Freethought & Rationalism Archive

bacht · 05-20-2010, 11:06 AM

Comparing Jesus and Peter:

- Jesus leaves heaven to descend to earth, then returns - this is the U shaped Comic plot curve*, seen also in Job ie. the "happy ending"

- Peter starts from nothing, rises to the highest rank among the disciples, and falls to nothing - this is the inverted U shaped Tragic plot curve, seen in characters like king Saul (and Satan) ie. the sad ending

*this isn't explicit in Mark, he doesn't state clearly that Jesus came from heaven

aa5874 · 05-20-2010, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

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

..

Quote:

GMark was a success

?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

...Again, Jesus is a failure at the text level as he went all The Way for nothing...

What text? Mark?

The author of gMatthew copied almost every single bit of gMark if it was the first Jesus story.

The author of gMatthew and gLuke were probably fundamentally fascinated by gMark's JESUS at the text level.

JoeWallack · 05-21-2010, 08:14 AM

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

B writes:

Quote:

This aiton, the belief or ritual to be explained by reenactment, was often attached to the veneration of a tomb or to the memory of a deified hero who had died in unusual circumstances. Dramatic conventions required that the hero be a person above ordinary humanity. Usually of noble or divine descent, his or her destiny would entail suffering and death, often sacrificial death as the pharmakos, a substitute bearing vicariously some pollution for the sake of others. It was not rare for such tragedies to be presented in the spring since they contained some type of resurrection-ritual celebrating the resurgence of life after the winter months. In rare cases, when the plays took place at the turn of the year, a ritual of animal sacrifices was performed concurrently.

JW:
A lot more to take in here. B references "Greek Drama," in Encyclopedia Britannica (Chicago: Benton, 1953), 7:582. Of course the above all needs to be checked out but Jesus, it's enough to make you turn Jew. So per B the basics of the Markan narrative are all in Greek Tragedy.

B points out that it is difficult to analyze "Mark" as redactor because his sources are unknown. Actually, we can identify the following sources for "Mark", Imagination, The Jewish Bible, Paul and Josephus. But none of these are sources of the historical Jesus. The most we can say here is that starting from a source of GT for his narrative, the main redaction is using the Jewish Bible.

B writes:

Quote:

In this perspective it has been rightly said that tragedy was "preoccupied with fundamental religious problems-the nature of God or the gods, the relationship of the human and the divine, or the nature of God's ways to man.

Reference Whitney J. Oates, The Complete Greek Drama (or via: amazon.co.uk), 1:xxiii.

What I find interesting here is CBS' motivation to find biography in the Gospels is anachronistic as the proper form in "Mark's" time, before there was a Jesus' story, would have been GT.

To address Dave slightly, B points out that some GTs have a happy ending, Eumenides, Philoctetes and Alcestis.

B concludes this section by stating that "Mark" created a new genre, the Gospel, which used GT as a base but is a combination of GT and narrative. B seems to be deliberately avoiding using "biography" to describe "Mark" at this point.

If "Mark" created the original Jesus' narrative with GT as a base this explains many things:

1) Why there is no previous narrative.

2) Why subsequent Gospels are based on "Mark" (see 1)

3) Why "Mark" is so well written (author wanted myth, not history)

4) Why "Mark" was anonymous. Subsequent orthodox Christianity was history based and when told that author of "Mark" was not witness and not based on witness decided that "Mark" could not have been written by "Mark".

Continued...

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 05-22-2010, 11:24 AM

JW:
Chapter 2 - Tragic Drama in Mark's Day

B considers the general issue of GT in "Mark's" time with 3 criteria:

1) Was GT significant at the time.

2) Was GT accessible to "Mark".

3) Would GT have been useful to "Mark".

B writes:

Quote:

A city official [Athens] would be present with an approved copy from the public archives in order to follow the presentation word for word and prevent actors from taking liberties.

Interesting veneration of a text based on age.

B states that GT was born in Athens and that it evolved from performances connected with the worship of Dionysius (Albert Cook, "Oedipus Rex: A Mirror for Greek Drama (or via: amazon.co.uk)"). So its origin was religious. GT is documented as existing in the 6th century BCE.

A's Poetics is 4th century BCE. B claims that there are differences between A's theory of GT and extant GT from A's time. Per B, Poetics is than prescriptive rather then descriptive and is more reflective of A's preferences and contemporary GT.

Regarding Manuscript Destiny (expansion) of GT, B writes:

Quote:

Although tragedy was born and flourished in Athens, it rapidly spread throughout the entire Hellenistic world. By virtue of its early association with the worship of Dionysius, tragic drama became a regular feature of religious festivals whereever they were held in the Greek-speaking world. "By the time of Alexander it may be said to have become co-extensive with the Bacchic worship, and to have penetrated into every region of the world in which the Greek language was spoken." (Haigh, Tragic Drama).

Continued...

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Clivedurdle · 05-22-2010, 01:57 PM

Quote:

branch of drama that treats in a serious and dignified style the sorrowful or terrible events encountered or caused by a heroic individual. By extension the term may be applied to other literary works, such as the novel.

Although the word tragedy is often used loosely to describe any sort of disaster or misfortune, it more precisely refers to a work of art that probes with high seriousness questions concerning the role of man in the universe. The Greeks of Attica, the ancient state whose chief city was Athens, first used the word in the 5th century bc to describe a specific kind of play, which was presented at festivals in Greece. Sponsored by the local governments, these plays were attended by the entire community, a small admission fee being provided by the state for those who could not afford it themselves. The atmosphere surrounding the performances was more like that of a religious ceremony than entertainment. There were altars to the gods, with priests in attendance, and the subjects of the tragedies were the misfortunes of the heroes of legend, religious myth, and history. Most of the material was derived from the works of Homer and was common knowledge in the Greek communities. So powerful were the achievements of the three greatest Greek dramatists—Aeschylus (525–456 bc), Sophocles (c. 496–406 bc), and Euripides (c. 480–406 bc)—that the word they first used for their plays survived and came to describe a literary genre that, in spite of many transformations and lapses, has proved its viability through 25 centuries.

Historically, tragedy of a high order has been created in only four periods and locales: Attica, in Greece, in the 5th century bc; England in the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I, from 1558 to 1625; 17th-century France; and Europe and America during the second half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th. Each period saw the development of a special orientation and emphasis, a characteristic style of theatre. In the modern period, roughly from the middle of the 19th century, the idea of tragedy found embodiment in the collateral form of the novel.

This article focusses primarily on the development of tragedy as a literary genre. For information on the relationship of tragedy to other types of drama, see dramatic literature. The role of tragedy in the growth of theatre is discussed in theatre, Western.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...601884/tragedy

JoeWallack · 05-23-2010, 08:04 AM

JW:
Chapter 2 - Tragic Drama in Mark's Day I

B presents the gradual absorption by Rome of GT and says GT was a regular feature of important Italian festivals. B says GT was frequently used here by Julius Caesar, Augustus, and Nero.

B writes:

Quote:

Mention is made in various chronicles of contests in Greek Tragedy as a regular institution in Rome as late as the second century A.D., [Haigh, Tragic Drama]

One possibility is that "Mark" was written for competition by somewhere in between a Christian who wanted to promote Christianity or a non-Christian who only chose it for subject matter.

Chapter 2 - Tragic Drama in Mark's Day II

Regarding the Roman adoption of GT B points out the geographical connection of the large Greek colony in South Italy that was conquered by Rome. B writes:

Quote:

The greatest literary figure of this period was Quintus Ennius (239-169), who also came from Tarentum in Magna Graecia. His indebtedness to the Greek heritage is refelcted in the fact that of the twenty tragedies he composed, all but one are adaptions of Greek originals [Frank O. Copley, Latin Literature]

and

Quote:

The last of the great Roman dramatists and perhaps the most successful was Lucius Accius (170-86 B.C.) ...his plays follow themes of fifth-century Attic tragedies.

and

Quote:

Cicero (106-43 B.C.) more than any other ancient man of letters, showed in his writings a keen interest in Latin drama and dramatists. [Cicero and the Theater]

B thus demonstrates that GT was not only accepted by Rome but maintained its status as a favored and major form of literature/public presentation through the time of "Mark".

B states:

Quote:

The public calendar of Rome posted some four or five great festivals every year, some lasting as long as two weeks, and dramatic presentations constituted a regular feature of such festivities. [Wright, Cicero and the Theater]

The combination of presentation of GT with religion as subject matter during a religious festival is interesting here because that is exactly what "Mark" is = GT story of Jesus with Passover as a setting. Note how much this favors literary license as an explanation of source as opposed to history. These combinations are exponentially more likely to be contrivances of literature as opposed to coincidences of history.

The trajectory is Paul makes the theological statement that Jesus is the Passover (based on his general theology that Jesus' history/story is in The Jewish Bible). "Mark" incarnates the narrative. Specifically here, one of the biggest logical problems of "Mark's" trial of Jesus is that no one mentions the clear crime of Jesus of disturbing the Temple. The explanation may be that the Passion story/Play precedes "Mark" and was a source for "Mark". Within the Passion there is no mention of any crime committed by Jesus, indeed the major theological point is that Jesus is innocent. "Mark" keeps the Passion intact and the Temple cleansing story with Jesus' crime is one of "Mark's" additions. Hence, "Mark" does the chiastic Passion rhyme, but without the crime.

Continued...

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Clivedurdle · 05-23-2010, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Beginning around 800 BC (BCE), following several centuries of sporadic contact with Sicily's smaller islands and coastal areas, the Greeks began what is now considered the first mass colonization of Sicily and southern peninsular Italy. As Magna Graecia (Megara Hellas), this region eventually became home to more Greeks than Greece itself.

http://www.bestofsicily.com/mag/art153.htm

Quote:

Livy (59 BC-AD 17 ), History of Rome from its Foundation, Book XXV.31
The city was turned over to the troops to pillage as they pleased, after guards had been set at the houses of the exiles who had been in the Roman lines. Many brutalities were committed in hot blood and the greed of gain, and it is on record that Archimedes, while intent upon figures which he had traced in the dust, and regardless of the hideous uproar of an army let loose to ravage and despoil a captured city, was killed by a soldier who did not know who he was. Marcellus was distressed by this; he had him properly buried and his relatives inquired for—to whom the name and memory of Archimedes were an honour

• English translation by Aubrey de Selincourt in The War with Hannibal, Penguin Books, New York, 1965, Page 338.
http://www.cs.drexel.edu/~crorres/Ar...Histories.html

JoeWallack · 05-26-2010, 07:50 AM

JW:
Chapter 2 - Tragic Drama in Mark's Day III

B writes:

Quote:

But by far the most impressive chain of evidence suggesting a possible link between classical tragedy and the Gospel of Mark is provided by the existence, long before and notably during Mark's time, of a kind of tragedy specifically written not for stage presentation, but simply for reading-as the Gospel was. This form of writing, which Haigh called "the literary drama-a new species of compositions," was practiced in Greece as early as the age of Aristotle. In the Rhetoric Aristotle made clear that such plays were written for individuals who enjoyed reading or reciting them, their merit consisting in beauty of diction and style. He cited Chaeremon, a poet of the fourth century, as an author of such tragedies, of which only fragments have been preserved. [Tragic Drama]

While the original intent of "Mark" is an open question, subsequently its main use was to be read and enjoyed by those who already believed. An evangelizing tool would be a secondary use. "Mark" is rich in diction and style with condensed sentences that pack expanded meanings, neat chiasms, repetition of key words to connect meanings and larger structures that complement and contradict with style. Those who remember the legendary Vorkosigan will recognize the name Chaeremon.

So by "Mark's" time there was a variation of GT with an emphasis on reading as opposed to acting. A pointed out that the advantage of acting is that it gives the emotions. It's understandable that "Mark", following Paul, would convert to reading in order to crucify the emotions.

B writes:

Quote:

Philosophers eventually exploited this form of writing to popularize their teachings...seven tragedies...of Cynical doctrines, which were handed about in later times as the work of Diogeners; plays of a lofty and philosophical character published by his disciple Crates; and six tragedies authored by the Greek philosopher Timon the Skeptic...Nicolaus of Damascus...composed tragic dramas, among them one on the subject of Daniel and Susannah...Philostratus...who lived at the time of Nero...wrote forty-three tragedies, Scopelianus...and Oenomaus the Cynic, who lived in the time of Hadrian, also wrote philosophical tragedies in Greek...the younger Seneca...tutor of young Nero...His tragedies, based on mythological motifs, follow themes treated in extant tragedies of Aeschylus, Sopholces, and Euripides[Tragic Drama]

B states that classicists considered Seneca's tragedies "closet-dramas"intended to be read in private to small gatherings.

B presents the theory that some of Seneca's tragedies were intended as political commentary, which was an acceptable form of criticism at the time, and specifically Seneca intended to promote his Stoic philosophy. B notes the following parallels between Seneca's Hercules on Oeta and the Gospel:

Quote:

In this drama Hercules, a divine hero who has fulfilled his earthly mission, is to ascend to heaven. However, he becomes the victim of intrigues prompted by jealously that lead to his death. But he overcomes death in a sort of resurrection and final apotheosis. The structure of the play is rendered implausible by the interminable repetition of lengthy introspective.

I think it's safe to say that regarding "Mark" as a play, Seneca as author is in play.

B finishes this section by pointing out an example in the first century of a drama which he thinks was based on contemporary events, Octavia. Here the emphasis is on the anti-hero Nero and the system that supported him. Nero is shown as murdering a long line of Prophets, er, family members.

Continued...

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 06-27-2010, 01:46 PM

JW:
Chapter 2 - Tragic Drama in Mark's Day IV

B writes that the four pillars of classical literature in "Mark's" time, which "Mark", as an author, would have been familiar with, were:

1) Homer

2) Tragedies of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides

3) Menander's plays

4) Demosthenes' orations

[The Gospels: Their Origin and Growth, p. 144]

Continued...

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Clivedurdle · 06-27-2010, 02:47 PM

Quote:

In all the gospel accounts Pilate’s first words to Jesus are

Are you the King of the Jews?

but only John relates in some detail the exchange that ensued. According to Mark, Matthew and Luke, the exchange between Pilate and Jesus was limited to the question Are you the King of the Jews? and the answer, You say.

From the synoptic gospels one could gather the impression that You say is all that Jesus ever said in the entire procedure before Pilate. John, whose account of this episode is more complete, agrees on this important point. To be absolutely exact, according to the three synoptic gospels Jesus would have answered, You say and according to the gospel of John, You say that I am king.

To Pilate’s question Are you the King of the Jews? Jesus answers with a question that aims at establishing what Pilate means by King of the Jews. There follows an exchange in which Jesus tries to explain that if he is a king he is not a king in the ordinary sense of the word:

: My kingdom does not belong to this world

: If my kingdom belonged to this world,

My followers would fight [for me].

No, my kingdom does not belong to this world.

The contradictions inherent in kingship was a favorite theme of Seneca; he returns to it again and again in his plays. In his Thyestes the chorus tries to define what constitutes a true king:

You do not realize, in your craving for palaces,

wherein kingship consists. It is not wealth

Nor the purple robe nor the royal tiara...

It is the sound mind which possesses true kingship, and a king so defined has no need of horses nor of armor...

That Pilate approached the problem of Jesus from a philosophical angle is evident from his response to Jesus’ declaration that his kingdom was not of this world:

:So then, you are a king?[1]

Pilate, from his skeptical point of view, cut short Jesus’ metaphysical argument and, ignoring subtle dis tinc tions, asked him whether he granted to be a king. Pilate’s question was a rhetorical one and did not require an answer, since the answer was implied in what had been said before. Pilate was taking a typical Skeptic position. A major thrust of Skeptic philo sophy was to oppose the search for essences or for the intrinsic qualities of things. There is no point in arguing about the true nature of objectsthey are what they appear to be.

Jesus’ response is reported in John’s gospel as

You say that I am a king.

As in the case of the questioning before the Jewish religious authorities, Jesus’ answer should be referred to the original Latin, where it carries the meaning:

King is the title that you are bestowing upon me.

A line of argument similar to that adopted by Jesus in answering Pilate was adopted by Caesar in the period that immediately preceded his assassination. Because Caesar had been granted extraordinary powers, because he had been made the object of religious honors, because he sat on a throne and wore a crown, there was in Rome an intense debate and a resulting explosive political tension on the question of whether Caesar claimed to be a king. Caesar skirted the issue by taking a leaf from Stoic philo sophy and proclaiming: My name is Caesar, not king.[2]

The Stoics, in contrast to the Skeptics, insisted that one should reject arbitrary designations and go directly to the truth. Accordingly Jesus parried Pilate’s attempt at categorizing him as a king and went directly to the truth, the truth which he had been born to proclaim:

style=' line-height:I was born and came into the world for this one purpose

style=' line-height:To be a witness to the truth

style=' line-height:Whoever belongs to the truth listens to my voice.

But Seneca, with his unique gift for encapsulating an entire complex of ideas in a single line of dialogue, gives the last word to Pilate:

style=' line-height:And what is truth?

Pilate’s question was again a rhetorical one and had the finality of a categorical assertion. The conclusion of the questioning inside the praetorium was indicated by Pilate’s stepping outside to announce his findings to the waiting crowd (Jn. 18:38):

style=' line-height:Then Pilate went back outside to the Jews and said to them:

style=' line-height:I do not find any guilt in him.

According to Luke, Pilate’s response to the crowd ended with the lines:

There is nothing this man has done to deserve death.

I will have him whipped, then, and let him go.

Pilate is urging clemency, patiently explaining to the Jewish leaders why Jesus should be freed. At most he will agree to have him whipped. Many interpreters have remarked that the portrayal of Pilate in the gospels is in sharp contrast to his character as it can be gleaned from the writings of Philo and Josephus. Could the Pilate of the gospel tradition, who agonizes over the fate of his prisoner and repeatedly tries to have him released, be the same man described by Philo as naturally inflexible and stubbornly relentless, responsible for acts of corruption, insults, rapine, outrages on the people, arrogance, repeated murder of innocent victims and constant and most galling savagery?[3]

Admittedly, the evangelists were interested in proving that Jesus, despite his death at the hands of a Roman governor, had not been a rebel against Rome and that his message was not directed against the interests of Roman power. There can be little doubt that this motivation underlies the portrayal of Pilate in the gospels, but by itself it does not explain Pilate’s strangely uncharacteristic behavior.

In order to understand Seneca’s portrayal of Pilate, we should consider what was the main purpose of tragedy, as explained by Aristotle:

style=' line-height:It is not the poet’s business to relate actual events... that is why poetry is more akin to philosophy and is a better thing than history.[4]

Seneca considered poetry and drama as the most effective vehicle for communicating philosophical ideas.[5] A philosopher can best accomplish his aims "when he introduces verses

among his wholesome precepts, that he may thus make these verses sink more effectively into the mind of the novice." Since in his Nazarenus Seneca was dealing with a theme based on recent history and one at the forefront of public attention in view of the contemporaneous trial of Paul, he sought to be more direct than in his other plays in driving home the lessons of Stoicism. Seneca's tragedies explore the dire consequences to which unbridled passion inevitably leads, such as jealousy in the case of Medea, or erotic infatuation in the case of Hippolytus. In the case of the Nazarenus, Seneca was evidently targetting religious fanaticism. At the time that Paul was on trial for his life, Seneca was in effect posing the question of how a rational ruler ought to behave in the midst of a public fury stirred by religious passions. Pilate, called upon to make a decision in the case of Jesus, acted against his conscience and issued an unjust sentence, not due to weakness, but for reasons of state, which are of a higher order. In the case of Paul the final decision was up to Nero.

In the aftermath of Paul’s trial Seneca addressed to Nero a memorandum On Clemency, where he tried to justify the painful decisions a ruler must at times make for the sake of preserving the existing social order, decisions that may involve the execution of innocent individuals. In this work Seneca rejects compassion and mercy as being mere irrational emotional responses; the just ruler will behave with clemency, which is based on reason.

Seneca’s On Clemency begins with a story about Nero, who for a long time could not bring himself to sign a particular death sentence; when his advisors insisted that he must do so in the interest of the state, he cried:

style=' line-height:I wish I had never learned how to write!

The executions may have been required in order to calm the public hysteria generated by Paul's trial. In his memorandum Seneca reassures Nero that such unpleasant duties will be thrust upon him only very seldom; nevertheless,

style=' line-height:It will from time to time be necessary for you to write what once made you loathe the art of writing; at least let it be according to your custom, after much procrastination and numerous postponements.

The clement ruler must be firm and exercise his duties without emotion. He should attempt to mitigate punishment, wherever possible, not out of any sentimental regard for the condemned, but in order to avoid cruelty, which is as much a weakness as mercy.

The Pilate that emerges from the gospel accounts bears little resemblance to the Pilate of history; it is, rather, Seneca’s image of a prudent but practical politician, a Skeptic by inclination, who strives for clemency on the basis of reason, who delays punishment and attempts to mitigate it, but will agree to a death sentence when the safety of the state and his own position are at stake.

Since the Pilate of the gospels was a creation of Seneca, we need not wonder at his proposal that Jesus, instead of being crucified, be merely whipped and then released. The chorus, standing outside, reacts to this suggestion by shouting back:

style=' line-height:Kill him. Set Barabbas free for us.

http://www.nazarenus.com/2-2-clemency.htm

We are probably looking at a pastiche of plays - the chorus above is a clincher of this - and literary versions. The various gospels are then various versions - play or readings - for different audiences.

06-27-2010, 01:46 PM	#49
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	Chapter 2 - Tragic Drama in Mark's Day IV JW: Chapter 2 - Tragic Drama in Mark's Day IV B writes that the four pillars of classical literature in "Mark's" time, which "Mark", as an author, would have been familiar with, were: 1) Homer 2) Tragedies of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides 3) Menander's plays 4) Demosthenes' orations [The Gospels: Their Origin and Growth, p. 144] Continued... Joseph ErrancyWiki

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

05-20-2010, 11:06 AM	#41
bacht Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Canada Posts: 2,305	Comparing Jesus and Peter: - Jesus leaves heaven to descend to earth, then returns - this is the U shaped Comic plot curve, seen also in Job ie. the "happy ending" - Peter starts from nothing, rises to the highest rank among the disciples, and falls to nothing - this is the inverted U shaped Tragic plot curve, seen in characters like king Saul (and Satan) ie. the sad ending this isn't explicit in Mark, he doesn't state clearly that Jesus came from heaven

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.