Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 05-18-2010, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Yea, Irony is related to satire and satire is related to Comedy. If you are not Christian, the ending of "Mark" is certainly funny.

When are you going to review some of those "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" JW? How do you see the image of Jesus as the pilot of a water taxi (with two angels in the back) on an apostolic shuttle service to the "Land of the Cannibals"?

JoeWallack · 05-19-2010, 07:54 AM

JW:
Chapter 1 - The Genre Approach and the Gospel II 22-31

B writes:

Quote:

With very rare exceptions the themes of the great tragedies were borrowed from ancient mythology [Haigh, Tragic Drama, p. 328]. As such, the function of tragedy was etiological and kerygmatic. It was a reenactment, for the benefit of believers, of the aition, the mythico-historical event that had generated their faith and rituals. The drama titled Eumenides explained the worship of the furies at the Areopagus; the tragedy of Hippolytus, the worship of its hero by Greek maidens; the Iphigenia in Tauris, the ritual of Artemis at Brauron; and the Promethean trilogy, the Prometheia.

JW:
A lot to take in here. Many related questions. Is B's summary of Greek Tragedy correct as to description and uniformity? He gives references but you would have to check all the references to be sure (Dr. Carrier's next project I think). Interestingly, if "Mark's" genre is GT than there is something for everyone in the HJ/MJ debate. This genre would be the best potential evidence for HJ as GT is normally dependent on a basic story that is already known to the audience. Here "Mark" has all the basics of the Paulinistas:

1) Historical Disciples witnessed and promoted Jesus' Teaching & Healing Ministry.

2) All basic themes are ironic.

3) The Jews who were looking for the Messiah to give them life, took life away from the Messiah.

4) The Disciples failed to promote Jesus' Passion.

5) Jesus' Passion is promoted via Revelation

On the other side GT starts with the beliefs and than creates the supporting story. Exactly what Paul does. This leaves open MJ.

The key here is to what extent was the basic story already known to the audience. Christian Bible scholarship and B assume all of it and as I've indicated above, B thinks the genre of GT supports this. It may. But again, the genre of GT is based on a combination of myth and claimed history, and this is why Christian Bible scholarship (CBS) has always been in denial over the GT in "Mark", they do not want to concede any significant element of intended myth by the creator.

Specifically here, B fails to note that in GT, the known story is typically referred to in the Prologue. B confesses that "Mark" does have a Prologue but fails to observe, as Helms does, that the Prologue refers to the Jewish Bible for the background to the Gospel. This coordinates extremely well with Paul's theology that Jesus' history was in the Jewish Bible. This is the basic story for Paul. He does not require any minimum knowledge of Jesus' life. Jesus' human and earthly life was in the Jewish Bible. This suggests that this may have been the only basic background story for "Mark's audience as well. So we swing back to MJ.

Continued...

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

arnoldo · 05-19-2010, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
I get the following major elements of Greek Tragedy from the above:

1) Serious nature.

2) Involves great person.

3) Reversal of fortune.

4) Effect of pity and fear.

5) Result of catharsis.

6) Complex stucture.

7) Reversal of fortune due to mistake.

8) Imitation of an action that is admirable.

9) Composed of an introduction, a middle part and an ending.

10) Language made pleasurable.

11) Performed by actors.

Evaluating the extent of the presence in "Mark" is subjective. Some of the elements are present in the classical sense (with qualifications) per Aristotle and some are present, but not in the classical sense. If the element is present in the classical sense I will rate a "Match". If the element is present, but not in the classical sense, I will rate a "Mix and Match":

1) Serious nature.

Match. No attempt at the text level to be funny.

2) Involves great person.

Mix and Match. In the Bar(d)'s word, "Mark's" Jesus is not born great and does not achieve greatness, but has greatness thrust upon him (so to speak).

3) Reversal of fortune.

Match!

4) Effect of pity and fear.

Match.

5) Result of catharsis.

Mix and Match. Peter has the catharsis and I see Peter as the tragic hero of "Mark". Yet the classic presentation would have the main character (Jesus) as the tragic hero.

6) Complex stucture.

Match.

7) Reversal of fortune due to mistake.

Mix and Match. Peter's mistake is to deny Jesus but the classic presentation would be the main character.

8) Imitation of an action that is admirable.

Match.

9) Composed of an introduction, a middle part and an ending.

Match.

10) Language made pleasurable.

Match.

11) Performed by actors.

No Match.

Summary:

Match = 7

Mix and Match = 3

No Match = 1

Conclusion = "Mark" is a Greek Tragedy but not in classical form.

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

For #11 if you consider early Christians "performing" ritual baptism and the Lord's Supper this could be considered as "actors" performing parts in a play. The Didache may've been an actual first century script for such a performance.

Quote:

Chapter 9. The Eucharist. Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup:

We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever..

And concerning the broken bread:

We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever..

But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...e-roberts.html

DCHindley · 05-19-2010, 08:26 PM

Joe,

As a true apologist (where did you come up with that as a discription for me?) I must offer my own analysis of Greek Drama:

Greek Tragedy - invented by the ancient Greeks to show the actions of a tragic hero or heroine.

Tragic hero/heroine - the protagonist, or main character, in the play.

Four Characteristics of a Tragic Hero (According to Aristotle’s Poetics):
1. POSITION. The hero is royal or noble with great power, usually a king. He is a good, respected man who acts out of good intentions. He has much to lose.

a) he/she must be of noble birth or hold an important social position [could be said of Jesus, but not of Peter]
b) he/she is generally virtuous [could be said of Jesus, but not of Peter]
c) he/she has a desire to do good deeds [could be said of Jesus, but not of Peter]
d) he/she dies in the end of the play [certainly true of Jesus, but not of Peter]

2. TRAGIC FLAW (hamartia). In spite of his good intentions, the hero makes a tragic error which causes his reversal. The error usually stems from a character flaw, usually pride.

The hero/heroine seems "better" than the other character(s), but there is a fate which overpowers this "good" character.
Poor judgment by the protagonist (hero/heroine) causes a fall from grace and social ranking. Poor judgment is a tragic flaw, or error, called hamatria. It leads to personal catastrophe and unintended harm to others. Hybris (hubris), which means excessive pride or arrogance, is the most common type of hamatria.
A hero/heroine's misfortune is an example of human fallibility (human's tendency to fail). Learning from the mistakes of others was an important part of Greek tragedy. [This might be said of Peter, but certainly not Jesus, unless Jesus' dogged desire to fulfill his understanding of God's will for him - to die - is really a delusion]

3. REVERSAL (catastrophe). Because of his tragic error, the hero suffers a downfall from his happy, envied position to suffering and misery.

a) reversal/peripeteia - the hero/heroine goes through a significant change in fortune for the worse. Reversal may happen after a discovery (anagnorisis,) or a recognition of something previously not known to the hero/heroine. [while Jesus has a change of fortune, he realizes nothing from it. Peter, he just looks like a looser whi didn't learn anything]

4. RECOGNITION (catharsis). The hero realizes that his own flaw or error has caused his reversal. This recognition always occurs too late for the hero to prevent or escape his reversal.

a) crisis of feeling - painful or harmful experience that may upset or depress the audience. [Jesus' last words on cross suggest his will was fading, Peter wept after realizing he could not stand up for his master]
b) catharsis/purgation - the audience cleanses their emotions. For example, they may feel uplifted and/or get a new sense of spiritual understanding or tragic pleasure. [I just don't see this in the gospels, whether they feature a resurrection or not, as the resurrection is not a cathartic event, and this would certainly not be the case of Peter's fate, which is pathetic]

Three Unities of a Tragedy (According to Aristotle’s Poetics)
1. TIME. The entire play should take place within one day. [not so]
2. PLACE. The entire play should be set in a single place. [not so]
3. ACTION. The play should have only a single plot-no sub-plots. [not so]

Ancient tragedy - (Ex: Oedipus Rex.)

Ancient Greek Comedy - performed to show the humorous actions of one or more characters as they attempt to solve a problem.

Aspects of Greek Comedy:
1) required action and conflict that led to a happy ending. [the salvation of believers through Jesus' sacrifice, but what was happy about poor pathetic Peter?]
2) included ridiculing and violent personal attacks on contemporary personalities. [Jesus vs the scribes & Pharisees, none for Peter]
3) involved acting out of bawdy personal and social relationships. [Judas' betrayal, Peter's denials, not so with Peter]
4) as opposed to ancient Greek tragedy, a change in fortune is almost always for the better. [from popular hero to execution on a cross, but Jesus' death resulted in cosmic good, not so for Peter]

Types of comedy:
*romantic - involves a love affair that does not run smoothly but ends happily. [not applicable to Jesus or Peter]
*manners - portrays upper-class society involved in witty repartee that focuses on their relationships and "affairs." A comedy of manners focuses on the behavior of men and women who violate the rules and manners of upper-class society. [not applicable to Jesus or Peter]
*farce - "low comedy" with lots of "belly laughs" that uses quick physical action to induce immediate laughter. The verbal humor is often crude or ridiculous. Farce is sometimes based on incongruities of character and action; a character doing something that is completely unlike what we would expect of them. [not applicable to Jesus or Peter]
*satire - mean jokes (barbs) are aimed at people, ideas or things in order to improve, correct, or prevent something. [not applicable to Jesus or Peter]
*absurd (black) - unusual, some would say weird or uncomfortable, comedy that portrays the world as unstable. The action includes improbable events with highly unpredictable characters. Black comedy is very different from other comedies in that this type tends to end unhappily. [not so with either Jesus or Peter, so would be going against the tendency]

Jesus' story could thus be interpreted as an atypical Tragedy or as an "absurd" Comedy.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Peter is portrayed as having a flaw all right, his weakness of will. But he is not a tragic figure.

JW:
Peter not a tragic figure? His entire life and heritage is to wait for the Messiah. His greatest dream is to be at the right hand of the Messiah. The Messiah comes to him. He glories in the teaching and healing Ministry which he has been taught is the Messiah's. He gives up everything to follow the Messiah. He is a noble character. As the person closest to the Messiah he is given more evidence than anyone else that his dream of what the Messiah does is wrong. It is explained to Peter that in order to save his life he can not deny Jesus. It is predicted to him that he will deny Jesus. In the moment of katastrophe, just as Jesus predicted to him, Peter denies Jesus and loses his life. Thus the first picked to follow Jesus is the first to deny Jesus. Peter Cathosarizes and cries, temporarily blinding himself. For the first time he "sees" that he has denied Jesus. The end. No happy ending for the Peter. This is a tragic figure Dave.

In an irony that I think "Mark" would really appreciate than, the Church was started by the original denier of Jesus per the original narrative. Hell, even Judas didn't deny Jesus. He just made money off of him. Maybe Judas should be credited with the start of the Church.

Spoken like an Apologist. Oops, I hereby announce the creation of Holdingloses Law which states that in an argument between Skeptics, if the argument continues sufficiently long, eventually one will compare the other in some way to an Apologist.

I already explained that Greek Tragedy is defined mainly by Plot and not character. Saying that "Mark" is Greek Tragedy is a subjective statement compared to saying that it parallels "X" amount of key plot elements of Greek Tragedy as per Poetics (preferably with references in the details). I think saying that "Mark" is not Greek Tragedy is more misleading if you accept it has all the other characteristics.

Really, who has the tragic flaw is not crucial to Greek Tragedy. Who cares that it was Oedipus? What's important is the flaw itself and what the audience can learn from it. As long as a major character has it it will be properly illustrated. Peter is the main human character anyway. The Christ part of Jesus Christ is just a God, acting perfectly with no free will that creates the force men are subject to.

The classic description we have of Greek Tragedy comes from Poetics written in the 4th century BCE. This is just a classic description, surely there was variation in structure even in Aristotle's time. By the 2nd century CE, there would have been even more. Everyone agrees that "Mark" is some combination of theology and Greek Tragedy so there are going to have to be some modifications to the classic structure. But again, just because "Mark" is missing one classical component of Greek Tragedy, even if it is a key component, does not eliminate the work as a whole from having elements of Greek Tragedy.

Quote:

How about Comedy? My understanding is that Comedies work when the characters seem to be at the mercy of fate, but ultimately it is revealed that the central character has actually truimphed over his adversity. This triumph is often in some symbolic sense.

Yea, Irony is related to satire and satire is related to Comedy. If you are not Christian, the ending of "Mark" is certainly funny. Jesus' soul mission is to get his disciples to witness his resurrection. The only potential believers are people Jesus never taught. None of his own disciples ever believe he will be or has been resurrected so at the end of the Gospel when you think his mission is accomplished, no one knows that Jesus was resurrected.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 05-20-2010, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Joe,

As a true apologist (where did you come up with that as a discription for me?) I must offer my own analysis of Greek Drama:

JW:
I knew JP Holding, I worked over JP Holding. Dave, you are no JP Holding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Greek Tragedy - invented by the ancient Greeks to show the actions of a tragic hero or heroine.

Tragic hero/heroine - the protagonist, or main character, in the play.

Four Characteristics of a Tragic Hero (According to Aristotle’s Poetics):
1. POSITION. The hero is royal or noble with great power, usually a king. He is a good, respected man who acts out of good intentions. He has much to lose.

a) he/she must be of noble birth or hold an important social position [could be said of Jesus, but not of Peter]
b) he/she is generally virtuous [could be said of Jesus, but not of Peter]
c) he/she has a desire to do good deeds [could be said of Jesus, but not of Peter]
d) he/she dies in the end of the play [certainly true of Jesus, but not of Peter]

JW:
First let me say that B does not think "Mark" consciously wrote Greek Tragedy. He thinks that it was the main literary form of expression for religion in "Mark's" time so that "Mark" inevitably picked up major components of it in his cross between Theology and Greek Tragedy. Again, saying something is or is not a specific genre is a subjective statement compared to identifying the components of different genre that it contains.

Regarding the issue of character in Greek Tragedy I've already mentioned that per B character is subservient to plot per Poetics. I'll also note again that Poetics is 4th century BCE so there likely were significant variations in the classical structure identified by Aristotle (A) by "Mark's" time.

Per B, thinking that the tragic hero has to be restricted to the main character is a (mis)interpretation of Poetics as A never says that. A just uses examples where this is the case. B says the "tragic hero" can be a group effort. If you use a tragic hero in "Mark" of a combination of Jesus/Peter than you match most of the characteristics.

Of course Jesus is the King figure. The interesting twist is the standard recognition issue of Greek Tragedy. Peter/Disciples can recognize that Jesus is the real King. They just can not recognize what that means. And as I previously mentioned, the Christ part of Jesus is a Divine figure that the other characters are subject to. Take the Christ spirit away from Jesus and what's left is a minor character.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

2. TRAGIC FLAW (hamartia). In spite of his good intentions, the hero makes a tragic error which causes his reversal. The error usually stems from a character flaw, usually pride.

The hero/heroine seems "better" than the other character(s), but there is a fate which overpowers this "good" character.
Poor judgment by the protagonist (hero/heroine) causes a fall from grace and social ranking. Poor judgment is a tragic flaw, or error, called hamatria. It leads to personal catastrophe and unintended harm to others. Hybris (hubris), which means excessive pride or arrogance, is the most common type of hamatria.
A hero/heroine's misfortune is an example of human fallibility (human's tendency to fail). Learning from the mistakes of others was an important part of Greek tragedy. [This might be said of Peter, but certainly not Jesus, unless Jesus' dogged desire to fulfill his understanding of God's will for him - to die - is really a delusion]

JW:
Again, combine Jesus/Peter and you've got it. A seems to have a contradiction here. "Character flaw" is different than "mistake in judgment". B points out that "character flaw" is generally overestimated here by commentators.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

3. REVERSAL (catastrophe). Because of his tragic error, the hero suffers a downfall from his happy, envied position to suffering and misery.

a) reversal/peripeteia - the hero/heroine goes through a significant change in fortune for the worse. Reversal may happen after a discovery (anagnorisis,) or a recognition of something previously not known to the hero/heroine. [while Jesus has a change of fortune, he realizes nothing from it. Peter, he just looks like a looser whi didn't learn anything]

JW:
Combine the two and you've got it. After he denies Jesus he cries. Why else would he cry unless he finally understood that he failed the final cross examination?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

4. RECOGNITION (catharsis). The hero realizes that his own flaw or error has caused his reversal. This recognition always occurs too late for the hero to prevent or escape his reversal.

a) crisis of feeling - painful or harmful experience that may upset or depress the audience. [Jesus' last words on cross suggest his will was fading, Peter wept after realizing he could not stand up for his master]

Peter recognizes that he has gone from first to last. Just as Jesus predicted. He was the first to follow Jesus and also the first to deny Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

b) catharsis/purgation - the audience cleanses their emotions. For example, they may feel uplifted and/or get a new sense of spiritual understanding or tragic pleasure. [I just don't see this in the gospels, whether they feature a resurrection or not, as the resurrection is not a cathartic event, and this would certainly not be the case of Peter's fate, which is pathetic]

JW:
There is Shaudenfreuden. The audience has the knowledge the characters lack. Jesus is Judged innocent by Heaven and is resurrected. The audience knows that and the characters don't so it makes the audience feel good about themselves. The same idea is true whether you are Skeptic or Believer.

I think B deals with all the above in some detail later in his book which I have not got to yet.

I think we would all agree that as you move from "Mark" to "Luke" you are moving away from the genre of Greek Tragedy and towards Greco-Roman biography. One of B's main points is that it would be logical in "Mark's" environment for the first significant related writing to have elements of Greek Tragedy. This would have been the case for most Hellenistic religions to that point. The key writing would be based more on Greek Tragedy than Biography. Judaism was more biographical in nature at the time. Again, Christianity started out as more Hellenistic/Greek Tragedy and moved towards Judaism/Biography (genealogies added to "Matthew"/"Luke").

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Three Unities of a Tragedy (According to Aristotle’s Poetics)
1. TIME. The entire play should take place within one day. [not so]
2. PLACE. The entire play should be set in a single place. [not so]
3. ACTION. The play should have only a single plot-no sub-plots. [not so]

Ancient tragedy - (Ex: Oedipus Rex.)

JW:
I have not seen yet how B responds to this.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

bacht · 05-20-2010, 08:24 AM

I don't know how big an impression Plutarch or Josephus made in their own lifetimes, but they were contemporaries of the gospel authors.

DCHindley · 05-20-2010, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Joe,

As a true apologist (where did you come up with that as a discription for me?) I must offer my own analysis of Greek Drama:

JW:
I knew JP Holding, I worked over JP Holding. Dave, you are no JP Holding.

I am surprised that you did not see my point, but construe my statements as if they were intended to deny your genius. Why on earth are you comparing me to an apologist? After all, you are the one who originally asserted it:

Quote:

IIUC in a GT the central figure is the one with a tragic flaw, and without one, it isn't really a Greek Tragedy.

Spoken like an Apologist. Oops, I hereby announce the creation of Holdingloses Law which states that in an argument between Skeptics, if the argument continues sufficiently long, eventually one will compare the other in some way to an Apologist.

Isn't the #1 tragic flaw Hubris?

DCH

Clivedurdle · 05-20-2010, 09:22 AM

Hubris

Quote:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God

Compare

Quote:

Icarus

Icarus (Greek: Ἴκαρος, Latin: Íkaros, Etruscan: Vicare) is a character in Greek mythology. He is the son of Daedalus and is commonly known for his attempt to escape Crete by flight, which ended in a fall to his death.

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

aa5874 · 05-20-2010, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

I'm not sure to what extent "Mark" intended to show Jesus as a failure. Clearly Peter and the Disciples are complete failures and B agrees with this. Was Jesus' mission a failure? Clearly it was at the text level. Maybe not at the sub-text level as it would be consistent with Paul that even though the Disciples are not witnessing "Mark's" Jesus, the Gospel is, and that is the purpose of the Gospel, to witness through Revelation what the Disciples did not witness. With these failures on his resume, was "Mark's" Jesus intended to be shown as a failure? Jesus' Mission was to get his disciples to witness his resurrection. What good is a resurrection if no one witnesses it? If a stauros falls in the woods, does anyone hear? Again, Jesus is a failure at the text level as he went all The Way for nothing. Peter and the Disciples ability not to accept Faith was greater than Jesus' ability to give it. If Jesus did what he was supposed to do than maybe he is not intended as a failure. "Mark" may just be commentary that human ability not to follow instructions is greater than God's ability to command us to follow instructions going back to the Garden....

If it is assumed gMark was the first gospel story and the author was an unknown then gMark was surely NOT a failure at all.

The author of gMark would have been extremely successful in that his Jesus story became the fundamental story about Jesus.

The Jesus story in gMark would have been the most influential, believable and copied Jesus story since the author of Mathew used almost ALL of g Mark with word-for-word copying and Luke also used a vast amount of information found in gMark.

Now, if the Pauline writings were to be considered the earliest and that the Pauline writers did start churches all over the Roman Empire with the author of gLuke as his close companion then Paul was a COMPLETE FALIURE.

Not a single Pauline detail about Jesus was used by the supposed later authors of gMark, gMatthew and gLuke. There is virtually not a single word- for-word copying of any passages in the Pauline writings that can be found in the Synoptics, not even in Revelation by John, supposedly written after the Synoptics, did the author use any revelation of the Pauline writers.

Paul was a complete failure.

Up to the middle of the 2nd century, it was still propagated that the body of Jesus stolen by the disciples, NOT that over 500 people saw Jesus after he was resurrected as claimed by the Pauline writers.

This is Justin Martyr in "Dialogue with Trypho" CVII

Quote:

"And though all the men of your nation knew the incidents in the life of Jonah, and though Christ said amongst you that He would give the sign of Jonah, exhorting you to repent of your wicked deeds at least after He rose again from the dead, and to mourn before God as did the Ninevites, in order that your nation and city might not be taken and destroyed, as they have been destroyed; yet you not only have not repented, after you learned that He rose from the dead, but, as I said before you have sent chosen and ordained men throughout all the world to proclaim that a godless and lawless heresy had sprung from one Jesus, a Galilaean deceiver, whom we crucified, but his disciples stole him by night from the tomb, where he was laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that he has risen from the dead and ascended to heaven....

It was the Synoptic Jesus story, NOT the Pauline writings, that was the STORY up to the middle of the 2nd century.

GMark was a success.

Clivedurdle · 05-20-2010, 09:53 AM

Quote:

I'm not sure to what extent "Mark" intended to show Jesus as a failure

..

Quote:

GMark was a success

?

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

05-20-2010, 08:24 AM	#36
bacht Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Canada Posts: 2,305	I don't know how big an impression Plutarch or Josephus made in their own lifetimes, but they were contemporaries of the gospel authors.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.