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

Le Noir

Post by JoeWallack »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BefliMlEzZ8

JW:
This post is inspired by:

Re: Great moments in textual transmission.

Of course my favorite moment is Eusebius' confession that the ending of GMark is the ending of GMark (in an irony that I think the author of GMark would really appreciate, the ending of GMark will be the ending of orthodox Christianity).

Regarding The Peter/Cock crowing twice in GMark, as "John" would say, "And now this":

Verse The Peter/Cock Crowing Twice That He Will Never Deny Jesus The Prophecy That Peter Will Deny Jesus Three Times Before The Cock Crows Twice The Ironic Contrast And Balance Between Prophecy Setting And Prophecy Fulfillment
14
26 When they had sung the hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. 27 And Jesus said to them, “You will all become deserters; for it is written,

‘I will strike the shepherd,
and the sheep will be scattered.’

28 But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee.” 29 Peter said to him, “Even though all become deserters, I will not.” 30 Jesus said to him, “Truly I tell you, this day, this very night, before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.” 31 But he said vehemently, “Even though I must die with you, I will not deny you.” And all of them said the same.
1. Peter says that even if everyone else deserts Jesus, he will not.

2. Peter says that he will not deny Jesus even if he has to die with Jesus.
The prophecy that Peter will deny Jesus three times is inserted between Peter's first and second denials that he will deny Jesus. The Superior Skeptic should note that our Beloved Non-Disciple thus has his Peter/Cock crowing twice that he will never deny Jesus WHILE Jesus prophesizes that he will deny Jesus three times before the Cock crows twice. Since this type of ironic contrast transfer reversal has already been established ad Nazorean as a popular literary style of "Mark", it is likely that "twice" is original to GMark.

The broader observation is that for Difficult Readings, the style of "Mark" should probably have more weight than the External evidence. This case is unusually illustrative because of the Textual Variation. But as we've seen, the greater the difficulty, the greater the variation. Textual Variation is directly related to how it portrays Jesus and negative depictions are exponentially related. Here we have a prophecy of Jesus and that creates the difficulty.

For those who need points sharply explained, the reason "Mark" has the cock crowing twice is to match Peter's twice denial while Jesus is making the cock crowing twice prophecy. This creates the extreme irony that while Jesus is prophesizing that Peter will deny him three times before a real cock crows twice, Peter twice crows like a cock that he will never deny Jesus (he is denying to Jesus that he will deny Jesus). Sorry, can't make it any clearer. What was most important to the Editors was trying to present an accurate and historical sounding Jesus prophecy. This was more important than trying to preserve the original irony and style.

Bonus material for Solo = Note that Peter's denial part of the prophecy has the Thrice formula while Jesus' timing part of the prophecy has the Twice. So what does that tell us was more important to "Mark".


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1577
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

The Good Rich Man

Post by JoeWallack »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eJuqaeJIYo

JW:

6

What is the Description Who is it applied to Who should it be applied to
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. John the Baptist ---Jesus
-----15 But others said, It is Elijah. ---Jesus John the Baptist
-----And others said, [It is] a prophet, [even] as one of the prophets. ---Jesus John the Baptist
16 But Herod, when he heard [thereof], said, John, whom I beheaded, he is risen. John the Baptist ---Jesus

JW:
The Superior Skeptic should Mark carefully how carefully crafted the above chiasm is and that the primary significance is not what the guesses are but how they are misapplied. The attributes of Jesus are switched to John the Baptist and Verse Vices. This does suggest a historical commentary by our original Gospel author. The historical John the Baptist was given too much attention and the historical Jesus was not given enough. As always, note how the subsequent Gospellers gammo up "Mark's" skata with editing tearing the chiasm apart. As always, pretty, pretty good literary criticism evidence for Markan priority.


Joseph

BAPTISM, n. A sacred rite of such efficacy that he who finds himself in heaven without having undergone it will be unhappy forever. It is performed with water in two ways—by immersion, or plunging, and by aspersion, or sprinkling.

Psalm 22:17, Hebrew Text, "Like A Lion". Determining Who's Original And Who's Lion? Nahal Hever Fragment
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1577
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Got To Pay Your Dues If You Want To Replace The Jews

Post by JoeWallack »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqISX2o0a4A&t=4s

The Greatest Candidate #1 The Greatest Candidate #2 Commentary
9
31 For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered up into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and when he is killed, after three days he shall rise again.
32 But they understood not the saying, and were afraid to ask him.
33 And they came to Capernaum: and when he was in the house he asked them, What were ye reasoning on the way?
34 But they held their peace: for they had disputed one with another on the way, who [was] the greatest.
So who's the greatest? The candidate who is killed but resurrected after three days or the candidate who walked behind Jesus while Jesus was saying he would be killed and resurrected after three days. Note how our favorite author has cleverly connected the two candidates. One is caused by an ironic lack of reaction to the other and both candidates are next to each other (so to speak) in the narrative.

As always I think this is also clever historical commentary. There' was such a big difference between what Jesus was and what the Disciples were that the Disciples had no special standing compared to non Disciple followers of Jesus.


Joseph

FAITH, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.

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

New Rules

Post by JoeWallack »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE0_JhLsgPQ

Verse Commentary
2
18 Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and people[h] came and said to him, “Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?”
In the first part of the Markan sandwich the observation is made that Jesus' followers do not follow established ritual. As always I think this is an anachronistic historical observation. Dead Jesus' followers did not follow established Jewish ritual.
    • 19 Jesus said to them, “The wedding guests cannot fast while the bridegroom is with them, can they? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. 20 The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast on that day.
      21 “No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old cloak; otherwise, the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made. 22 And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost, and so are the skins; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins.”
In the middle part of the sandwich the lesson is given which then explains the historical commentary of the outer parts. The significance of Jesus' supposed passion (bridegroom) will create new ritual rules and it's only natural that new rules have new followers.
To answer POrlson's Complaint, Christian commentators have avoided it like Trump and the gym because anachronism is all over it like Trump on a cheeseburger and they want to look for supposed history.
23 One sabbath he was going through the grainfields; and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. 24 The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?” 25 And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need of food? 26 He entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and he gave some to his companions.” 27 Then he said to them, “The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath; 28 so the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath.”
Repeating the historical commentary that there are New Rules.


Joseph

RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.

Skeptical Textual Criticism
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1577
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Seeing is not believing. I heard that. Not.

Post by JoeWallack »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avaSdC0QOUM

I told you bout the unholy see yeah,
You know it's corrupt as can be yeah.
Well here's another clue for you all,
The Walpurgeus was Paul.


JW:
Super Skeptic Paul Davidson has done it again with another interesting post:

Another Synoptic Puzzle: Luke’s Great Omission

Pointing out that GLuke omits Mark 6:45-8:26 (The Great Omission). Kelber rightfully points out that this is the heart of "Mark's" discrediting of The Disciples:

Mark's Story of Jesus Kindle Edition

(Framed by the "hardening of the hearts" of The Disciples and the Exodus references (Pharoah/Pharises) as the opposition/obstacle).

Of specific interest here though is the clever ironic contrast within this section by our favorite Gospel author regarding who sees/understands:

Verse Who What do they see What do they understand/not understand Irony
6
45 And straightway he constrained his disciples to enter into the boat, and to go before [him] unto the other side to Bethsaida, while he himself sendeth the multitude away.
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 Disciples Jesus They do not recognize (understand) that it was Jesus. As Disciples they should know better than anyone else who Jesus is and what he looks like.
53 And when they had crossed over, they came to the land unto Gennesaret, and moored to the shore.
54 And when they were come out of the boat, straightway [the people] knew him,
55 and ran round about that whole region, and began to carry about on their beds those that were sick, where they heard he was.
Not Disciples Jesus They do recognize who and what Jesus is. In contrast to the Disciples who were hand picked, trained and accompanied Jesus, strangers who had never met Jesus, immediately recognize him and have faith/expectation of his amazing powers.
8
13 And he left them, and again entering into [the boat] departed to the other side.
14 And they forgot to take bread; and they had not in the boat with them more than one loaf.
15 And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.
16 And they reasoned one with another, saying, We have no bread.
17 And Jesus perceiving it saith unto them, Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? do ye not yet perceive, neither understand? have ye your heart hardened?
18 Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember?
Jesus The Disciples do not see The Disciples hearts have been hardened As the Brits say, The Cruncher, and what places our author above the rest. Here Jesus sees that The Disciples do not see (layered irony). And he sees why (hearts hardened = God's plan). More layered irony in that Jesus now understands that his lecture to The Disciples about seeing and not hearing that he gave to them, was not for them but about them. Heart hardened explains why they didn't understand that (asked and answered so to speak).

As always in GMark Jesus is just as below the God of Irony as everyone else. It's understandable why an orthodox Luke that wants to reconcile Paul with The Disciples would exorcise this section. And in an irony that I think "Mark" would really appreciate, Balkham is correct that GMark has inclusios, is just that their purpose was to discredit The Disciples, not credit them.

Bonus material for spin = Is there a Greek linguistic connection between Pharoah/Pharisees?

Everyone welcome to answer except Anuradha Mittal.


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.

Jew Did The Crime, You Read The Times
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 »

The whole idea is that the disciples are clumsy clowns, and screw up everything - that's the entire point

They're the satyrs in this satyr play, at least originally, and they maintain that part for very, very long

Look at logion 3, 6 and 113 in Thomas (I'll use Lambdin for a change with a slight correction)

(3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you of your eye. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

(6) His disciples questioned him and said to him, "Do you want us to fast? How shall we pray? Shall we give alms? What diet shall we observe?" Jesus said, "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered."

(113) His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?" 11 <Jesus said,> "It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying 'here it is' or 'there it is.' Rather, the kingdom of the father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it.

Short story.
The very start of Thomas is telling that the kingdom is already here, even inside you, and just a matter of perception.
Needless to say, the disciples ignore that and start asking dumb questions - and receive a luscious lashing.
At the end of the story, in the penultimate logion, they demonstrate their utter ignorance by proving that they didn't understand a iota of the very first thing that was told

They get beaten up on every single turn in between, there is not a single occasion that they ask the right question or give the right answer, and sometimes they fail to do both in one and the same logion

Mark gets that, he really does. Best verse on that is the fact that he even tells the disciples that he talks in parables to the crowd so they don't understand, but not to them cuz they're wise, and then checks whether his disciples got that:

Mark 4:10And when He was alone, those around Him with the Twelve began asking Him about the parable.
11And He was saying to them, “To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but to those who are outside, everything is done in parables,
12 so that, ‘Seeing, they might see and not perceive; and hearing, they might hear and not understand; lest ever they should turn, and they should be forgiven.’”
13 And He says to them, “Do you not understand this parable? Then how will you understand all the parables?

Then he does a couple: the sower, the lamp, the secret seed, the mustard seed - a double double whammy really, not for the fainthearted. And right after that, he assists to have drawn a conclusion:

Mark 4:33 And with many such parables He kept speaking the word to them, as they were able to hear,
34 and He would not speak to them without parables; but privately He would explain all things to His own disciples

You call that a disciple? Fiendly ogre!
Last edited by mlinssen on Mon Jul 26, 2021 11:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
davidmartin
Posts: 1562
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

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

Post by davidmartin »

ML, the idea the disciples are clowns plays into the apostle Paul's hands
how do we know that his bunch didn't start that meme?
it would suit his purposes very well, would it not?

It doesn't even matter whether 'Paul' existed or he represents some later group
Thus there is a hidden layer, and Thomas himself is a disciple who speaks against Paul as do the gospels covertly:
" Jesus said, "There was a rich person who had a great deal of money. He said, 'I shall invest my money so that I may sow, reap, plant, and fill my storehouses with produce, that I may lack nothing.' These were the things he was thinking in his heart, but that very night he died. Anyone here with two ears had better listen!""

Paul is the rich person:
"Not because I desire a gift: but I desire fruit that may abound to your account. But I have all, and abound: I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you,"

Paul was the enemy of most of the early Christians and is condemned all over the place
When you have that dichotomy of Jesus vs the disciples only by introducing a vertical element, Paul, can it be unraveled and i doubt he was the only one to oppose the original desciples
What you see as dumb disciples I see as representing the later presentation of the disciples and not reflecting on the original disciples, in the schema of a hypothetical reconstruction anyway. The really dumb ones were those who came afterwards
The breakaway sect couldn't accept those that came before and breathed fire and ignorance on them precisely because the earlier movement had some claims of it's own that got reworked. I think the disciples opposed this stuff and that's why they are portrayed negatively
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 »

The funny thing is that the translation is notoriously bad: "produce" there says karpos in the Greek; fruit

Question then is then, apart from Romans and further talk only of apostles and basically never of disciples, and the four canonicals doing exactly the opposite: didn't Paul come afterwards then?
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1577
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Could It Be...Saytonnn!

Post by JoeWallack »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXXEof2Al8Q

JW:

Word/Author Definition/Verse Theological Point Commentary
4632. skeuos
Definition, a vessel, implement, pl. goods
- Primary meaning of "vessel". The word is used hundreds of times in Greek translations of The Jewish Bible with the high majority meaning of "vessel".
Paul 1 Thessalonians 4
4 that each one of you know how to possess himself of his own vessel in sanctification and honor,
Paul/Fake Paul make the figurative comparison of how a person "carries" himself spiritually with morals and ethics, which is like a container of good spirit, is like the physical container (vessel) containing the physical. Either way the vessel is a tool which allows the delivery/use of what's inside. Paul/Fake Paul use this analogy a number of times.
"Mark" 3
27 But no one can enter into the house of the strong [man], and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong [man]; and then he will spoil his house.
?. You have to wait to see what "Mark" connects it to because... The English translation makes sense. If you want to steal the tough guy's stuff, you first need to neutralize him. The problem though is the offending word means "vessels". It looks like the only reason Christians give it a secondary meaning of "goods" is because that would fit the context of GMark here and the Gospellers who copied this story.
"Mark" 11
16 and he would not suffer that any man should carry a vessel through the temple.
The theological claim is that the carrying (on) of items in the Temple, intended to facilitate sacrifice, had become big business. What was designed to be a holy system of repentance was "demonized" as evilly corrupted (and in an irony that the author of GMark would really appreciate, itself an evil and wicked meme perpetuated to this day by the unlikes of Nina Turner). 1. The primary point is that "Mark's" strange/bizarre/macabre use of "vessels" in 3:27 now makes sense. "Mark's" primary theological source is Paul/Fake Paul. Paul has a primary theme that followers of his Jesus should consider themselves like figurative vessels of holy spirit, containing, carrying and distributing good morals and ethics. As usual, "Mark" only uses the offending word these two times to make the connection clear.
In 3:27 the strong man is Dr. Evil. Neutralizing the bad doctor consists of emptying his vessels (people) of the bad spirits (demons). When the bad spirits are exorcised you have cleaned his house (physical world). Then onto The Other Guy's House (spiritual world).

2. 11:16 is the same theme but here the evil is the Jewish religious leadership and the supposed corrupt Temple sacrificial worship system. Jesus figuratively stops/prevents it represented by physical narrative of stopping/preventing the carrying of items in the Temple designed to facilitate the business of Temple sacrifice business.

3. 3:27 is just a parable. 11:16 is narrative but would be historically impossible. "Mark" has a style of first using the parable to explain the theological point. The narrative that is connected to it (either by location and/or language) is then supposed to explain as historical commentary using the lesson of the parable. Note that the narrative is not presented as history, only as part of the presentation of the relationship between what was historical and the related spiritual lesson. For those who need points sharply explained, the above was not intended to claim that Jesus literally prevented usual commerce/sacrifice in the Temple. What was intended was the theological supposed point that Jesus' supposed Passion ended commerce/sacrifice in the Temple.

4. Josephus, another major source for "Mark" is also used bigly here as the Temple being converted into a den of thieves was pretty much his real historical observation.

5. That "vessels" survived the evil and wicked Christian carrying of the vessels of Textual Transmission is again evidence that GMark has been preserved reMarkably well as orthodox Christianity unwittingly preserved evidence of its largely fictional origin because of its historical assumptions.

6. Strange choice of words in GMark that are also in subsequent Gospels was one of the pillars of Hawkins' argument that GMark was first. Where subsequent Gospels do not parallel with GMark they generally do not have strange words. And as always this is evidence of the weakness of Christian claims of historicity as all subsequent Gospels, which wanted historical witness to Jesus, had to rely mainly on an original Gospel narrative that did not want historical witness to Jesus suggesting that there was no existing source Gospel available to them that credited known historical witness to Jesus.



Joseph

SATIRE, n. An obsolete kind of literary composition in which the vices and follies of the author's enemies were expounded with imperfect tenderness. In this country satire never had more than a sickly and uncertain existence, for the soul of it is wit, wherein we are dolefully deficient, the humor that we mistake for it, like all humor, being tolerant and sympathetic. Moreover, although Americans are "endowed by their Creator" with abundant vice and folly, it is not generally known that these are reprehensible qualities, wherefore the satirist is popularly regarded as a sour-spirited knave, and his ever victim's outcry for codefendants evokes a national assent.

The New Porphyry
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 »

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8212

129 vessels in the Tanakh, I dug up all of them in Greek from the NT - perhaps interesting
Post Reply