Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Solo · 05-17-2007, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Follow your heart

The "Jesus" story may not literally be "the greatest story ever told", but it's a damn good yarn that's captivated millions. For sure, "Mark" was a genius - and not just a literary genius but a spiritual one too, though probably not as hardcore a mystic as some of the other early Christian writers like "Paul"/Simon Magus (as I believe he was). So it's sophisticated (albeit perhaps primitive in expression, as some say).

Well, you see it is a yarn and it isn't a yarn. I can't say much about Mark's Greek because mine is abysmal (I don't venture out on anything without a translator), but the cognitive structures come out as complex and they fool a lot of people, not because their Greek is bad but because they do not understand Mark's audience, and the overwhelming possibility that "Mark", whoever she was (as JW says), was not exactly healthy in his mind. (I say.)

Mark's readers were hardcore manics visited from time to time by the (holy) spirit which made them feel on top of the world only to be trounced in some struggle with the devil (depressive psychosis) for the sheer object of existence. Building on Paul's theological thesis, Mark created a thriller for them. Weaving together snippets of traditions, OT wisdom, probably some pagan mythic material (Romulus ?) and existing practices of the cult surviving after its founder, he fashioned a psycho-history of Jesus in place of a real bio which, in the third generation, was as lost a cause for the mushrooming Jesus cult, as Jerusalem was for Jewish pride in that era.

The gospel shadows the "progress" of the spirit from its sudden, inaugural revelation at the mythical Jordan, and (the first, and immediate) struggle with the devil, through the phase of delusional empowerment, and megalomania, only to be haunted by doubt and overhanging sense of catastrophy, and seeking desperately a (re-)confirmation of itself by the holy of holies (of course the figs were out of season), enters mythical Jerusalem, where, after a trial (in a night-court!) in which the self-delusion is confirmed, the spirit disappears after an excruciating mountain of self-mockery and self-torture. That is the underlying cognitive structure of Mark's gospel as I found it. Believe it or not...(though this has been revealed to me by God (knows who), there is no word that I have received about an eschatological penalty for not believing me. Feel free to pity, bless or diss !

)

(:angel: Now, do you understand "the shirt" off Bartimaeus' back, Ben ?)

Jiri

Vorkosigan · 05-17-2007, 07:57 AM

Great post, Solo, and very close to my own position.

Michael

Solo · 05-17-2007, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Great post, Solo, and very close to my own position.

Michael

Thanks...do you like to be called "Vork" or "Michael" ?

Jiri

Awmte · 05-17-2007, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Prominent literary critic Kermode in his Genesis of Secrecy sees little but genius in Mark. The most famous grammatical crudity, if we take its original ending at 16:8, is the unparalleled ending with the word "for" or Gk "gar". That such an 'illiterate' ending has given rise to so much discussion and scope for insight into the dramatic mind of the author:

“The conclusion [of Mark, 16:8] is either intolerably clumsy; or it is incredibly subtle. One distinguished scholar [W.L.Knox], dismissing this latter option, says it presupposes ‘a degree of originality which would invalidate the whole method of form-criticism.’ This is an interesting objection. Form-criticism takes as little stock as possible in the notion of the evangelists as authors … If it comes to a choice between saying Mark is original and upholding ‘the whole method of form-criticism’ the judgment is unhesitating: Mark is not original.” (p.68)

For this and more relevant extracts from Kermode click here.

Read the grammatically crude text of a recent modern novel here and note that this book won the 2001 Booker Prize and Commonwealth Writers Prize by multi-award winning author Peter Carey.

Not knowing Mark's audience or provenance etc it is rash to assume grammatical crudities point to absence of skill.

Neil Godfrey

http://vridar.wordpress.com

Hi Neil,
I tried following the links but they all eventually lead to an order form for the book in question.
Would you happen to have a link to the actual text, or even brief extracts?

Best wishes,

Awmte

Peter Kirby · 05-17-2007, 10:13 PM

Now where is anyone to tell us that we're all wrong and that Mark was an F- dunce.

spamandham · 05-17-2007, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Awmte

I've seen this claim that GMark was a brilliant, (literarily,) writer. For example, Vorkosigan demonstrates the existence of chiasms all over GMark. Thematic chiasms like these would need a modicum of genius to implement; the vivid and vital nature of Mark's narration also point towards this genius.

There is, however, this concurrent claim that GMark is a relatively primitive, unpolished work compared to the other gospels, and that this very primitiveness indicates that it was one of the first gospels.

Mark looks like a mystical interpretation of something related to the Jewish people, the fall of the temple, and other events early in the first century (second century as well?).

The prima facia evidence that it became popular indicates genius. Surely his peers could tell the difference, even if we can't at this point.

Peter Kirby · 05-17-2007, 10:22 PM

How does this picture change if we, along with some, view Mark as dependent on Matthew and Luke?

Vorkosigan · 05-18-2007, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Thanks...do you like to be called "Vork" or "Michael" ?

Jiri

That depends on what she looks like.

Either, actually.

Awmte · 05-18-2007, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

How does this picture change if we, along with some, view Mark as dependent on Matthew and Luke?

Yeah, assuming that would lead to a pretty radical inversion. Mark takes the other two and reinterprets them, "dumbing" them down to the common vernacular for the masses. Is there sufficient material in the other two Gospels to sustain a charge of Mark plagiarizing his "genius"?
Or is the very act of combining the other two Gospels into this novel and vibrant creation the mark (heh, sorry) of his genius?

neilgodfrey · 05-18-2007, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Awmte

Hi Neil,
I tried following the links but they all eventually lead to an order form for the book in question.
Would you happen to have a link to the actual text, or even brief extracts?

Best wishes,

Awmte

The links start with different domains. (Check your cache is cleared?)

But if you can join up the following lines into a single url you will be taken to the text of the ungrammatical novel text by the award winning author.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0375724672/
ref=sib_fs_top/103-8887828-0495845?ie=UTF8&p=
S00M&checkSum=
XhC9oZtFfzMNWSVVzkPyzUCkRZmhdiaPeGVJP3TmCpQ%3D#rea der-link

But if that doesn't work, check out in Amazon.com "True History of the Kelly Gang: A Novel" by Peter Carey and check out the "search inside the text" link.

A second try at that takes me to this url:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0375...45#reader-link

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

05-17-2007, 07:57 AM	#12
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Great post, Solo, and very close to my own position. Michael

05-17-2007, 10:13 PM	#15
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Now where is anyone to tell us that we're all wrong and that Mark was an F- dunce.

05-17-2007, 10:22 PM	#17
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	How does this picture change if we, along with some, view Mark as dependent on Matthew and Luke?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.