Clivedurdle

From tragedy above.

JoeWallack

JW:
Just obtained Gilbert Bilezikian's The Liberated Gospel (or via: amazon.co.uk). As far as I know this is the only detailed analysis of "Mark" as Greek Tragedy. You can score a used one for $ 50 and up. After skimming through it I have faith that I am still the foremost authority the world has ever known regarding "Mark" as Greek Tragedy, and Bilezikian, as an evangelistic Christian is wrong in many of his related conclusions. He does the work though in demonstrating that "Mark" clearly has the main elements of Greek Tragedy.

Obviously Christian Bible scholars would generally have no interest in writing such a book or even addressing such a book but predictably there is no shortage of Apologetics on the Internet denying that "Mark" is Greek Tragedy.

The book is dated 1977 and I. Howard Marshall, a major Christian Bible scholar (author of the NIGTC for "Luke" and several Pauline Epistles), checked the book for references to the Christian Bible. So the man is connected.

I'll post here his major points. I have Faith that many Skeptics here now believe that "Mark" is in the Form of Greek Tragedy, they just don't know how to articulate and Bilezikian will help do that. I also have faith that after this Thread Bilezikian will regret having written the book.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack

JW:
Chapter 1 - The Genre Approach and the Gospel I 11-22
Key points:

Bilezikian (B) points out that since Augustine declared "Mark" an abridgment of "Matthew" there has been relatively little interest in "Mark" until modern times. Note here that Apologists' standard apology is that the Patristics had superior evidence for their conclusions than we do so that we should give more weight to their conclusions. Modern scholarship knows though that "Matthew" was dependent on "Mark" which is just one of many evidences that our modern conclusions are superior to the Patristics. B acknowledges and accepts modern scholarship here.

B accepts that there are no extant direct (Jesus stories) sources for "Mark".

The first significant error B makes is that he thinks Papias referred to "Mark". The specific words of Papias make it unlikely that he was referring to "Mark", the primary theme of discrediting Peter makes it probable that Peter was not the source and all this is confirmed by the External lack of awareness of "Mark" until the 2nd century and Internal 2nd century anachronisms.

B notes that while denying any conscious structure Christian Bible scholarship has traditionally divided "Mark" into:

1:1 - 15

1:16 - 8:26

8:27 - 10:52

11:1 - 13.37

14:1 - 16:8

B thinks the author of "Mark" was Latin and points out the literary background of Latin literature heavily influenced by two Greek areas, the Odyssey and the tragedies of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides. Interestingly than, the earlier "Mark" was written the more likely it was influenced by Greek Tragedy. Seneca, if not the most important author of the 1st century, than one of the most important, wrote 9 tragedies. So "Mark's" near contemporary primarily wrote Greek Tragedy.

Again, B is writing 1977, so he states that scholarship rejects the Gospels as in the form of biography. In our time Christian Bible scholarship has attempted to argue biography as it acknowledges it has lost the direct witness battle and has retreated to the position that while the Gospels are not written by witnesses, they contain witness evidence.

B states his premise regarding a question I often ask, that "Mark" is primarily theology presented in the style of Greek Tragedy. B says:

A huge mistaken conclusion as "Mark" consistently and with style has his theology dominated by Greek Tragedy as best evidenced by his Jesus being tossed around by fate and destiny just as much and even more than any other character. This leads me to the opposite conclusion. "Mark" is primarily a Greek Tragedy and Paul's theology is the subject.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

DCHindley

So what, exactly, would be Jesus' tragic flaw?

DCH

mountainman

The divinity that was supposedly embodied (or if you prefer incarnated) in the literary creation/narration of Jesus is subject to the Pontifex Maximus, Caesar's taxation policies and the honorable propaganda of the reality of Roman controlled death penalties.

The genre of the new testament is "PATHOS".
A direct appeal to the emotions of the audience.
There is little or no Logos or Ethos in the NT story.
Thus does Ammianus describe the cult as "plain and simple".


From the year 325 CE humanity has been coerced into aspiring to a "State Christian" education system in which the pinnacle of achievement was not a doctorate in philosophy or mathematics or science, but a doctorate in "Divinity" and "Theology" as espoused by the conspicuous military, political and socio-religious mandates of 4th and 5th century mafia thugs, extortionist warlords and imperially sponsored "christian soldiers". The imposition of this Fiction-Cult by "The Boss" was very financially rewarding for him and his minions at the time and thereafter. It was a tragedy for the Greek civilisation, from which we have only just begun to recover. O what fabulous piles of gold and profit has this fable of Christ brought the "Plain and Simple religion" and those at the top to whom all the financial rewards flowed.

Clivedurdle

http://www.nazarenus.com/0-4-tragospel.htm

Let's look seriously at the arguments of Nazarenus and see where they lead. His conclusions might not be the same as ours, but his exposition of the evidence surely holds up.

Clivedurdle

The tragic flaw in Jesus may be something new and experimental. How do you write a tragedy based on a god?

I am arguing Mark may be a deliberately contrived and very carefully written what if experiment.

What if a god becomes human. What are the consequences?

What does the tragic flaw of a god look like?

Well it is resolving the obvious one - that the gods do not show pity.

It is an experimental writing - a god does show pity.

JoeWallack

JW:
B points out that per Poetics Greek Tragedy (GT) is primarily defined by plot and not character. B goes on to demonstrate that all basic components of GT plot are in "Mark". I'm sure you would agree that "Mark" compared to the other Gospels is more plot oriented. There is continuous action and movement which is conducive to Plays. In the other Gospels the action is slowed to give character studies of Jesus. A character study is a primary element of a Greco-Roman biography. The related point is that this demonstrates that unprovenanced sources carry little weight as evidence. Posturing that "Luke" has weight due to it having some elements of the genre of Greco-Roman biography means little since we already know that its primary source, "Mark", has a clear genre of GT.

Moving closer to your question Dave, "Mark" clearly has a tragic flaw in a major character, Peter. Coming straight from Poetics, there is the classical hamartis, the hubris (pride) of Peter. Peter swears on oath that he will die for Jesus yet ironically he ends up swearing on oath that he denies Jesus so he will not die. This I think is the primary plot of "Mark", the failure of Peter/Disciples. Jesus presents formulas for Disciple failure and Peter especially is always shown as fulfilling the formula for failure precisely. While Jesus is clearly the main character, once he is possessed by God's spirit he is just a tool of God with no free will (so to speak). As an audience, both Jesus and Peter are supposed to effect us. Jesus, as the divine role model and Peter as the human with all our faults. We are supposed to learn from both, hence Jesus/Peter are balanced as characters to learn from.

Peter's pride prevents him from seeing what he lacks. Faith. That is the message of "Mark" to the audience. Peter is who the audience is supposed to identify with. That is where they start. "Mark's" Jesus is the goal.

To answer your question directly in GT character is subservient to plot. What drives the plot in "Mark" is the issue of Faith (this comes straight from Paul). So if Jesus has a flaw in "Mark" it is likely lack of Faith. For the bulk of "Mark" Jesus is presented as the positive model for Faith. So it is unlikely that the author intended Jesus' lack of Faith as a major theme. Individually, Jesus is shown as stressed out at Gethsemane but I think this is just to show that in preparation for the Passion Jesus crucified his emotions via prayer ("your will, not mine") per Paul's instructions. Note that afterwords Jesus never shows any emotion until the end. When God's spirit leaves Jesus Jesus cries out that God has abandoned him and Jesus cries out again when he dies. Was this intended to show a lack of Faith on the part of the human Jesus after God's spirit left him? Maybe.

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.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

DCHindley

Peter is portrayed as having a flaw all right, his weakness of will. But he is not a tragic figure. IIUC in a GT the central figure is the one with a tragic flaw, and without one, it isn't really a Greek Tragedy.

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.

Happy ending. :jump:

DCH

JoeWallack

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.

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