Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 06-22-2009, 02:11 PM

Quote:

So this is a comedy of errors:

Quote:

Inside the Praetorium

It was early in the morning when they took Jesus from Caiaphas’ house to the praetorium. (Jn 18:28). Since a new act of the play has begun, careful note is made of the passage of dramatic time: The trial before the Jewish Senate had lasted from dawn until early morning. The information about the time of day was given by the chorus. The whole group rose up, reports Luke, and led him to Pilate. This means that the mute characters representing the scribes and the elders who had sat in judgment in the last episode of the second act joined the chorus of armed men in a procession. As they marched across the stage the chorus intoned a lengthy ode, one of the choral interludes that separated the acts of an ancient tragedy.
The physical appearance of the stage remained largely unchanged; the identification of the scaena as the praetorium of Pilate was made in the song of the chorus. The central doors remained shut; the fire on the altar was extinguished, to indicate that it was day.
The trial before the Roman authorities progressed through three episodes, recapping the three-part procedure before the Jewish religious authorities in the previous act. A preliminary interrogation by Pilate, followed by an examination of witnesses by Herod, culminated in a judicial procedure in which the chorus, acting as both prosecution and jury, engaged in an open confrontation with Pilate. As in the previous act, the first two episodes took place inside, behind closed doors, while the third and final episode was enacted outside, in full view of the audience.
As the chorus ended its third song, the audience saw the chorus of armed men, gathered outside the praetorium, calling Pilate’s name. This served to identify him for the audience. According to John,
Pilate went outside to meet them and said,
What do you accuse this man of?
Pilate did not yet go out onto the stagethe central door remained shut. He spoke to the assembled crowd from the balcony at the second level. In John’s account the response of the Jewish leaders is rather evasive:
We would not have brought him to you
if he had not committed a crime.
Mark only states that they accused him of many things. The reluctance on the part of these evangelists to clearly state what were the charges against Jesus is due to the tense atmosphere in which the gospels were written; the gospel writers were most concerned to avoid providing information that could be of use to hostile critics. Only Luke preserves a full statement of the charges:
We caught this man misleading our people,
telling them not to pay taxes to Caesar,
and claiming that he himself is Christ, a king,
This may be a correct summation of the dialogue of Seneca’s play, since it fits Pilate’s response, recorded by John:
You yourselves take him
and try him according to your own law.
The Jewish leaders tried to portray Jesus as an enemy of Roman power, but Pilate, seing through this pretended loyalty, forced them to state the real reason why they had brought the prisoner to him (Jn. 18:31):
We are not allowed to put anyone to death.
Upon hearing these words, John reports, Pilate went back into the praetorium. At the same time, Jesus was let inside the through one of the side doors at stage level, while the chorus stayed out on the open stage. This is what a Roman stage presentation required, but the Christian audience found it most peculiar that the Jewish leaders would not go inside the praetorium and make their case directly to Pilate. John tried to devise an explanation in terms of his own intellectual background:
The Jews did not go inside the praetorium because they wanted to keep themselves ritually clean in order to eat the Passover meal.
This explanation has given rise to some perplexity among interpreters. Raymond Brown comments:
Nothing in Jewish law or ritual... would support the contention that by entering the king’sor anybody’spalace or a courtroom a Jew would become impure... if Pilate wished to consult the people, he could just as well have let them in.[1]
But Pilate did not let the people in because the conventions of ancient drama required that the chorus remain on the stage for the duration of the tragedy. In no ancient play did the chorus enter the scaena that formed the backdrop of the stage. Pilate questioned Jesus inside the praetorium, but periodically stepped out of one of the open doorways for an exchange with the chorus. The several references of the gospel of John to movements to the inside and to the outside make sense only in terms of a stage presentation. Raymond Brown describes the setting of this highly dramatic and well-staged encounter:
There are two stage settings: the outside court of the praetorium where ‘the Jews’ are gathered; the inside room of the praetorium where Jesus is held prisoner.

http://www.nazarenus.com/2-1-praetorium.htm

neilgodfrey · 06-27-2009, 03:38 PM

Mark and Irony have become a couple as familiar as cup and saucer, so I got pulled up abruptly when I read this footnote in Ashton's 2nd ed of "Understanding the Fourth Gospel":

Quote:

Irony, as Terence Cave has shown (Recognitions (Oxford, 1988), is a relative latecomer in the history of European poetics, dominated for so long by the more flexible and conceptually more powerful model of recognition. This concept, hitherto ignored in Johannine scholarship, plays a significant role in the architecture of the Gospel. (pp 525-526 n. 55)

So I checked Aristotle's Poetics online and dammit, the word "irony" nowhere appears in the English translation, the closest we ever get being "iron" in reference to "workers in iron" being called "workers in bronze".

But sure enough, Recognitions is there everywhere.

So does this we should be recasting all our discussions about "irony" in Mark to discussions about "recognitions"? I'm thinking of the first "irony" discussed in the opener of Jerry Camery-Hoggatt's "Irony in Mark's Gospel" -- how after a grand spectacular introduction (prophetic pronouncements, everybody flocking to hear JB, expectation of a mightier one and baptism of fire, all we get is a baptism, a voice heard by Jesus alone, wandering around the wilderness and seashore, and an exorcism --- no-one "recognizes" him at all.

Except for the audience -- his exorcism demonstrates the power of the kingdom having come -- the rule of the demons is at an end. But those who are looking at what is in "this world" only fail to recognize him. People are astonished and wonder who he is, but only demons and the audience recognize that this is the Son of Man here to claim his kingdom from the demons. . . . . And ditto for the rest of the "ironies" in Mark?

Neil

JoeWallack · 10-21-2009, 07:30 AM

JW

Quote:

16:8 Chiasm

And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe; and they were amazed. [Entered the Tomb - Amazed]

-----And he saith unto them, Be not amazed: ye seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who hath been crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold, the place where they laid him! [Ordered to not be Amazed]

-----But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. [Ordered To Talk]

And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid.
[Left the Tomb - Amazed and not Talking]

JW:
The classic characteristic of a Markan chiasm is it begins and ends with arriving and departing a specific location. This Marks the chiasm. Markan chiasms can also be based on concepts. Here we have the classic Markan ironically contrasting balance that the women enter walking and talking and are amazed. They are instructed to not be amazed and to talk. Their reaction is to run away amazed and not talk. The opposite of their instructions. Note that contrast of the positive and negative instructions. Don't be amazed - they are amazed. Talk - they don't talk. Welcome to "Mark's" Ying Yah world. Whoever is not against him is for him. No in between (and no ultimate mercy).

Joseph

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

Clivedurdle · 10-21-2009, 11:43 AM

Quote:

We may presume that John found in the script of Seneca’s play lines attributed to Jesus’ mother and other lines to be pronounced by the chorus. The lines to be sung by the chorus were in the singular, leading John to assume that only one other woman was present. Having merged the chorus of women into a single personality, John inferred from some words in the play that she and Jesus’ mother were sisters, and he identified these sisters, for the benefit of his Christian audience, as “Mary of Clopas and Mary Magdalene.” In order to determine which of these two names designated Jesus’ mother, we must refer to the literary device known as chiasmus, which is found throughout the New Testament,[5] and which was characteristic of ancient poetry and formal prose. Let us compare a verse from Homer’s Iliad (XIV, 323-5), that refers to two famous mortal women with divine or semi-divine offspring:

Semele and Alcmene in Thebes who gave birth to valiant Heracles,
while Semele bore Dionysus.

Here, as in John’s gospel, the description of the second woman is nested within that of the first, in order to stress the relatedness of the two characters. That is the essence of chiasmus. To any educated Greek or Roman the passage could only mean what John intended it to mean, namely, that “the sister of his mother” was Mary of Clopas, and “his mother” Mary Magdalene.[6] Though the John tried to be most emphatic and unambiguous, later commentators became confused because they no longer read the gospels as formal poetic compositions.

Quote:

[5] N.W. Lund, Chiasmus in the New Testament: A Study in the Form and Function of Chiastic Structures (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1942), Ronald E. Man,“The Value of Chiasm for New Testament Interpretation.” Bibliotheca Sacra 141 (Jan-Mar, 1984), 146-157, Augustine Stock, “Chiastic Awareness and Education in Antiquity,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 14 (Jan, 1984), 23-27.

Quote:

The name Mary Magdalene means “Mary, a native or a resident of Magdala”— but it must be emphasized that the word Magdalene has a Latin ending. Only in Latin is it possible to derive from the noun Magdala an adjective Magdalena, meaning “woman from Magdala.” This evident fact has not been called to attention by commentators, because for a priori reasons they have not considered the possibility that the gospels drew on a source written in Latin.[8]

Quote:

[8] There is another important influence of the Latin language on the name of Jesus‘ mother. Our manuscripts of the gospels wavew constantly between spelling her name as Maria and as Mariam. The wavering in the manuscript tradition is so general that most editors do not attempt to decide which is the better spelling. Mariam is the proper term based on Hebrew and Aramaic diction, whereas Maria has definitely the character of a Latin name. It can be inferred that Seneca spoke of a Maria Magdalena and that the gospel writers rendered her name into their Greek text as Maria, many copyists edited this name, which was preposterous for a Hebrew woman, into Mariam.

http://www.nazarenus.com/3-2-magdalene.htm

Clivedurdle · 10-21-2009, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Chi as a figure of Christ

In Christian poetry, chiasmus takes on added meaning since Chi is the first element of Chi Rho, the first letters of "Christ" in Greek, and since the "X" that characterizes chiasmus stands for the cross on which Christ was crucified.

Thus, Christian poets have utilized chiasmus in very specific places to direct attention to an added layer of meaning. A good example is found early on in John Milton's Paradise Lost, in a passage where the Son of God tells his father that untempered justice without mercy is an unlikely course of action in his predicted punishment for Man's fall: "That be from thee farr, / That farr be from thee" (Bk.3, 153-54).[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiasmus

JoeWallack · 01-17-2010, 09:39 AM

"Snake Christkin? I though he was dead."

JW:
This post is intended as a supplement to this post:

http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...7&postcount=42

where I demonstrate "Mark's" irony in showing that Jesus' initial Ministry was so popular, Jesus' reaction was to avoid it. The Jewish response to Jesus is so positive that Jesus' reaction becomes negative. He looks to avoid the Jewish crowds and displays the strong negative emotion of anger at the start and end of his Galilean ministry.

The further (so to speak) irony is that while Jesus initially escapes to lonely/deserted Jewish places to escape the positive response in Galilee, this isn't enough. He has become so popular in Galilee that he has to escape from it. He tries to do this by going to the surrounding Gentile areas of Tyre, Sidon and the Decapolis:

Mark 7

Quote:

24 And from thence he arose, and went away into the borders of Tyre and Sidon. And he entered into a house, and would have no man know it; and he could not be hid.

25 But straightway a woman, whose little daughter had an unclean spirit, having heard of him, came and fell down at his feet.

26 Now the woman was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by race. And she besought him that he would cast forth the demon out of her daughter.

27 And he said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children`s bread and cast it to the dogs.

28 But she answered and saith unto him, Yea, Lord; even the dogs under the table eat of the children`s crumbs.

29 And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the demon is gone out of thy daughter.

30 And she went away unto her house, and found the child laid upon the bed, and the demon gone out.

31 And again he went out from the borders of Tyre, and came through Sidon unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the borders of Decapolis.

JW:
We have the great irony here that the only reason for Jesus to go to the Gentiles here was to get away from the Jews. But not because Jesus was unpopular with the Jews. Because Jesus was too popular with the Jews. Note that the Gentile response to Jesus is not only unexpected by Jesus, it is initiated by the Gentiles.

Once again, dig the ironic transfer which involves Jesus hisself for Christ's sake. It is the Jews who go to Jesus and Jesus who tries to get away, the Gentiles who come to Jesus and Jesus who tries to put them off, and the audience with positive emotions and Jesus with negative emotions.

This certainly looks like a prequel to Paul. Jesus is shown unintentionally going to the Gentiles and being received favorably setting up Paul with the idea that intentionally going to the Gentiles will be a hit.

As always, the main related question is is "Mark" primarily entertainment or theology here and the ironic balanced transfer of action/reaction here with Jesus on the wrong side favors entertainment. Note that subsequent Christianity exorcised Jesus' negative reactions here, so the ironic balanced transfer I'm describing in this Thread has not been properly considered by most.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 03-20-2010, 07:36 AM

Bad Romans

JW:
"Mark" has rightly divided his Gospel between:

1) Teaching & Healing Ministry

&

2) Passion

The lengths are about the same and are divided by the N/A.

The primary purpose of this post is to show Irony in "Mark" but a secondary purpose is to show how "Mark" used Paul as a source. Regarding 1) and 2) above consider that Paul:

1) Promised not to talk about anything other than Jesus' Passion, so Paul has pledged not to talk about Jesus Teaching & Healing Ministry.

"Mark's" Jesus is a tool of God, just another character in the play of life performing a part:

Mark 1

Quote:

10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens rent asunder, and the Spirit as a dove descending upon him:

"Upon" is a mistranslation and should be "into". Jesus is now possessed by the spirit of God.

Quote:

12 And straightway the Spirit driveth him forth into the wilderness.

See.

Jesus is now possessed to go on a Teaching & Healing Mission:

Quote:

38 And he saith unto them, Let us go elsewhere into the next towns, that I may preach there also; for to this end came I forth.

The same Greek is used here "come forth" as when the demons are called out.

Quote:

42 And straightway the leprosy departed from him, and he was made clean.

43 And he strictly charged him, and straightway sent him out,

44 and saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go show thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing the things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

45 But he went out, and began to publish it much, and to spread abroad the matter, insomuch that Jesus could no more openly enter into a city, but was without in desert places: and they came to him from every quarter.

And the Irony:

1 - Jesus' purpose is Teaching & Healing (THeatata) but he commands the witness of THeatata not to witness Theatata.

2 - Jesus can remove leprosy (Impossible) but can not convince a man not to talk about it (Possible).

3 - Jesus tells the man to tell no one but the man tells everyone.

Now we have a background for Paul. HJ commanded not to talk about THeatata, so Paul does not talk about it. The disciples, historical witness, talk about it, but they were not supposed to (Simon didn't say).

Mark 7

Quote:

35 And his ears were opened, and the bond of his tongue was loosed, and he spake plain.

36 And he charged them that they should tell no man: but the more he charged them, so much the more a great deal they published it.

37 And they were beyond measure astonished, saying, He hath done all things well; he maketh even the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak.

Same Ironic observations as above but now "Mark" even makes proportionately more Irony. There is an Ironic relationship that the more Jesus commands to be silent, the more people talk about Theatata.

Structurally, this Irony is placed at the beginning and ending of Theatata. Before Jesus' identity is revealed in chapters 8 & 9.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 03-26-2010, 07:52 AM

JW:
This post is a supplement to:

Who Shot JFK? (Jesus F. Krist)

where I demonstrate the extreme Irony of the Jewish leaders making fun of Jesus' supposed prophetic ability at the same time that Jesus' prophecy that Peter would deny him 3 times was being fulfilled. And how ironic is it that one of your main prophecies, establishing your prophet status, would be that your main disciple would deny you? Paul, what do you think?

"Mark" though, makes the irony even better:

Mark 8

Quote:

8:31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

One

Mark 9

Quote:

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.

Two

Mark 10

Quote:

33 [saying], Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests and the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him unto the Gentiles:

34 and they shall mock him, and shall spit upon him, and shall scourge him, and shall kill him; and after three days he shall rise again.

Three

Here than Jesus has prophesied the formulaic 3 times that he will be delivered to the elders, priests and scribes who will condemn him:

Mark 14

Quote:

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

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.

...

15:1 And straightway in the morning the chief priests with the elders and scribes, and the whole council, held a consultation, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him up to Pilate.

JW:
Here "Mark" peaks the Irony as Jesus' prophecy of rejection by the Jewish leaders not only is fulfilled while they are making fun of his supposed lack of prophecy during the trial but Jesus' prophecy during the trial:

Quote:

14:61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and saith unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?

14:62 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.

is the reason to condemn Jesus and it is the trial itself which confirms Jesus as a Prophet!

It's hard to imagine how the irony could have been any greater. Maybe if they shaved off Jesus' full beard and long hair and recognized that it was really Eldiepus Rex.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 02-10-2011, 08:01 AM

JW:
Super-Skeptic Neil Godfree is at it again looking at ironic Reversals in "Mark" between what Jesus caused during the Healing Ministry and how Jesus was effected during the Passion Ministry:

Jesus, bearing the diseases he had healed?

Quote:

I used to wonder if whoever wrote the Gospel of Mark intended to have Jesus in the last half of the Gospel largely reverse the role he had carved out in the first part of the Gospel.

The gospel is characterized by reversals and ironies at many points. The one who raised the dead dies, but is resurrected, too. Demons recognize who he is but his disciples fail to do so, yet when they finally do their leader himself is rebuked as a “Satan”. The way to gain one’s life is to lose it. Those commanded to silence speak, and those who are commanded to speak are silent. Jesus performs great miracles in Galilee, but when he reaches Jerusalem as the Messianic King he is powerless, rejected and slain.

Jesus is portrayed as the Son of God (cum “son of man”) until he reaches Jerusalem. He casts out the hidden demonic rulers of the world and releases those who had been held captive to their power, either with sin, sickness or outright possession. (Illnesses were believed to be caused by demons.)

I've come up with my own quick short list of ironic reversals in the Passion in a few minutes which as near as I can tell now makes me the foremost authority on the subject that the world has ever known:

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

1) Handed over with a sign

“14:44 Now he that betrayed him had given them a token, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that is he; take him, and lead him away safely.”

Jesus identifies his hander over with a sign (“he that dippeth in the dish”). Note that “Mark” implies they all are handing Jesus over since they are all dipping. Ironically, the parallel works better with “Matthew”/”Luke” since they interpret that only Judas is meant and therefore have Jesus hand over Judas to Priests.

2) Laid hands on

“46 And they laid hands on him, and took him.”

3) Spit on

“65 And some began to spit on him”

4) Blindfold

“cover his face”

5) To beat up

“to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the officers received him with blows of their hands.”

Saved the Gerasa demonic from getting beat up

6) Bound

15 “bound Jesus”

Saved the Gerasa demonic from being bound

7) Crucified

“15:15 And Pilate, wishing to content the multitude, released unto them Barabbas, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified.”

Jesus crucified in place of Bar Abbas.

8) Clothed

“15:17 And they clothe him”

Gerasa demonic clothed by Jesus

9) Exorcised

“15:37 And Jesus uttered a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.”

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

avi · 02-10-2011, 10:22 AM

Quote:

15:37 And Jesus uttered a loud voice, and gave up the ghost

how can he give up the ghost? He is the ghost.

avi

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.