HaMarkia, Missing the Mark. GMark as Satire

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

HaMarkia, Missing the Mark. GMark as Satire

Post by JoeWallack »

HaMarkia, Missing the Mark. Letting the Reader (Mis)Understand. GMark as Satire.

JW:
Orthodox Christian Disciples (OCD) more than anything else wanted to credit supposed historical witness to Jesus. Yet all subsequent Gospels primarily rely on an original Gospel that discredits supposed historical witness to Jesus. As that great 20th century philosopher Bill Murray said There's Something Very Wrong Here. The traditional explanation is that this is just a development of converting history into myth. Maybe though it's something else. Is it possible that the original Gospel narrative GMark was intentionally written as a Satire of Christianity of its time?

For those who need points sharply explained, it's possible that GMark used some broad actual history such as a Jesus who was a teacher and faith healer, had disciples and died. The individual stories though are generally fiction with the primary purpose of discrediting the historical disciples. Subsequent Christianity used GMark as a base because while Q already existed, Q was primarily sayings and GMark was the only narrative that existed. Explanatory power of conclusion options:
  • 1) OCD = GMark has an implied ending that converts the historical disciples into credited witnesses. The problem is that the Reader is forced to supply her own ending based on what she believes outside of GMark = little explanatory power.

    2) Skeptics = GMark as the original narrative coordinates with Paul as a prequel to Paul's Epistles. It explains how the proper understanding of Jesus was unknown and not promoted until Paul's revelation = lots of explanatory power.

    3) Literary Critics = GMark was written as a Satire of Christianity. Explanatory power = ?
First of all, was the fruit of Paul/"Mark's" Christianity ripe at the time for being made fun off? Christian Bible Scholarship (CBS) now confesses that there is no direct description/prophecy of Jesus in The Jewish Bible. On the other side though, Isaiah, the most prolific Hebrew author, gives a detailed summary of the Pagan superstition that preceded Judaism and was what Judaism was reacting to:

44
13 The carpenter stretcheth out a line; he marketh it out with a pencil; he shapeth it with planes, and he marketh it out with the compasses, and shapeth it after the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man, to dwell in a house.
14 He heweth him down cedars, and taketh the holm-tree and the oak, and strengtheneth for himself one among the trees of the forest: he planteth a fir-tree, and the rain doth nourish it.
15 Then shall it be for a man to burn; and he taketh thereof, and warmeth himself; yea, he kindleth it, and baketh bread: yea, he maketh a god, and worshippeth it; he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto.
16 He burneth part thereof in the fire; with part thereof he eateth flesh; he roasteth roast, and is satisfied; yea, he warmeth himself, and saith, Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire.
17 And the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image; he falleth down unto it and worshippeth, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god.
Isaiah 44:18 They know not, neither do they consider: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand.
Isaiah 44:19 And none calleth to mind, neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say, I have burned part of it in the fire; yea, also I have baked bread upon the coals thereof; I have roasted flesh and eaten it: and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination? shall I fall down to the stock of a tree?
JW:
I think we would all agree that this describes Christianity to a "T" (so to speak). So in the big picture, while GMark is describing Judaism as the old and Christianity as the new, ironically this Judaism would have considered GMark's/Paul's Christianity as the old Pagan superstition.

Definition of Satire https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/satire
1
: a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2
: trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly
Ironically, consideration of satire in GMark is just like consideration of Jesus in GMark, the easy part is trying to identify the what:
  • 1) Style = Satire

    2) Jesus = Messiah
The hard part though is trying to identify what the what means. Here, what are the possible meanings of Satire:
  • 1) Secondary to the story. Literary technique meant to enhance.

    2) Primary. Art. The individual stories are secondary.


So, first step for this Thread. Is GMark satire? As always keep in mind that to the extent GMark is satire, that is a l-o-n-g way from the traditional CBS assertian that GMark is unsophisticated.

And just for those who think I Am being overly harsh on Christianity here by suggesting that the original Gospel may have been intended to some extent to make fun of Christianity, for those critics of Christianity for the last 2,000 years, as that great 21st century philosopher Nigel Farage said, Who's laughing now?


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism
Post Reply