Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 05-20-2008, 01:37 PM

What is the irony in first shall be last?

Can someone summarize Mark's tale as if it is an ironic ancient post modern surreal tale? Mark as an early Dali?

(I know this reads chiliesque, but we are discussing looking for evidence elsewhere and if it is agreed irony is part of the picture we then have a problem of russian dolls.)

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/4081/Narcissus.jpg

Solo · 05-21-2008, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
Regarding "Mark's" possible intent we have the following range of possibilities:

1) Full restoration.

This is the current consensus of Christian Bible scholarship and more importantly, our own Christian friends here, Ben and Andrew. This position takes 14:27-28 and 16:7 as proof which negates all contrary evidence in "Mark". I might have seen, ahem, cough, cough, even Bart Ehrman, say "Mark" gives hints of this. The problem for Believers though, which is a tradeMark of Apologists, is that it leaves them with no coherent overall position. Believers think "Mark" is primarily an evangelistic tool with Peter behind it. But for Peter to be responsible for a Gospel which Explicitly shows him not believing in Jesus' resurrection and never Explicitly showing any Restoration, Reunion or even sighting, and than trying to use this Gospel to convince people that Jesus was really resurrected, is ridiculous.

It comes from the sheer weight of the Christian orthodoxy and the need to believe that Christianity originates with one Jesus followed by the faithful, always, and from the start. Suffice it to say that this position relies on anachronism. It's a belief of a later church projected back and canonized. The idea that Mark's Peter, - never mind the Zebedees, and the inner circle of family and friends (and the symbolic twelve) - failed Jesus because he did not accept him as the suffering, crucified Messiah - i.e. had no FAITH in Jesus Christ - would be alien to this mindset and even if not rejected apriori it would be pecked vigourously. The natural logical consequence of this reading of Mark, i.e. that Peter did not know the resurrected Jesus, would of course be a cause for breaking candles, even among the most liberal Protestant biblical scholars.

Quote:

2) Partial restoration.

This is possible and Christian Bible scholarship will gradually retreat to this position. The constant "First will be Last" Marktra comes to mind. The advantage is that you can accept "Mark's" primary theme of discrediting the Disciples and at the same time the Assertian that "Mark's audience knew that the Disciples historically promoted dead Jesus. They just had the wrong priorities.

But since Mark is quite emphatic that the disciples resisted the idea of a "dead Messiah", were "offended" by the passion, and did not receive the word, this won't go very far.

Quote:

3) No restoration but the Disciples did literally see Jesus in Galilee.

This is very possible. It is still consistent with the primary theme of "Mark" and meets the literal prediction of the offending verses. Note that the offending verses only go so far as to say the Disciples will see Jesus in Galilee. Anything more has to be read into the verses. The offending verbs are intransitive meaning it is not a leader/follower relationship. They will just end up in the same place. This fits "Mark's" ironic sense of humor very well. The Disciples will see Jesus again in Galilee but they will go there to return home and not to see Jesus (unexpected).

Actually, when I first learned the scholars more or less accept that 16:8 is where the original Mark ends, the first thing that jumped into my head was that the original text may have continued with the disciples going back to Galilee and not see Jesus - because of their unbelief. It still sits in the back of my mind.

Mark's gospel evidently "knows" about the disputes Paul had with Peter by proxy at Corinth (prior to "conference") and Antioch in person (after). Peter promoted the idea of the messianic kingdom in Israel that Jesus had proclaimed. Paul considered that idea crazy and childish. Flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

Mark's story projects the Pauline Jesus Christ and juxtaposes him with the naive messianic expectations of Peter and the Zebedees. It's a complete mismatch ! (seen at its most ironic in the request of the Zebedees in 10:37)

Quote:

4) No restoration and no Jesus sighting.

I think this most likely. I think the Galilee reference of 14:28 likely Forged which would mean there is also likely forgery in 16:7. Assuming they are original I think they are Instruction rather than prediction, especially since Jesus cited prophecy fulfillment of their scattering, and none for a reunion, and just another instruction that the Disciples did not follow.

The verses could be forged though it is not immediately clear with what purpose. The cross reference seem to work well within Mark's exposition.

Again, I think the most important thing to observe in the text is the reaction of the disciples to Jesus. They idolize him but they do not hear him. When Jesus tells the Zebedees that he is going to be killed and rise again on the third day...they think he is coming back in flesh to hand them them offices in the kingdom. This would have been hilarious to a Pauline mystic.

So when Mark sets up the empty tomb props, it comes out again as a mismatch of expectations. He creates a sort of spiritualist pun: the women expect to find the body of "Jesus of Nazareth" but Mark asserts the Pauline body of Christ, which of course is not there. It has gone to Galilee (which I read as symbolism). The women frightened run away without saying a word to anybody. Peter & Co. are frightened and dumbfounded by the transfiguration. They do not tell a word to anyone. The demonstration of transfigured Jesus they witnessed does not connect with the word of his resurrection. Mark lays it out before the Petrine sectarians: are you coming to Galilee ?

The idea that resurected Christ would be seen in the flesh of Jesus of Nazareth was still a few years ahead, in a counter-gospel of Matthew, which could be read as a positive response of the Jewish Jesus folks to the marching order to Galilee. Was the price too high ? I think the original Mark would have had a great fun with the idea. Paul, though, would have gone glossolalic reading that the dead flesh of Jesus walked and talked.

Jiri

Joseph

OutSourcing Paul, A Contract Labor of Love Another's(Writings). Paul as Markan Source[/QUOTE]

JoeWallack · 05-22-2008, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

I think that the Gospel of Mark is certainly one of the most fascinating pieces of literature of all time, and also certainly the most influential.

You left out one of the greatest ironic scenes in Mark though, one that actually inspired a lot of different legends and the entire Islamic view of who Jesus was.

From my article: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...ospel_mark.htm

Quote:

Mark 15:
6 Now at the festival he used to release a prisoner for them, anyone for whom they asked. 7 Now a man called Barabbas was in prison with the rebels who had committed murder during the insurrection. 8 So the crowd came and began to ask Pilate to do for them according to his custom. 9 Then he answered them, 'Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?' 10 For he realized that it was out of jealousy that the chief priests had handed him over. 11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release Barabbas for them instead. 12 Pilate spoke to them again, 'Then what do you wish me to do with the the King of the Jews?' 13 They shouted back, 'Crucify him!' 14 Pilate asked them, 'Why, what evil has he done?' But they shouted all the more, 'Crucify him!' 15 So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released Barabbas for them; and after flogging Jesus, he handed him over to be crucified.

This passage is quite interesting, because it is here that many threads of the story are drawn together. Here Pilate is portrayed as a just and caring ruler, while the Jews are portrayed as an unjust, bloodthirsty, mob. All of the elements of the story so far that have presented various failings of Jews are put into a direct comparison here between Jews and Gentiles, and the story clearly depicts the Gentiles as the good and just ones and the Jews as the unjust transgressors.

JW:
This is wrong and why this Thread is needed (it would also be difficult for me to leave out one since I have only posted one so far). The driving force behind Irony is Extreme. It's difficult even for Skeptics to read "Mark" without having perception contaminated by the subsequent Gospels that are Reacting to "Mark".

In the original Gospel "Mark", Jesus is totally alone during the Passion. Jesus is the only innocent person and in Contrast everyone else is guilty. The difference between these other characters is that they are guilty for different reasons. Pilate is Ironically guilty because his only job is to determine guilt and he determines innocence yet convicts Jesus anyway. You could argue that he is the guiltiest because he has the highest authority here. There is more than enough guilt to go around and give to Gentiles, such as the guards, soldiers and presumably, some of the crowd. No one, as the Humongous said in the classic Road Warrior, no one is depicted positively in "Mark's Passion besides Jesus. The Director even has to cue the Roman Centurion (understand Dear Reader?) not to positively comment on the Passion until it is over.

Mal, you missed what God said to Jesus at Gethsemane:

Quote:

If the Goys are ever really up against it and your legs just can't catch a break, win one for the Yom Kippur.

What you are describing instead is in the direction of "Luke's" gospel which Reacts to "Mark" by bending (Forging) the Irony towards Paulsibility. Now the reaction is mixed and the Irony gets fuzzy:

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Luke_23

Quote:

8 Now when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was of a long time desirous to see him, because he had heard concerning him; and he hoped to see some miracle done by him.

...

27 And there followed him a great multitude of the people, and of women who bewailed and lamented him.

...

40 But the other answered, and rebuking him said, Dost thou not even fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?

41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.

...

50 And behold, a man named Joseph, who was a councillor, a good and righteous man

51 he had not consented to their counsel and deed), [a man] of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews, who was looking for the kingdom of God:

And by the time you get to Sister Mary Himmleritch's vision of the Passion Mel Gibson's great, great, great, great, great, great, great-grandfather comes to the Passion from Ireland, dons a white robe and sets the cross on fire.

Joseph

"He who denies that "John's" Jesus is denying "Mark's" Jesus is the liar."

OutSourcing Paul, A Contract Labor of Love Another's(Writings). Paul as Markan Source

JoeWallack · 05-23-2008, 08:26 AM

JW:
I highly recommend:

Irony in Mark's Gospel (or via: amazon.co.uk)

by Jerry Camery-Hoggatt

I have to confess that he has identified all kinds of great Irony that I missed.

Regarding the cock crowing story JC-H (Jerry Camery-Hoggatt) misses the Irony of using a symbolic rising/wake-up call, the cock crowing, as the moment that Peter falls/sleeps which is the most ironic part of the story. This is symbolic of the death of Peter's career as a Disciple:

The Reader: So what happened to Rocky?

Don Paul: He sleeps with his fishes.

Fabulous Irony that JC-H does point out here:

1) Peter denies Jesus' to save his life but denies himself and loses his life

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_14

Quote:

31 But he spake exceedingly vehemently, If I must die with thee, I will not deny thee. And in like manner also said they all.

JC-H points out that "Mark" is operating on a "Text" and "Subtext" level. The text level is for the characters and the subtext level, which is a deeper level, is for the Readers.

On a Text level Peter does deny Jesus and does not die with him. On a Subtext level (mine) Jesus will deny Peter and Peter will die without Jesus.

2) Jesus' trial is contrasted with Peter's "trial".

Quote:

67 and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and saith, Thou also wast with the Nazarene, [even] Jesus.

On a Text level Peter is accused of being a follower of Jesus. On a Subtext level Peter has never been a follower of Jesus.

3) Peter's oath of allegiance is contrasted with his oath of non-allegiance

Quote:

71 But he began to curse, and to swear, I know not this man of whom ye speak.

On a Text level Peter Lies and defends himself with an oath that he is not a follower of Jesus. On a Subtext level Peter tells the Truth and condemns himself as not being a follower of Jesus. By denying Jesus he denies himself and his call to discipleship.

4) Peter is ashamed that he was ashamed of Jesus

Quote:

72 And straightway the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word, how that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.

On a text level Peter is ashamed that he was ashamed on Jesus. On a Subtext level (mine) Jesus will be ashamed of Peter because Peter was ashamed of 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 soul-spirited knave, and his ever victim's outcry for codefendants evokes a national assent.

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Clivedurdle · 05-23-2008, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Pinning down a "beginning" to satire is not a simple exercise. Undoubtedly, satire existed well before it was formalised. Both the Greeks and Romans formalised the use of satire in one form or another. Roman satire tended to be presented as poetry (although often would be worked into other performance art) whilst Greek satire would be presented in plays and performances.

http://www.nottheonion.com/history.php

Why is not the Gospel of Mark a Greek Satire?

Quote:

artistic form, chiefly literary and dramatic, in which human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, parody, caricature, or other methods, sometimes with an intent to inspire social reform.

(Or parody a stiff necked people you are at war with?)

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/524958/satire

But in possibly the first example of Poe's Law the parody was taken to be true...

(Was this document the result of a Greco roman project like the Manhattan project or the V Rocket project to develop a literary weapon of war against the Jews?)

Quote:

According to Atwill, the Romans' solution to these problems was to create a special kind of post-war propaganda. They called it in Greek evangelion, a technical term meaning "good news of military victory."

Clivedurdle · 05-23-2008, 11:49 AM

The stuff about Galilee has been bugging me

Quote:

Events at the Lake of Galilee launch the Judean careers of both Titus and Jesus. There Jesus called his disciples to be 'fishers of men'. There the Roman battle took place in which Titus attacked a band of Jewish rebels led by a leader named Jesus. The rebels fell into the water and those who were not killed by darts "attempted to swim to their enemies, the Romans cut off either their heads or their hands" (Jewish War III, 10).

Solo · 05-23-2008, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

The stuff about Galilee has been bugging me

Quote:

Events at the Lake of Galilee launch the Judean careers of both Titus and Jesus. There Jesus called his disciples to be 'fishers of men'. There the Roman battle took place in which Titus attacked a band of Jewish rebels led by a leader named Jesus. The rebels fell into the water and those who were not killed by darts "attempted to swim to their enemies, the Romans cut off either their heads or their hands" (Jewish War III, 10).

Have you seen Neil Godfrey's take on Mark and Galilee ?

Jiri

Clivedurdle · 05-24-2008, 02:04 AM

Not sure, but have read Pagels.

I see at least two strands that definitely need explaining - the gnostic one - btw I do not accept the view that these are later ideas - they do track back to Zarathustra, who may be 1000 BCE.

The clear propaganda irony satirical one.

Time and place?

A careful relook at the relationships between Paul and the Gospels is required, not using apologist assumptions.

A very carefully crafted weapon of war building on already existing trends and thinking?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

I think that the Gospel of Mark is certainly one of the most fascinating pieces of literature of all time, and also certainly the most influential.

Quote:

Boris Johnson - the Tory party shadow minister of higher education in his book The Dream of Rome (or via: amazon.co.uk) compares them.

He starts p80

It is time to consider the growth of Roman imperial theology and the extraordinary parallel growth in Christian theology. I hope to show that this last can be seen as a reaction to - and rejection of - the cult of the emperor and the values of Rome.

Let us begin with the coincidences.
No, they aren't entirely coincidences. They can't be

http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=205276

Are we looking at the beginning of the creation of an eternal god emperor?

JoeWallack · 05-24-2008, 11:31 AM

Trinkets To Kill A Prince

JC-H writes:

Quote:

In one sense, Peter's agitated behavour is a foil for the behavour of Jesus. Both are on trial...Peter becomes more agitated as Jesus becomes more silent.

JW:
Regarding the Transfer and Reversal of Emotion (Passion) between Jesus and Peter, JC-H is close to correct here:

Peter

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_14

Quote:

66 And as Peter was beneath in the court, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest;

67 and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and saith, Thou also wast with the Nazarene, [even] Jesus.

68 But he denied, saying, I neither know, nor understand what thou sayest: and he went out into the porch; and the cock crew.

Minimum emotion. Peter claims to not understand what was said.

Quote:

69 And the maid saw him, and began again to say to them that stood by, This is [one] of them.

70 But he again denied it. And after a little while again they that stood by said to Peter, of a truth thou art [one] of them; for thou art a Galilaean.

Repetition of denial. A little attitude.

Quote:

71 But he began to curse, and to swear, I know not this man of whom ye speak.

Third denial and emotional response.

Quote:

72 And straightway the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word, how that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.

Maximum emotional response (crying).

Verses:

Jesus

Religious Authority

Quote:

60 And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?

61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing.

Is the intent that Jesus is answering the question (they are witnessing "nothing" against him)?

Quote:

61...Again the high priest asked him, and saith unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?

62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.

The Irony that at the Text level the High Priest is the Judge who is asking for testimony from the witness yet at the Sub-text level it is Jesus who is the Judge and the High Priest who is the witness regarding Jesus' Identity (Messiah) and Authority (son of God) and it is this testimony of the High Priest, as confirmed by Jesus, that condemns the High Priest.

So far, normal conversation from the High Priest.

Quote:

63 And the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What further need have we of witnesses?

Now a physical response from the High Priest

Quote:

Mark 14:64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be worthy of death.

Blasphemy, a Religious context conviction and the maximum one. Now it spreads to all of them.

Quote:

65 And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the officers received him with blows of their hands.

And now the maximum emotional response from Religious Authority, insults and beating as they go Roundly King on Jesus or, dare I say, riot. Presumably Jesus has no reaction.

Political Authority

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_15

Quote:

2 And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering saith unto him, Thou sayest.

The Irony that at the Text level Pilate is the Judge who is asking for testimony from the witness yet at the Sub-text level it is Jesus who is the Judge and Pilate who is the witness regarding Jesus' Identity (King) and Authority (the Jews) and it is this testimony of Pilate, as confirmed by Jesus, that condemns Pilate.

Quote:

15:3 And the chief priests accused him of many things.

15:4 And Pilate again asked him, saying, Answerest thou nothing? behold how many things they accuse thee of.

To this point, normal conversation by Pilate.

Quote:

5 But Jesus no more answered anything; insomuch that Pilate marvelled.

And Jesus becomes completely silent when Pilate starts to show emotion.

Quote:

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?

10 For he perceived that for envy the chief priests had delivered him up.

Not only does Pilate know the charges against Jesus are false, he even knows the motivation for the false charges, making him guiltier.

Quote:

11 But the chief priests stirred up the multitude, that he should rather release Barabbas unto them.

Now the Religious Authorities start, and Pilate is threatened, with a Riot.

Quote:

12 And Pilate again answered and said unto them, What then shall I do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews?

13 And they cried out again, Crucify him.

"Cried". Just like, uh, what'shisface.

Quote:

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.

Crucifxion, a Political context conviction and the maximum one. Pilate avoids an insurrection over Bar Abbas by releasing an Insurrectionist, Barabbas. Presumably Jesus has no reaction.

Joseph

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Solo · 05-24-2008, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Joseph

Quote:

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?

10 For he perceived that for envy the chief priests had delivered him up.

Not only does Pilate know the charges against Jesus are false, he even knows the motivation for the false charges, making him guiltier.

The great irony of Pilate offering Bar Abbas (SonofaFather) as optional release is that he can't. Barabbas is an insurrectionist; his crime is not against the Jews but against Rome. Insurrection without a doubt fell under the statutes of lex maiestas, treason against the emperor or the Roman state. Pilate not proceeding against a violent insurrectionist would have made him a traitor in the Roman legal code. So this is a comedy of errors: even though the prefect does not know of Jesus' upholding Caesar's temporal authority (the Jews were permitted to worship their God), the gospel reader knows that and that Pilate accedes to a mob who undermines it.

Jiri

Quote:

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.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-20-2008, 01:37 PM	#21
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	What is the irony in first shall be last? Can someone summarize Mark's tale as if it is an ironic ancient post modern surreal tale? Mark as an early Dali? (I know this reads chiliesque, but we are discussing looking for evidence elsewhere and if it is agreed irony is part of the picture we then have a problem of russian dolls.) http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/4081/Narcissus.jpg

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.