Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 11-26-2010, 08:01 AM

JW:
Chapter 3 - The Plot: Complication and Crisis

Demonstrating the structure of Greek Tragedy in "Mark" B writes:

Quote:

The tragic situation and therefore the complication result not from the uncomprehension of the crowd and the disciples but from the very nature of the messiahship , which can be neither proclaimed not understood until the passion and resurrection have taken place. The protagonists are all victims of destiny.

JW:
Again, "Complication" in GT is the resistance/opposition to the hero(es). Here, all groups provide resistance/opposition to Jesus. It's ironic enough that the Jewish religious leaders, whose job is to identify and promote the Messiah, are opposed to the Messiah, but "Mark", despite oh so much resistance/opposition from orthodox/modern Christians, goes beyond and all the Way to show Jesus' disciples as likewise resistant/oppositional.

Note that in GT the protagonist is a "victim" of destiny. "Mark's" Jesus is very much a victim of destiny. He tries to teach everyone Faith, especially the Disciples, but is destined not to. Does he finally understand at the G-spot that he was destined to fail here? Perhaps. Note in subsequent Gospels (and forgeries of "Mark") how the authors undo "Mark's" Jesus' failure.

B writes:

Quote:

In the Aristotelian concept of plot structure, the transition between complication and denouement is called the crisis. At this point a climactic event takes place that results in a shift in the action of the play. This climax often takes the form of a recognition scene, as it does in the illustration cited by Aristotle and the two plays briefly analyzed above. In the Gospel the confession of Peter constitutes a turning point in the action. The dramatic tension created by the complication of the incognito presence of the Messiah is partly relaxed when the disciples recognize, on their own and against seemingly contrary evidence, the real identity of Jesus. As a result of the confession, the ministry of Jesus takes a different turn in the last half of the Gospel and the action swiftly enters the denouement phase.

JW:
The primary purpose of "Mark's" Jesus is to have himself promoted. At the Text level by his Disciples and at the Sub-text level by the Readers. During the Complication the Disciples provide resistance/opposition to Jesus' Mission. The Recognition scene ends the Complication phase where the Disciples finally recognize the first part of The Plan for Jesus Promotion, that Jesus is the Messiah. Jesus can now abandon his Teaching & Healing Ministry but its purpose has been served, to ID Jesus as the Messiah. Now the second and important part of The Plan is to communicate WHAT being the Messiah means.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Chili · 11-28-2010, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
Chapter 3 - The Plot: Complication and Crisis

Demonstrating the structure of Greek Tragedy in "Mark" B writes:

Quote:

The tragic situation and therefore the complication result not from the uncomprehension of the crowd and the disciples but from the very nature of the messiahship , which can be neither proclaimed not understood until the passion and resurrection have taken place. The protagonists are all victims of destiny.

JW:
Again, "Complication" in GT is the resistance/opposition to the hero(es). Here, all groups provide resistance/opposition to Jesus. It's ironic enough that the Jewish religious leaders, whose job is to identify and promote the Messiah, are opposed to the Messiah, but "Mark", despite oh so much resistance/opposition from orthodox/modern Christians, goes beyond and all the Way to show Jesus' disciples as likewise resistant/oppositional.

Note that in GT the protagonist is a "victim" of destiny. "Mark's" Jesus is very much a victim of destiny. He tries to teach everyone Faith, especially the Disciples, but is destined not to. Does he finally understand at the G-spot that he was destined to fail here? Perhaps. Note in subsequent Gospels (and forgeries of "Mark") how the authors undo "Mark's" Jesus' failure.

B writes:

Quote:

In the Aristotelian concept of plot structure, the transition between complication and denouement is called the crisis. At this point a climactic event takes place that results in a shift in the action of the play. This climax often takes the form of a recognition scene, as it does in the illustration cited by Aristotle and the two plays briefly analyzed above. In the Gospel the confession of Peter constitutes a turning point in the action. The dramatic tension created by the complication of the incognito presence of the Messiah is partly relaxed when the disciples recognize, on their own and against seemingly contrary evidence, the real identity of Jesus. As a result of the confession, the ministry of Jesus takes a different turn in the last half of the Gospel and the action swiftly enters the denouement phase.

JW:
The primary purpose of "Mark's" Jesus is to have himself promoted. At the Text level by his Disciples and at the Sub-text level by the Readers. During the Complication the Disciples provide resistance/opposition to Jesus' Mission. The Recognition scene ends the Complication phase where the Disciples finally recognize the first part of The Plan for Jesus Promotion, that Jesus is the Messiah. Jesus can now abandon his Teaching & Healing Ministry but its purpose has been served, to ID Jesus as the Messiah. Now the second and important part of The Plan is to communicate WHAT being the Messiah means.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

The Gospels are not about teaching faith but how to get your ass out of Galilee (Purgatory we call it) and that is where Mark becomes a tragedy because his Jesus proudly declared that he was going back to Galilee. Luke and John so are divine comedies and that makes Mark and Matthew failed divine comedies also known as Greek tragedies but I like to call them Senecan tragedies for he had the insight from his lofty position in heaven how to do it right.

It may be argued that the rising action is much the same but that is just not true or they would all have been comedies, and it is from here that Mark was purposly written to show how and why it is that a believer ends up in hell . . . if you allow me to postulate that 40 years of purgation after midlife is equal to hell on earth.

Chili · 11-29-2010, 05:48 AM

. . . and I think that most telling in the Gospels is that in Matthew and Mark Jesus is asking God 'why he has forsaken him', while in Luke Jesus commits his spirit to God and in John he consciously knows that his life as Galilean comes to an end soon and so knew exactly what was going on in his own mind . . . as did James Joyce in his last page of his "Portrait" with: "Old father, old artificer, stand me now and ever in good stead," which was after a 40 day count down on April 28 and 3 days before May 1st when new life begins.

In the end would I say that Mark may still be the first Gospel but it sure was not written by a Galilean with his eyes half shut .

Chili · 11-29-2010, 05:53 PM

Sorry if this puts a different slant on Joyces "Portrait."

JoeWallack · 12-03-2010, 08:15 AM

JW:
Here is the source in A's Poetics where he states that GT usually starts with a known story as the background:

Poetics By Aristotle Section 1

Quote:

We must not, therefore, at all costs keep to the received legends, which are the usual subjects of Tragedy.

B points out that this is evidence that the basic Jesus' story preceded "Mark" but righteously confesses that there is no direct evidence for it. In an irony that the author of "Mark" would have really appreciated, a genre for "Mark" of GT as opposed to Bios is potentially better evidence for an early dating of "Mark" as GT is evidence that the audience already knows the story while Bios is the creation of the story. The purpose of GT is to tell the story with Style, per A, and "Mark" has so very much style.

A identifies the Prologue as an essential element of the Structure of GT but does not give much description of it, apparently assuming it is obvious. Prologue in GT is defined as follows:

Prologue

Quote:

In Attic Greek drama, a character in the play, as very often a deity, stood forward or appeared from a machine before the action of the play began, and made from the empty stage such statements necessary for the audience to hear so that they might appreciate the ensuing drama. It was the early Greek custom to dilate in great detail on everything that had led up to the play, the latter being itself, as a rule merely the catastrophe which had inevitably to ensue on the facts related in the prologue. The importance, therefore, of the prologue in Greek drama was very great; it sometimes almost took the place of a romance, to which, or to an episode in which, the play itself succeeded.

The Prologue of "Mark":

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_1

Quote:

1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

1:2 Even as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall prepare thy way.

1:3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make ye ready the way of the Lord, Make his paths straight;

Here the beginning of the Gospel follows from the ending of the Jewish Bible:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Malachi_3

Quote:

3:1 Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant, whom ye desire, behold, he cometh, saith Jehovah of hosts.

The author is saying that the background story of Jesus (received legend) is the Jewish Bible. This explains why most of "Mark's" stories have background information from the Jewish Bible in them. Note how well this coordinates with Paul:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Romans_16

Quote:

16:25 Now to him that is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal,

26 but now is manifested, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, is made known unto all the nations unto obedience of faith:

27 to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory for ever. Amen.

Also note that "Matthew", the original reaction to "Mark", goes Bios-sectual, and exorcises the Prologue (places the info within narrative) from his Gospel:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Matthew_3

Quote:

3:1 And in those days cometh John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, saying,

2 Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

3 For this is he that was spoken of through Isaiah the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make ye ready the way of the Lord, Make his paths straight.

The majority of Zen's Bible scholars confess to us that the Infancy narrative is not original to "Matthew".

If we also look back to Papias:

Papias of Hierapolis

Quote:

I will not hesitate to add also for you to my interpretations what I formerly learned with care from the Presbyters and have carefully stored in memory, giving assurance of its truth. For I did not take pleasure as the many do in those who speak much, but in those who teach what is true, nor in those who relate foreign precepts, but in those who relate the precepts which were given by the Lord to the faith and came down from the Truth itself. And also if any follower of the Presbyters happened to come, I would inquire for the sayings of the Presbyters, what Andrew said, or what Peter said, or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which Aristion and the Presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, were saying. For I considered that I should not get so much advantage from matter in books as from the voice which yet lives and remains.

If we simply take P (Papias) at his word, he demonstrates a proper understanding of historical inquiry. He realizes that a chain of witness testimony is the best evidence and is proportional to directness. He realizes conversely that embellishment is proportional to distorted history. He specifically prefers witness testimony over books (Gospels). If he was aware of Gospel "Mark" presumably he recognized it as embellishment with themes, that he considered as inferior evidence to a chain of witness testimony. Ironically, while Christianity has traditionally claimed P as the best evidence for the authority of "Mark", P himself is the best evidence against it. Either P was unaware of "Mark" (he shows no direct evidence of being aware of such a Gospel) or he did not think it authoritative. "Mark" itself is than the reaction to Papias' attitude, a claim that a chain of historical witness was not authoritative (allah Paul).

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 12-16-2010, 07:32 AM

JW:

Cassandra has been invoked by the Spaminator here:

Jesus influenced by Cassandra?

so I'll fast forward to one of B's invocations of Cassandra:

Quote:

When the action of a Greek or Latin tragedy included an event beyond theatrical enactment due to its magnitude or gruesomeness, the authors had recourse to two devices to portray it. One is to have the deed occur behind the scenes, ...prior to the visual disclosure of the result through doors flung open. Thus, in the last scene of Aeschylus' Agamemnon, the palace doors open to reveal the dead bodies of Agamemnon and Cassandra, who have been killed by the adulterous [generation] Clytemnestra. In Seneca's unbenignant version of the same theme, Medea slaughters her boys on stage...

B points out the parallel to "Mark" with the ending of the stone "door" rolled open. My observation here is that consistent with the theme of "Mark", the characters observe the unexpected here though. Where there is normally a body in real life and in GT, here there is not. Note especially with "Mark", in a theme that subsequent Gospellers travelled a great distance from, "Mark's" emphasis here is on the reaction of the non-witnessing witnesses (fear, amazement and fear = disbelief) and not on the resurrection of his Jesus. That is why there is no post resurrection narrative. What was most important to "Mark" was communicating that Jesus' disciples did not promote his resurrection and not that Jesus was resurrected. How ironic is that.

B continues:

Quote:

The other technique consists of a verbal report given on stage by the ubiquitous messenger of ancient drama , generally a loquacious eyewitness and a secondary character of the play...In Aeschylus's and in Seneca's Agamemnon, a herald describes the terrible storm that wrecked the Greek fleet on its way from Troy.

B than notes the parallels to "Mark" where a seemingly ordinary messenger appears out of nowhere to describe to the characters the key piece of information not shown. B righteously observes that regarding subsequent Gospellers conversion and even duplication of this ordinary messenger to divine status, the ordinary messenger here is a characteristic of GT and not Judaism.

The objective student should note that the parallels here between the ending of "Mark" and GT receive a good report.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 12-18-2010, 09:11 AM

It was a dark and cold night. After finishing desert a lone Jew Joseph rises from the tombs of Nazareth and says to the crowd of Atheists regarding Christianity:

JW:
A (Aristotle) in defining GT (Greek Tragedy) up to his time (c. 350 BC) gives so many potential good parallels to "Mark" that I will now Intercalate excerpts from his Poetics directly, in between B's (Bilezkian's) filter of them. Note that at this point I am only identifying parallels. As some correspondents here have noted, A gives some qualities of GT (some quite important per A) that are at odds with "Mark". Course if only E (Eusebius) had used this type of qualification this whole exercise would be unnecessary:

Was Eusebius A Truth Challenged Advocate For Jesus? - The Argument Resurrected

Poetics

Quote:

Part II

Since the objects of imitation are men in action, and these men must be either of a higher or a lower type (for moral character mainly answers to these divisions, goodness and badness being the distinguishing marks of moral differences), it follows that we must represent men either as better than in real life, or as worse, or as they are. It is the same in painting. Polygnotus depicted men as nobler than they are, Pauson as less noble, Dionysius drew them true to life.

Now it is evident that each of the modes of imitation above mentioned will exhibit these differences, and become a distinct kind in imitating objects that are thus distinct. Such diversities may be found even in dancing, flute-playing, and lyre-playing. So again in language, whether prose or verse unaccompanied by music. Homer, for example, makes men better than they are; Cleophon as they are; Hegemon the Thasian, the inventor of parodies, and Nicochares, the author of the Deiliad, worse than they are. The same thing holds good of Dithyrambs and Nomes; here too one may portray different types, as Timotheus and Philoxenus differed in representing their Cyclopes. The same distinction marks off Tragedy from Comedy; for Comedy aims at representing men as worse, Tragedy as better than in actual life.

A explains that a basic technique of GT is to portray men/heroes as better than men in actual life. The character is than intentionally fictional to some/large extent. To the extent "Mark" is GT than "Mark's" Jesus' character may have been intentionally exaggerated by the author.

Quote:

Part VI

Of the poetry which imitates in hexameter verse, and of Comedy, we will speak hereafter. Let us now discuss Tragedy, resuming its formal definition, as resulting from what has been already said.

Tragedy, then, is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude; in language embellished with each kind of artistic ornament, the several kinds being found in separate parts of the play; in the form of action[1], not of narrative; through pity and fear[2] effecting the proper purgation of these emotions[3]. By 'language embellished,' I mean language into which rhythm[4], 'harmony'[5] and song enter. By 'the several kinds in separate parts,' I mean, that some parts are rendered through the medium of verse alone, others again with the aid of song.
...
But most important of all is the structure of the incidents. For Tragedy is an imitation, not of men, but of an action and of life, and life consists in action, and its end is a mode of action, not a quality. Now character determines men's qualities, but it is by their actions that they are happy or the reverse. Dramatic action, therefore, is not with a view to the representation of character: character comes in as subsidiary to the actions. Hence the incidents and the plot are the end of a tragedy; and the end is the chief thing of all. Again, without action there cannot be a tragedy; there may be without character. The tragedies of most of our modern poets fail in the rendering of character; and of poets in general this is often true. It is the same in painting; and here lies the difference between Zeuxis and Polygnotus. Polygnotus delineates character well; the style of Zeuxis is devoid of ethical quality. Again, if you string together a set of speeches expressive of character, and well finished in point of diction and thought, you will not produce the essential tragic effect nearly so well as with a play which, however deficient in these respects, yet has a plot and artistically constructed incidents. Besides which, the most powerful elements of emotional interest in Tragedy- Peripeteia or Reversal of the Situation[6], and Recognition scenes[7]- are parts of the plot. A further proof is, that novices in the art attain to finish of diction and precision of portraiture before they can construct the plot. It is the same with almost all the early poets.

The plot, then, is the first principle, and, as it were, the soul of a tragedy[8]; Character holds the second place. A similar fact is seen in painting. The most beautiful colors, laid on confusedly, will not give as much pleasure as the chalk outline of a portrait. Thus Tragedy is the imitation of an action, and of the agents mainly with a view to the action.

[1] "Mark" is more action and less narrative than its successors. Note the clever transfer though between Ministry and Passion. In the Ministry Jesus is the action figure while in the Passion it is his Opposition that is in action.

[2] Fear is clearly the dominant emotion in "Mark". Again, the rewrites try to dilute it. Pity is there but secondary.

[3] "Mark's" Jesus is all about purging fear with faith. The others again try to lessen the theme with supposed evidence. M & L with supposed prophecy fulfillment and J with evidential miracles.

[4] "Mark" has the rhythm of chiasms, intercalations and word repetition. This is all deteriorated in the copying.

[5] "Mark" has the harmony of balance between the opening and ending and in the middle between Ministry and Passion.

[6] 'Mark" has the clearly defined pivot in the middle where Jesus' Mission reverses from Ministry to Passion.

[7] "Mark" has clear recognition scenes in the middle regarding who Jesus is (Christ and son of God).

[8] "Mark's" plot is that Jesus' Mission is to have his disciples promote his Passion and not his Ministry. The action and narrative explicitly show that he failed to do this = Tragedy. The others could not and did not accept this.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 12-19-2010, 08:48 AM

JW:
Continuing with Poetics and looking for parallels to "Mark":

Quote:

Part IX

...
But again, Tragedy is an imitation not only of a complete action, but of events inspiring fear[1] or pity. Such an effect is best produced when the events come on us by surprise[2]; and the effect is heightened when, at the same time, they follows as cause and effect[3]. The tragic wonder will then be greater than if they happened of themselves or by accident; for even coincidences are most striking when they have an air of design[4]. We may instance the statue of Mitys at Argos, which fell upon his murderer while he was a spectator at a festival, and killed him[5]. Such events seem not to be due to mere chance. Plots, therefore, constructed on these principles are necessarily the best.

[1] Fear = the primary emotion in "Mark".

[2] Surprise = the primary reaction in "Mark".

[3] Note that "Mark" normally gives motivations/reasons for reactions carefully creating a cause and effect relationship.

[4] In addition to [3] the claims of prophecy fulfillment and reference to God's will also give a background of "design".

[5] An Ironic example which is "Mark's" specialty. Irony combines [3] Cause and effect with [2] Surprise. There is a cause and effect relationship but in a surprising (unexpected) way.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

spamandham · 12-19-2010, 10:03 PM

What do you know Joe, I think you've just about got me convinced. I'd say the parallels to GT are much stronger than the parallels Talbert gives in "What is a Gospel", wherein he concludes they are biographies.

JoeWallack · 12-20-2010, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

What do you know Joe, I think you've just about got me convinced. I'd say the parallels to GT are much stronger than the parallels Talbert gives in "What is a Gospel", wherein he concludes they are biographies.

JW:
Now I have a Disciple too, ho-ho-hoo. I feel so Sith/Cirq ish. In order to have a Tragedy, below all else, you need Failure. "Mark" is kind enough to clearly define failure:

1) What exactly is "Mark's" Jesus Mission:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_1

Quote:

1:14 Now after John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God,

1:15 and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe in the gospel.

2) What exactly is this Gospel?:

Quote:

1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

3) How is "Mark's" Jesus supposed to accomplish this belief?:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_9

Quote:

9:9 And as they were coming down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, save when the Son of man should have risen again from the dead.

By persuading his disciples to stay deaf and dumb regarding Jesus until after he is Passionated and resurrected like John in Pulp Fiction and than to blab everything.

If you look at "Mark" objectively, without the baggage of subsequent Gospels, I have faith that you will come to believe that the primary theme of "Mark" is the failure of the Disciples to promote the Passion of Jesus and not Jesus' supposed resurrection. Note that in the all important ending:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_16

Quote:

16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the [mother] of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint him.

16:2 And very early on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb when the sun was risen.

16:3 And they were saying among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the tomb?

16:4 and looking up, they see that the stone is rolled back: for it was exceeding great.

16:5 And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe; and they were amazed.

16:6 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!

16:7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

16:8 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.

The primary emphasis is the failure of any disciple to believe that Jesus was resurrected. Jesus' supposed resurrection is secondary and a set-up for the lack of belief. Note especially the very end:

"they said nothing to any one".

"Mark's" ending does not have resurrection belief because that would undo the Tragedy. Per "Mark" the Disciples have achieved Epic Fail!

This is also consistent with the Natural explanation (always the best one). Historical witness did not witness that Jesus was resurrected because Jesus was not resurrected. Reaction to historical witness ("Mark") says Jesus was resurrected but confesses to us that historical witness did not believe it. This leaves Christianity in the comical position that its only potential quality witness for the basic Assertian of Christianity, the original Gospel narrative, confesses that historical witness did not believe that Jesus was resurrected.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

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

11-29-2010, 05:48 AM	#63
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	. . . and I think that most telling in the Gospels is that in Matthew and Mark Jesus is asking God 'why he has forsaken him', while in Luke Jesus commits his spirit to God and in John he consciously knows that his life as Galilean comes to an end soon and so knew exactly what was going on in his own mind . . . as did James Joyce in his last page of his "Portrait" with: "Old father, old artificer, stand me now and ever in good stead," which was after a 40 day count down on April 28 and 3 days before May 1st when new life begins. In the end would I say that Mark may still be the first Gospel but it sure was not written by a Galilean with his eyes half shut .

11-29-2010, 05:53 PM	#64
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	Sorry if this puts a different slant on Joyces "Portrait."

12-19-2010, 10:03 PM	#69
spamandham Contributor Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 11,525	What do you know Joe, I think you've just about got me convinced. I'd say the parallels to GT are much stronger than the parallels Talbert gives in "What is a Gospel", wherein he concludes they are biographies.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.