Mark.How Much Ironic Contrast,Transfer&Reversal Did He kraM?
-
- Posts: 296
- Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 6:03 am
Re: Mark.How Much Ironic Contrast,Transfer&Reversal Did He kraM?
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)
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)
-
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: Mark.How Much Ironic Contrast,Transfer&Reversal Did He kraM?
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.
Re: Mark.How Much Ironic Contrast,Transfer&Reversal Did He kraM?
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.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)
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
- JoeWallack
- Posts: 1608
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
- Contact:
Movers & Shandas
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!:
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
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 |
|
|
|
|
- |
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
- JoeWallack
- Posts: 1608
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
- Contact:
Not So Secret Mark
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!:
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
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 |
|
|
|
|
- |
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 |
|
|
|
|
- |
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
- JoeWallack
- Posts: 1608
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
- Contact:
I Am IronySonOfMan
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
Joseph
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hiUuL5uTKc
The New Porphyry
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 |
|
|
|
|
The Testimony |
|
|
- | - |
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: 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
- JoeWallack
- Posts: 1608
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
- Contact:
Whosonfirst?
Sonny
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
Verse | Recognition of your son | Commentary |
8
|
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
|
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
- JoeWallack
- Posts: 1608
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
- Contact:
The Best Ironic Markan Story That "Mark" Never Wrote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvsDObIQFhg
JW:
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
JW:
VersesAnd 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.
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
- JoeWallack
- Posts: 1608
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
- Contact:
Making Food Clean By Not Washing Your Hands
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
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
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
JW: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.
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
- JoeWallack
- Posts: 1608
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
- Contact:
It's Against The Rules To Sacrifice Your King
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGCjqzB2jPA
JW:
15
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) 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
JW:
15
JW: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.
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.
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