Irony in Mark

by JosephAlward 18 Replies latest watchtower bible

JosephAlward

Mark creates several ironies which strongly suggest that he never intended for his readers to believe that his stories about Jesus were literally true. Four of these ironies are described below.
Taking Care of the Son of God
Mark creates a story in which Mary thinks that Jesus is out of his mind, and must be taken charge of (Mark 3:14-21, 31). Next to God himself, the last person one would expect to reject Jesus' divinity would be his mother. Who knows a man better than his own mother? Mark is able to make this believable because his gospel story has no birth narrative, as does Luke's, in which Mary is told by the angel that she would give birth to the son of God (Luke 1:26-35). If Mark's Mary had known that her Jesus was the son of God, she never would have thought he was out of his mind and needed taken care of; how could the all-powerful son of God be crazy and need taken care of?
This story not only illustrates Mark's use of irony--events occurring which are contrary to expectations, but also shows what seems to be his ignorance of the circumstances of Jesus conception and birth, if such had even occurred. Not only does the story seem to be fiction, but it also points to an apparent contradiction between Mark and Luke: Luke's Mary knows Jesus is the son of God, but Mark's Mary does not.
The Carpenter
Isaiah speaks of the "carpenter" who fashions false gods, and who cannot recognize the true god because his eyes are covered and he lacks understanding:
[C]raftsmen are nothing but men...The carpenter...makes a god...and says, "Save me; you are my god." They know nothing; they understand nothing; their eyes are plastered over so they cannot see... (Isaiah 44:9-20)
Mark puts this Isaiah passage to good use by constructing a triple irony in which the very people one would expect would be the first to recognize Jesus' divinity--the ones among whom he grew up--are among the first to scorn him; this is the first part of the irony triad. The second and third are found where Mark put the word "carpenter" on the ridiculing lips of the townspeople. How ironic that the one who is accused of being one who makes false gods is in essence God himself. And finally, how ironic it is that the one who scolded those who were unable to see and understand God (Mark 8:17-21), would be accused of being like a false-god-making carpenter who is unable to see and understand (Mark 6:1-4). Any notion that these perfect ironies actually existed outside the imagination of Mark is just too-farfetched to be taken seriously.
It's also telling that another gospel writer, Matthew, apparently didn't understand Mark's use of Isaiah here, and evidently didn't care much for the idea that Mark said the son of God was an ordinary carpenter, so Matthew changed Jesus from a carpenter to the son of a carpenter (Matthew 13:55).
The Son of the Father
Following Jesus' arrest, Mark creates a contest between the murderous "Barabbas," whose name means "son of the father," and Jesus, who, unknown to the crowd, was the real son of the father. Good doesn't always triumph over evil, but surely one would expect that the greatest of good, God, would triumph over a petty criminal. Not so in this case; Mark has the crowd choose the evil son of the father, instead of the good one. (Mark 15:1-18) The irony in this story is too delicious to be true, so it probably isn't.
Crowning the King
Mark's readers know (Mark 1:11) that Jesus is the all-loving son of God and that the crowd following the arrest does not know this, so they are well-prepared to appreciate the irony of the one who deserved to be crowned by men who loved him, but wasn't, instead being crowned by those who hated him. (Mark 15:17-18)
In summary, all four of these stories present unmistakable signs of being wholly or in part contrived to create irony. If one part of a gospel story is fictional, might not all of it be, and if one gospel story is completely fictional, why not all of the gospel stories? Perhaps the ultimate irony is that Mark's stories, which he probably intended never to be taken literally, are so taken even today by millions of fundamentalists.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
Moxy

i evidently dont see quite the 'perfect' irony in the carpenter comparisons that you do. is there something else more substantial in the language or style of the mark and isaiah passages to warrant linking them up? or is it primarily the use of the word 'carpenter?'
mox
JosephAlward

Mox, I think you mean that while the triple ironies may be perfect, the evidence that Mark intended irony is not perfect, and I certainly agree.
What evidence do we have the irony was intended? First, we have evidence that Mark enjoys creating irony, as in the "Barabbas" story, the crowning story, and the story about Jesus' own mother--the one who should know him best--not knowing about his divinity. This is not proof, of course, that Mark intended irony in the carpenter story, but the triple irony in that one story seems far too wonderful for them not to have been planned. That's still not proof, of course. And, we have the fact that nowhere else in the Bible is there any mention of Jesus being a carpenter; indeed, Matthew seems not to know that Jesus was a carpenter. This, too, is not proof, but the circumstantial evidence is mounting. Furthermore, how likely is it that Mark wanted his readers to know that God was lowly carpenter? Finally, we have clear evidence that Mark drew heavily on Isaiah to construct other Jesus stories; if he used Isaiah in those stories, we should be quick to suspect he might have used Isaiah in the carpenter story, too.
Thus, the triple ironies are nearly perfect--too good to be coincidental, but the evidence that they are intended ironies based in part on Isaiah's carpenter is not perfect.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
Moxy

thx joseph. im sure you realize i wasnt intending to follow an absurd line of argument about what constitutes 'proof' or 'near-proof.' i was simply curious about linguistic evidence to support the connection. is it merely the word 'carpenter' and the situational ironies? is the word 'carpenter' the same in mark and the septuagint isaiah? are there wording similarities to suggest mark had isaiah in mind. the absence of the carpenter identification from the other gospels is worth noting, but as you point out, this can be easily explained by a relunctance to assign such a prosaic occupation to the developing divine character of christ.
mox
JosephAlward

Mox,
The word Mark used for "carpenter" is tekton, the same word found in the Septuagint in Isaiah's carpenter passage.
Let me add an important point to my argument. In each of the parallel carpenter passages the writer describes a person who is just an ordinary man:
2 When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed (ekplesso) "Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles! 3 Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him. (Mark 6:2-3)
Another meaning of ekplesso is "shocked." Thus, Mark seems to be having the townspeople be shocked at what they seemed to think were false claims about God from one who they consider to be just an ordinary man, a man just like anyone else in the town, a man who had an ordinary mother, Mary, and ordinary brothers and sisters. This is exactly the sentiment expressed in the carpenter passage:
In referring to the carpenter who constructs false gods, Isaiah said, "Craftsmen are nothing but men." (Isaiah 44:11)
In summary: Isaiah describes a "carpenter" who claims to know God, but is just an ordinary man who is misguided or deluded. The carpenter's eyes in Isaiah are plastered over so he cannot see, and he lacks understanding. In Mark, the townspeople describe a "carpenter" who makes outrageous claims about God, but is just an ordinary man (and misguided and deluded, it's implied).
The "ordinary man" parallel by itself is enough to suspect that Mark wanted his readers to think of the carpenter in Isaiah. The fact that the carpenter in Isaiah cannot see and does not understand God suggests strongly that Mark also wanted his readers to appreciate the irony of one who scolded others of not seeing and understanding, himself being accused of being like the one whose eyes are plastered over and cannot understand.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
Moxy

thanks for the elaboration, joseph. thats helpful. ill look thru the passages more later.
mox
RWC

Joseph,
You start with a false premise and than fail to support it with evidence, but make leaps of illogical conclusions.
First, the idea that Mark did not want his readers to take his account of Jesus literally is nonsense. The author of the gospel is John Mark, the son of Mary from Jerusalem and an associate of Peter. He received his information about Jesus from Peter, the founder of the church and the disciple of Jesus. He obviously wrote his Gospel to spread the news of Jesus by recounting the history he heard from Peter.
Second, the outline of the gospel of Mark matches Peter's sermon as recounted by Luke in Acts 10. He would not have done this if he made it all up.
Third, there is no evidence that Mark picked a few prophecies in order to validate Jesus' life with a made up character. In fact, very prominent historians have never questioned that Jesus was a real person. To say that a few very simple men were able to create a character that changed the world for the past two thousand years is not logical. They wrote his very detailed biography at a time when the facts could have easily been refuted and discounted to kill the Christian movement. Instead, just the opposite happened. People understood that Jesus lived, the only question was whether they would believe he was who said he was. References to his existence are in numerous historical documents outside of the Gospels and not one of them mentions that he is a fictional character. Instead he is always mentioned as a true man who lived and died as the Gospels said he did.
Fourth, in Jesus' birth,life and death he fulfilled in excess of forty eight ancient prophecies and failed to not fulfill even one Jewish prophecy of the Messiah. Most of these prophecies were those that Jesus nor his followers had control over. Such as the failure of the guards to break his bones, the guards casting lots for his clothes, the guards piercing his body, etc.. To think that the Jewish people would not have soundly defeated any movement based upon the life of Jesus if he was only a fictional character makes no sense at all. It has been estimated that the odds for just eight of the prophecies to have been fulfilled in one man was less than one chance in one hundred quadrillion. To fulfill forty eight the odds are one to the 157th power.
Are you also saying that Mary never lived, nor Joseph, nor Pilate, nor Herod, nor Joseph of Arimathea. For the Gospels to be made up, when all of these real men are mentioned at the time they were said to engage in the acts described in the Bible, all of this would have to be refuted as false.
Finally, I will end with the words from H.G.Wells "Here was a man. That part of the tale could not have been invented."
rem

. The author of the gospel is John Mark, the son of Mary from Jerusalem and an associate of Peter. He received his information about Jesus from Peter, the founder of the church and the disciple of Jesus. He obviously wrote his Gospel to spread the news of Jesus by recounting the history he heard from Peter.
Wow, this is a pretty specific claim. Is there any evidence to back this or is this simply Church tradition?
rem
"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
JosephAlward

Blueprint for the Construction of the Son of God
It was commonly believed in the first century that scripture said that the coming savior would be a descendent of David, and that events in the life of David foreshadowed events which would occur in the life of the savior; events in the life of Moses, Elisha, Elijah, and the Lord, were likewise thought to be foreshadowings. The Old Testament was thus the blueprint which anyone could use for the construction of stories about a fictional savior. There were lots of candidates for “messiah” in those days; one could be found prophesying on practically every street corner, but, if one wanted to be taken seriously as the savior the Old Testament prophesied would come, he had to do all of those things, or, he had to have a good publicist and imaginative writers who could make it seem as if he did them.
Creating the Gospel Stories

About forty years after Jesus was alleged to have been crucified, Mark took Old Testament stories about divine figures and treated them as if they were foreshadowings of events in the life of a coming savior. Mark made sure that the man called "Jesus" fulfilled these prophecies by constructing Jesus stories based on the Old Testament antecedents. He did this either because he sincerely believed that the savior had come to earth in the form of a man named "Jesus," and that he MUST have done the things Mark thought the Old Testament said would be done by the savior, or else he was deliberately manufacturing stories about "Jesus" in order to promote his candidate for the position of son of God. Virtually every story Mark told about Jesus is based on a story he found in the Old Testament.
Luke, and Matthew, writing decades after Mark, essentially copied Mark's stories, and then modified them to suit their particular needs. Matthew, as we have already seen in this forum, did a particularly bad job of finding “prophecies” of his own to have Jesus fulfill "prophecy" (e.g., the triumphal entry fiasco).
Faulty Reasoning
There is zero evidence outside of the Bible that there actually was a "Jesus" described in the Bible; the only evidence for the "prophecies" Jesus allegedly fulfilled is in the Bible. To prove the Bible stories are true, the apologist thinks he's permitted to point to the stories of prophecy fulfillments found in the Bible as proof that the Bible is accurate; that's nonsensical circular reasoning, of course.
If the Gospel Stories Were False
Apologists sometimes claim that if the gospels stories were false, there would have been many who would have said so, and since we have only a few reports of the Jesus stories being false, the apologists claim that this comparative lack of refutation stands as proof that the stories are true. This is nonsense. Mark's gospel, the first one, wasn't written until about 70 AD, and the life span in those days was about 30, so who would be around to refute the stories forty years later? Furthermore, even if there were people still alive who lived in and around the areas where Jesus was alleged to have worked his miracles, how would they forty years later be able to claim that such events never happened? It is virtually impossible to prove that something did not happen, even if it was alleged to have happened recently. Can the apologist prove, for example, that last year in their county dead saints were not raised from their graves by an itinerant miracle worker? If not, then why do they point to the apparent lack of protest about the stories of Jesus’ alleged miracles, stories told forty years after the alleged events, as evidence that they must have happened?
If the Gospel Stories Were True
Now, if the Bible stories were true, then one would expect that there would exist some extrabiblical evidence of these events in poetry, literature, or the reports of historians and journalists. However, there is not the slightest mention of the miraculous feeding of five thousand, then later the four thousand, from just a handful of bread and fish. Nine thousand people! Surely most of them would have told and retold their personal miracle story over and over again, as would have their children, and so on down through the generations. But, not a single peep from anyone is recorded either in written, or oral history.
There is no mention anywhere of the murder by Herod's swordsmen of all of the children under two years of age in Bethlehem and the surrounding suburbs. What a sensational story that would have been, if it had ever happened. The details of the slaughter of these innocents would still be talked about today, if the murders had actually occurred. But, there is not a word of this outside the Bible. How come Matthew is the only one who knows about it?
There’s no mention by anyone that John the Baptist’s head was chopped off at the request of Herodias’ daughter, and brought to a banquet on a platter. What a story! But, not a word from anyone except Mark. How come Josephus, a leading historian of his time, and who wrote about John’s execution, didn’t know about the head on the platter at the banquet? Surely someone besides Mark would have known about it, if it had actually happened.
No one told of the journeys into Jerusalem made by the many saints who rose from their graves following the alleged resurrection. What a memory that would have made for all those folks in Jerusalem: shriveled corpses, decades or longer in their graves, getting up and walking into town and chatting up the people! But, nobody knows about it except the gospel writer.
The list is very long. How come nobody thought these events were important enough to record, if they had really happened? How could these astonishing events not be important?
A list which is even longer is the one with all of the absurdities true believers are willing to accept in order to preserve their delusions. Objective observers who wish to see further evidence that cast doubt on the historicity of Jesus will find more than a dozen articles on this subject on the web page in the signature below; I recommend they start with “The Jesus Puzzle,” by Earl Doherty.
Contrary to what the apologist will claim, most university religious scholars know that most or all of the gospels are fiction, and they seriously question whether the historical Jesus ever existed.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
RWC

Rem, To answer your question, my reference was the forward to the NIV and William MacDonald's Bible Commentary. The statement is the result of alot of research by Biblical scholars.
Joseph,
Would you please state where you have researched your conclusions. And would you also state the "majority" of Biblical scholars who think that the gospe;s are fictional and that Jesus was a myth. It sounds alot like the Jesus seminar folks. If so, they are not the majority, nor are they mainstream Biblical scholars.

Irony in Mark

Share this