, where no one had ever yet been laid.
19.38 After this Joseph of Arimathe'a, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly, for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus, and Pilate gave him leave. So he came and took away his body. 19.39 Nicode'mus also, who had at first come to him by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds' weight. 19.40 They took the body of Jesus, and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews. 19.41 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb where no one had ever been laid. 19.42 So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, as the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there.
-
Joseph of Arimathea recognition of the Kingdom of God 1. Member of the council (condemned Jesus).
2. Looking for the Kingdom of God.
3. Literally handed the Kingdom of God (Jesus' body).
4. Places in a tomb.

We have the parallel irony to JtB. JtB knew he was the introduction to Jesus' acts (so to speak) but fails to recognize him even though he laid hands on him. Likewise Joseph of Arimathea, JA, is looking for the Kingdom of God but condemns it when it is in front of his face, and, literally has the Kingdom of God given to him, literally in his hands, but fails to recognize again, and just "buries it", in a "sealed" tomb (let the BCH Reader understand). In order to recognize and receive the Kingdom of God you have to move the rock/Peter out of The Way (behind you).
1. Not a Council member (did not condemn Jesus)
2. Between GMark and GMatthew became a disciple of Jesus.
3. Placed it in his own tomb.

"Matthew" has exorcised some irony of GMark and replaced it with respect.
1. Member of the council.
2. Did not condemn Jesus (apparently had note from Epstein's mother).
3. Looking for the Kingdom of God.

"Luke" has exorcised some irony of GMark and replaced it with respect.
1. Disciple of Jesus.
2. Takes Jesus' body secretly. Undoes implication from GMark that JA was
following instructions from Council to take down (so to speak) Jesus.
3. The men anoint Jesus undoing "Luke's" (likely female) picture of the women anointing.
4. Jesus placed in tomb as convenience.

"John" has completely undone the irony. "John's" disciples believe in Jesus all the way
so his ending is consistent with this.
The specific observations here are consistent with the overall observations regarding
the basic differences between the Gospels. GMark, the first, has a primary theme of
discrediting historical witness to Jesus. His primary style of doing this is irony.
Subsequent Gospellers have the opposite primary theme, they want historical witness
to Jesus. The extent to which they convert themes is directly related to the distance
between themselves and GMark. The shorter the distance in terms of time and Jesus
stories, the less editing of the base. As always, evidence that GMark was not only the
original Gospel narrative but was the only significant supposed historical source. Not
that it's needed but the different reactions to GMark are also evidence of priority.


Joseph

EDITOR, n. A person who combines the judicial functions of Minos, Rhadamanthus and Aeacus, but is placable with an obolus; a severely virtuous censor, but so charitable withal that he tolerates the virtues of others and the vices of himself; who flings about him the splintering lightning and sturdy thunders of admonition till he resembles a bunch of firecrackers petulantly uttering his mind at the tail of a dog; then straightway murmurs a mild, melodious lay, soft as the cooing of a donkey intoning its prayer to the evening star. Master of mysteries and lord of law, high-pinnacled upon the throne of thought, his face suffused with the dim splendors of the Transfiguration, his legs intertwisted and his tongue a-cheek, the editor spills his will along the paper and cuts it off in lengths to suit. And at intervals from behind the veil of the temple is heard the voice of the foreman demanding three inches of wit and six lines of religious meditation, or bidding him turn off the wisdom and whack up some pathos.

The New Porphyry
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1577
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

I Am IronySonOfMan

Post by JoeWallack »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRQ7ecvU56k

JW:

As always, trying to conclude the sources of the extant earliest/original Gospel narrative is speculative. Literary Criticism shows evidence for 4 sources for GMark: "Mark's" Fourth Source(After Imagination,Paul &Tanakh) = Joe . Better conclusions can be made regarding the biases of subsequent Gospellers since we can compare them in total. We still have to use Literary Criticism but now we have Scope.

A current topic on these unholy boards is the relationship between what Jesus supposedly said was his connection to the destruction of the Temple Verses what he was accused of saying. I was not there so I don't know what Jesus said or what was said that Jesus said. All I know is that you do not know either. Always instructive though is the subsequent editing. Enjoy!:

http://sites.utoronto.ca/religion/synopsis/meta-5g.htm

Description Mark Matthew Luke John
The Evidence
13.1 And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!" 13.2 And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down." 13.3 And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, 13.4 "Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign when these things are all to be accomplished?"
24.1 Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple
24.2 But he answered them, "You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down." 24.3 As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?"
21.5 And as some spoke of the temple, how it was adorned with noble stones and offerings, he said, 21.6 " As for these things which you see, the days will come when there shall not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down." 21.7 And they asked him, "Teacher, when will this be, and what will be the sign when this is about to take place?"
2.18 The Jews then said to him, "What sign have you to show us for doing this?" 2.19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 2.20 The Jews then said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?" 2.21 But he spoke of the temple of his body. 2.22 When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.
The Testimony
14.57 And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying, 14.58 "We heard him say, 'I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.'" 14.59 Yet not even so did their testimony agree.
At last two came forward 26.61 and said, "This fellow said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.'"
- -
Commentary 1. I have faith that Olson is on the right path here. "Mark's" style is irony. In typical Markan irony the substance of the false witness testimony is mostly true. The irony is they think it condemns Jesus because it will be false but it actually vindicates Jesus because it will be true. The reason it is false "witness" is because they did not hear Jesus say what his connection was. Jesus said that privately. So in trying to condemn Jesus with false testimony they end up giving true testimony without realizing it. All in the context of the climactic trial. Now that's irony (they just don't write em like this any more and if I'm forced to choose someone to worship I choose "Mark", not Jesus. Course it also fits the earlier, "without hearing, they understand".
2. More irony in the last sentence. It says the false witnesses did not agree even though the text indicates they said the exact same thing. It did not agree to what "Mark" wrote earlier. So in conclusion we have false but true witnesses who's false but true evidence agrees but does not agree provide testimony that clears Jesus even though they thought they were condemning him. I mean, how could you make it any more ironic?
1. Our subsequent Gospellers do not have the ironic style of "Mark", they just inherited it, so they gradually exorcise it.
2. Here Jesus still gives his connection privately but the audience is expanded. Not just the chosen four but his disciples.
3. Now the witnesses just say that Jesus said it, not that they heard it. And they are not described as false anymore. A lot of irony thrown away.
1. And "Luke" goes all the way exorcising all the irony. Now none of it was in private. So if it was brought up at the trial and would have been considered blasphemy at the time, what could Jesus have said? Better not to bring it up at the trial.
2. And now, to answer Secret Agent Man's complaint, "Luke's" Jesus has something to say to everyone. No longer the strong silent type. Women! ("Luke"). For those who need points sharply explained, orthodox Christianity is gradually reversing "Mark's" irony/secrets theme.
1. Orthodox John looks about 150 CE to me and Christianity has now gone all the way from Gnostic (faith based) to Orthodox (history (supposed) based).
2. Now in GJohn the evidence is completely public and a sign of Jesus' success. The author even adds an editorial comment that it was historically true and accepted as historically true.
3. Regarding "Mark's" irony/silence theme "John" now has his Jesus go on and on (so to speak) like Steinbrenner is a Seinfeld episode.
4. Note that "John" wrote:
"What sign have you to show us for doing this?" 2.19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 2.20 The Jews then said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?" 2.21 But he spoke of the temple of his body. 2.22
This refers to the confusion at the text level regarding what "Temple" exactly is being referred to and in what sense. The clear confusion is in GMark. Sure sounds like "John" is reacting mainly to "Mark". See:
Discrediting Your Source. GJohn as Denial of GMark


Joseph

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hiUuL5uTKc

The New Porphyry
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1577
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Whosonfirst?

Post by JoeWallack »

Sonny

Verse Recognition of your son Commentary
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.
33 But he turning about, and seeing his disciples, rebuked Peter, and saith, Get thee behind me, Satan; for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men.
34 And he called unto him the multitude with his disciples, and said unto them, If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
35 For whosoever would save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel`s shall save it.
36 For what doth it profit a man, to gain the whole world, and forfeit his life?
37 For what should a man give in exchange for his life?
38 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of man also shall be ashamed of him, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
No 1. What's generally understood here is the issue of recognition of what regarding Jesus. What Jesus is and what that means. Not so well understood is the related stylish presentation of contrast regarding who is doing/not doing the recognition.
2. The original question here is "Who do men say that I am." Note that it's "men" and not "people". Everything that follows is consistent with a literal presentation that men/man does not know who his son is. This will be contrasted with the next pericope where God knows who his son is.
3. No one guesses that Jesus is a man/son of man.
4. Jesus instructs the only men who should know who he is to not tell anyone who he is (ironic).
5. Jesus refers to himself as "the son of man" (the/a answer) but it's unclear if The Boys know he is referring to himself.
6. Jesus predicts the passion of the son of man openly/clearly without openly clearly saying he is the son of man (here).
7. Note that "Matthew" understands the lack of understanding here and blows the whole stylish contrast by having Peter suddenly acquire the dictation of Henry Higgins and declare Jesus son of God and have Jesus explicitly identify hisself as the passion victim. As usual, more evidence that GMark is first as "GMatthew" sure looks like a reaction to GMark.
8. Does Peter understand that Jesus is referring to himself here? Unclear.
9. Is the ashaming son of man Jesus? Unclear. Is this the same son of man that will be passionated? Unclear. Is this son of man the/also the son of God. Maybe, but again, it says "father", not "God".
10. In summary, based on this supposed historical evidence did man know who his son was? No.
9
1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There are some here of them that stand [by], who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power.
2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them;
3 and his garments became glistering, exceeding white, so as no fuller on earth can whiten them.
4 And there appeared unto them Elijah with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.
5 And Peter answereth and saith to Jesus, Rabbi, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah.
6 For he knew not what to answer; for they became sore afraid.
7 And there came a cloud overshadowing them: and there came a voice out of the cloud, This is my beloved Son: hear ye him.
8 And suddenly looking round about, they saw no one any more, save Jesus only with themselves.
9 And as they were coming down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, save when the Son of man should have risen again from the dead.
Yes. 1. God knows who his son is (This is my beloved Son).
2. It doesn't say that "God" said this, only a voice from a cloud. Still an explicit statement regarding ownership of the son. You just need revelation (faith) to understand (believe) it, not historical witness.
3. RePeted instruction not to tell any man what they didn't understand with added instruction that they can tell what they didn't understand when someone/something they don't know does something they don't understand. Understand dear reader.
4. "Mark" has the added literary touch of preceding the Man/God's son contrast with the story of the blind man being able to see men and following with the father and son story.


Joseph

"So, it’s pretty difficult to have negotiations with a country — a terrorist country — that works exclusively through ultimatums and that wants to destroy you. Basically, that’s something that Golda Meir at some point said about Israel. That it is impossible to negotiate on peace with someone who came in to, with an only goal to kill you. That’s exactly what we are going through right now.” - Klympush-Tsintsadze

The New Porphyry
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1577
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

The Best Ironic Markan Story That "Mark" Never Wrote

Post by JoeWallack »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvsDObIQFhg

JW:
And even now the axe lieth at the root of the trees: every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Verses
And straightway the king sent forth a soldier of his guard, and commanded to bring his head: and he went and beheaded him in the prison, and brought his head on a platter, and gave it to the damsel; and the damsel gave it to her mother.

Joseph

"a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result."

The New Porphyry
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1577
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Making Food Clean By Not Washing Your Hands

Post by JoeWallack »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0dxDQsuA7U

JW:
The legendary The Skeptical Critical Commentary - Gospel of Mark has not gotten this far yet so I feel a little like "John" Maddone on the sidelines throwing his hands up into the air and saying "Just hear me out. Jesus up the cross. In three. Hype, hype, hype.":

2
18 And John`s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting: and they come and say unto him, Why do John`s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not?
19 And Jesus said unto them, Can the sons of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? as long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast.
20 But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then will they fast in that day.
JW:
Presumably the self reference here is between Jesus and his disciples. Fasting is a sign of mourning/solemn remembrance. So Jesus followers will not remember/mourn him until "He's gone Jim". This comparison is not a contrast but a parallel:

John and his Disciples = "Mark" has previously narrated that JtB was taken away from his Disciples. Thus a reason for them to fast.

Pharisees and their disciples = "Mark" has not narrated it yet but for Paul the most significant characteristic of "The Jews" in general was following The Law and specifically following the dietary Law. "Mark's" (Paul's) Jesus famously removes the dietary law. So, just hear me out, The Pharisees here (in "Mark's" Jesus' imaginary world) are mourning the loss of their dietary law of not eating things by...not eating things.


JW:

Kosher - Running food through the deflavorizing machine and charging 10% more.

The New Porphyry
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1577
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

It's Against The Rules To Sacrifice Your King

Post by JoeWallack »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGCjqzB2jPA

JW:

15
1 And straightway in the morning the chief priests with the elders and scribes, and the whole council, held a consultation, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him up to Pilate.
2 And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews[1]? And he answering saith unto him, Thou sayest.
3 And the chief priests accused him of many things.
4 And Pilate again asked him, saying, Answerest thou nothing? behold how many things they accuse thee of.
5 But Jesus no more answered anything; insomuch that Pilate marvelled.
6 Now at the feast he used to release unto them one prisoner, whom they asked of him.
7 And there was one called Barabbas, [lying] bound with them that had made insurrection, men who in the insurrection had committed murder.
8 And the multitude went up and began to ask him [to do] as he was wont to do unto them.
9 And Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews[2]?
10 For he perceived that for envy the chief priests had delivered him up.
11 But the chief priests stirred up the multitude, that he should rather release Barabbas unto them.
12 And Pilate again answered and said unto them, What then shall I do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews[3]?
13 And they cried out again, Crucify him.
14 And Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out exceedingly, Crucify him.
15 And Pilate, wishing to content the multitude, released unto them Barabbas, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified.
16 And the soldiers led him away within the court, which is the Praetorium; and they call together the whole band.
17 And they clothe him with purple, and platting a crown of thorns, they put it on him;
18 and they began to salute him, Hail, King of the Jews!
19 And they smote his head with a reed, and spat upon him, and bowing their knees worshipped him.
JW:
The context with Pilate in general (so to speak) is political. The implication from the above is that specifically the charge against Jesus is claiming to be The King of the Jews. The point of the trial is for Pilate to investigate and determine if Jesus claimed to be King of the Jews. Ironically:
  • 1) Pilate refers to Jesus as "The King of the Jews".

    2) Pilate says that The witnesses refer to Jesus as "The King of the Jews".

    3) Pilate refers to Jesus as "King of the Jews" the formulaic 3 times.

    4) Jesus is convicted of claiming to be The King of the Jews even though:

    5) The Judge calls Jesus King of the Jews.

    6) Jesus points out that the Judge testifies that Jesus is King of the Jews.

    7) The Judge, Pilate, testifies that the witnesses call Jesus King of the Jews.

    8) Jesus, the defendant, who is accused of calling himself King of the Jews, never calls himself King of the Jews.
It seems like the primary point of the narrative here is to create irony. What significant part of the narrative here does not? The usual Skeptical choices here:

1) A religious subject with a style of irony.

Verses:

2) Literary art with a setting of religion.

As Skeptics we should also consider, considering that irony is in the direction of comedy, that GMark was making fun of Christianity.


Joseph

The New Porphyry
Post Reply