Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 06-28-2010, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Lucius Annaeus Seneca

ARTICLE
from theEncyclopædia Britannica
byname Seneca The Younger
born c. 4 bc, Corduba, Spain
died ad 65, Rome

Roman philosopher, statesman, orator, and tragedian. He was Rome’s leading intellectual figure in the mid-1st century ad and was virtual ruler with his friends of the Roman world between 54 and 62 during the first phase of the emperor Nero’s reign.

Early life and family

Seneca was the second son of a wealthy family. The father, Lucius Annaeus Seneca (Seneca the Elder), had been famous in Rome as a teacher of rhetoric; the mother, Helvia, was of excellent character and education; the older brother was Gallio, met by St. Paul in Achaea in ad 52; the younger brother was the father of the poet Lucan. An aunt took Lucius as a boy to Rome; there he was trained as an orator and educated in philosophy in the school of the Sextii, which blended Stoicism with an ascetic neo-Pythagoreanism. Seneca’s health suffered, and he went to recuperate in Egypt, where his aunt was the wife of the prefect, Gaius Galerius. Returning to Rome about the year 31, he began a career in politics and law. Soon he fell foul of the emperor Caligula, who was deterred from killing him only by the argument that his life was sure to be short.

In 41 the emperor Claudius banished Seneca to Corsica on a charge of adultery with the princess Julia Livilla, the Emperor’s niece. In that uncongenial milieu he studied natural science and philosophy and wrote the three treatises entitled Consolationes. The influence of Agrippina, the Emperor’s wife, had him recalled to Rome in 49. He became praetor in ad 50, married Pompeia Paulina, a wealthy woman, built up a powerful group of friends, including the new prefect of the guard, Sextus Afranius Burrus, and became tutor to the future emperor Nero.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...Annaeus-Seneca

So Seneca could speak Greek, knew Egypt and its oriental cults and very likely its Jewish population, was very powerful and could write.

Why is he not taken seriously as the author of Mark, especially as the timeline and his experience fits?

Clivedurdle · 06-28-2010, 07:26 AM

Is this not very easily tested? Run the works of Seneca and gMark through some plagiarism software?

JoeWallack · 07-02-2010, 08:19 AM

JW:
Chapter 3 - The Plot: Complication and Crisis

Here we get to the heart of the book. B lists the six essentials of tragedy in order of importance per Aristotle's Poetics (anyone else constantly reminded of The Name of the Rose) every time they hear "Aristotle's Poetics")?:

1) Plot

2) Character

3) Message

4) Diction

5) Melody

6) Spectacle

Per A, a play consists primarily of Action. Note that "Mark", the original Gospel narrative, is Action compared to the slowed down "Matthew"/"Luke" with the drawn out Q info and conversion to bio and the even slower "John" with the long Jesus speeches about hisself. Note that what "Mark" redacted from, Epistles, are just rhetoric, with no Jesus action at all.

Per B, per A, a play is intended to tell a story rather than a character (bio). Again note that "Mark" is more story than character compared to the other Gospels.

B laments that you can not evaluate "Mark" as a redactor since we have no known sources before him which allow us to observe his editing but B is wrong in two ways. We have Paul, Fake Paul and other limited Epistles. The parallels between these and "Mark" make it likely they were a source. What B does not want to entertain as possible is that there was nothing else for "Mark" to use as a source for his story. The other way B is wrong is we can look at "Mark" as a negative redactor. What does he lack that subsequent Gospels added and especially what here may have been available to "Mark" that he choose not to use (such as Q).

B writes:

Quote:

When he [A] stated that the plot is "the first essential, the life and soul, so to speak, of tragedy," he affirmed his belief that tragic art is more concerned with happenings than with subjective states of being. Identification with the protagonists of a play is achieved through enacting circumstances that could be anyone's fate rather than through displaying the inner torments of select individuals. His stress on the primacy of action rather than of characterization he developed further: "Tragedy is essentially an imitation not of persons but of action and life, of happiness and misery. All human happiness or misery takes the form of action; the end for which we live is a certain kind of activity, not a quality. Character gives us qualities, but it is our actions-what we do-that we are happy or the reverse." Therefore, the recounting of deeds and events is of highest importance; character depiction follows ipso facto.

Compare "Mark's" Jesus than to the other's. "Mark's" Jesus is a man of Action. When he was put on trial there was nothing he needed to say. His Actions spoke for him.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 07-03-2010, 08:39 AM

JW:
Chapter 3 - The Plot: Complication and Crisis

B writes:

Quote:

In this sense fate becomes the instrument of the action as a test of character, and heroes are at its mercy. They do not shape history; they are its victims. They are afflicted by the blows of destiny; they do not inflict blows upon it. Tragedies display heroes grappling with adversity; however, heroes do not themselves engineer catastrophies. And when their responsibility is involved, their actions generally stem from an insurmountable and predetermined bent or commitment (the hamartia). Thus, in the Aristotelian conception of tragedy, the plot constitutes the primary element. Everything else in the action is subordinated to the interests of what he described as "the proper organization of the incidents into a plot."

Note how well "Mark's" Jesus fits this description compared to other Jesuses:

1) At the mercy of fate

2) Victim of history

3) Does not engineer

Here Jesus is just another character in a play no more able to overcome the irony than any other character.

Hamartia

Quote:

Hamartia (Ancient Greek: ἁμαρτία) is a term developed by Aristotle in his work Poetics. The term can simply be seen as a character’s flaw or error. The word hamartia is rooted in the notion of missing the mark (hamartanein) and covers a broad spectrum that includes accident and mistake[1], as well as wrongdoing, error, or sin.[2] In Nicomachean Ethics, hamartia is described by Aristotle as one of the three kinds of injuries that a person can commit against another person. Hamartia is an injury committed in ignorance (when the person affected or the results are not what the agent supposed they were).[3]

Regarding HaMarkia, contra to Christian Bible scholarship and many Skeptics it is easy to see "Mark's" Jesus as having a fatal flaw. At the text level Jesus' Mission is a complete failure so someone must be hugely responsible. The related question is what was Jesus' primary mission? To be a suffering, sacrificial, messiah/son of god or to convince his disciples that he was a suffering, sacrificial, messiah/son of god? It's clear to me, the text and B, that it is the latter. Jesus' Passion is no good unless it is witnessed and promoted. B, with nebulous support from the text, thinks "Mark" implies that the disciples, post-text, do promote Jesus. As this goes against the only witness we have, the text, as well as the likely source for the test, Paul, I don't. If so, than what exactly would Jesus' fatal flaw be? [Irony]Having faith in the disciples of course[/Irony]. They failed him in every way, always perfectly met his own definitions of disciple failure and never showed any fatih, yet to the end (so to speak, think tomb messenger) he relied on them to witness and promote his Passion. He's off to Galilee as part of The Plan but there is no one else there to witness and promote his Passion:

Galilee: Hey Jesus, how's it going. I guess the Messiah thing didn't work out.

Jesus: You're not going to believe this. I was put on trial and didn't say anything. They crucified me and after i died I was resurrected after, or was that on the 3rd day, I forget, anyway, that's not important, I was resurrected and here I am.

Galilee: I don't suppose you have any witnesses to all this.

Jesus: Well they were supposed to be here. Not sure what happened to them.

Galilee: Stay here, I'll go get your family, again.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Chili · 07-03-2010, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

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

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

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

To me it is clear that Matthew is a tragedy and Mark presents us the details of that tragedy now with Judaism removed from it. So we have religious Matthew and material Mark showing what was wrong with Judiasm in those days and why there was a need (?) for Peter to become a the seat af a new religion that would do a better job.

Now notice first that both Matthew's and Mark's Jesus goes back to Galilee, which is where the messianinc movement takes place that we call it Purgatory because Galilee was more like a detour cleansing period between Egypt and Israel (let me add here that Matthew's Joseph was a bit of dreamer too).

The fatal flaw is that Jesus was conceived in Matthew's dream by the angel of the Lord who sometimes is called lucifer and so he probably was given a scorpion instead of a fish.

John makes this clear in v. 1:13 between those born of God as opposed to those born of carnal desire, blood and or man's willing it, in which case they will/may be born again but from below instead of above . . . and thus a [Senecan] tragedy will be their destiny.

Bottom line, in both Matthew and Mark's Jesus does not go to Israel or heaven but back to Galilee and actaully ordered the great commision from there.

That is tragic, of course, and therefore is Matthew and a Mark a not-so-divine tragedy if Luke and John has Jesus go to heaven (Rome we call it today) who so write a divine comedy, with Luke giving the religious details and John presenting the material cause, which I then call the Catholic gospel.

So the difference is that after the crisis moment of crucifixion all 4 are raised to actually present the difference between a divine comedy and a Greek tragedy that I would call a Senecan tragedy but is also called a Sharespearean tragedy because in England they do not exactly know the difference between these two.

What is known is that MacBeth is such a tragedy and that has always been very popular in England while Coriolanus is a superb divine comedy and that was never popular in England. Nothing to do with England, really, except that MacBeth is a relgious satire to be compared with Coriolanus.

Chili · 07-04-2010, 05:31 AM

My question now is if the first three gospels still are synoptic? or should rightfully be called synoptic if Matthew and Luke are opposite to each other in that Matthew is a tragedy and Luke is a comedy.

To me it is obvious that Mark does not know exactly 'what' is going on as he reports only 'that' something is going on, . . . kind of like the evangelist who really does not know 'what' he is doing but only knows that whatever he is doing seems to work and that it has a lasting effect on people, who so effectively are reborn but functionally are 'from their mother's womb untimely ripped' and will remain like a butterfly without wings until they die nonethelsss.

JoeWallack · 07-17-2010, 11:16 AM

JW:
Chapter 3 - The Plot: Complication and Crisis

B writes:

Quote:

Aristotle distinguished three movements in the development of a tragedy: the complication, the change, and the denouement.

JW:
Note that previously B explained that per A a GT has 5 parts:

1) Prologue = Beginning of "Mark", the story background.

My observation is that here "Mark" points the Reader to the Jewish Bible for the background history (think Paul).

2) Complication

3) Change

4) Denouement

5) Epilogue

My observation is that here it is the Gospel that declares the Good News that Jesus was resurrected and not historical witness. "Mark" has no post resurrection sighting narrative (evidence) and does not want any (faith). (think Paul).

Complication
Per B, the complication is the resistance to Jesus' Mission. From everyone, Family, Friends, Disciples, Crowds, Religious, Political, Military.

Change

B writes:

Quote:

The pivotal event that provides the hinge between complication and denouement is sometimes called "the climax" or "the crisis" by classicists. This event often takes the form of a recognition scene, the discovery of an identity previously concealed.

For example B gives [Oedipus]:

Quote:

In a climactic recognition scene, an old shepherd identifies him not as the prince of Corinthian birth he had thought himself to be but as the son of Laius whom he had killed, unaware of his identity, and the husband of his own mother. Thus has been fulfilled the prophecy of the oracle of Delphi.

JW:
B notes that in the Latin version of Oedipus:

Quote:

one of Seneca's nine closet-dramas is an Oedipus inspired by Sophocles' tragedy. The Latin adaption places great emphasis on the vicarious aspect of Oedipus's suffering: the Thebans are spared because the guilt for the pollution is placed upon Oedipus, who having sinned unknowingly, is innocent.

[Clivedurdle, look out! The author of "Mark" is more likely a Roman imitator of Seneca.]

Note the parallels to "Mark":

1) The Revelation of who Jesus is really the son of. Note especially the same direction. The son of as opposed to who his father is (emphasis on son).

2) The Shepherd.

3) The key issue of identity.

4) The Twist. Instead of son killing father. Father killing son. In classic GM (Greek Mythology) and GH (Greek History) the father kills the son to prevent him from becoming king. In "Mark" the father kills the son to enable him to become king.

5) Fulfillment of prophecy (The Jewish Bible/Oracle).

6) Pollution within walls (Temple/City) as punishment for guilt.

7) Vicarious atonement of innocent sacrifice.

Note that in "Mark" the Change comes exactly half-way (chapters 8/9). B claims the Recognition is Peter's confession of Christ. Up to that point Jesus' identity is unknown. At confession the disciples recognize/understand who Jesus is. But in the great twist of "Mark" they than do not understand what that means.

B fails to recognize that there are actually two recognition scenes. One at the text level as described but the other is the immediately following Transfiguration scene at the sub-text level (for the Reader) which provides the full recognition. The authority of the Jewish Bible is limited to identifying who the Messiah is. The authority for what that means comes from the son of god:

Mark 9

Quote:

9:7 And there came a cloud overshadowing them: and there came a voice out of the cloud, This is my beloved Son: hear ye him.

The message is don't look to the Jewish Bible for what you think it means to be the Messiah. Get that from the son of god (think Paul).

When you understand Paul/"Mark" as opposed to the HW (historical witness) Gospels you get closer to Marcion with the primary emphasis on Revelation rather than the Jewish Bible.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 07-25-2010, 04:20 PM

JW:
Chapter 3 - The Plot: Complication and Crisis

B points out that the Complication in "Mark" is the resistance to Jesus' Mission. B identifies the individual groups that are resisting and especially how they are resisting.

In a wonderful irony, "Mark" has a theme that Jesus' natural enemies, the demons, all obey him, and Jesus' natural allies all disobey him (my observation). This type of Style is a long way from a straight-forward presentation of history.

Super-Skeptic Neil Godfree has commented that he sees "Mark" primarily as an issue of "recognition" rather than Irony as I see it. Certainly all of the spiritual characters in "Mark", God, Angels, Satan and Demons, all recognize Jesus as a spiritual character. It's the human characters that have a hard time seeing this. Therefore, the humans recognize the human Messiah or Jesus, but they do not recognize the spiritual son of God or Christ. Note again at the critical Recognition scene(s) in "Mark" (ch. 8-9), at the text level Peter recognizes the human Messiah and at the sub-text level the Reader recognizes the spiritual son of God. All explicit. Classic GT, the evidence for identity gradually builds in Complication, is briefly but clearly presented in Crisis (Recognition) and the heroes' fortune changes in denouement (transition from Teaching & Healing Messiah Ministry to Passion of son of God Mission).

In the classic GT described by A it is the hero who has the recognition problem. "Mark" has cleverly inverted to everyone except the hero has the recognition problem. 600 years from Sophocles would be long enough to inspire some variation I think.

"Mark" shows resistance from every group in the narrative based on the context of the group:

Regarding the Disciple's resistance B writes:

Quote:

but for the twelve disciples who share in the Messiah's ministry not to recognize His essential nature pertains to the very essence of tragedy.

The nature of disciple purpose is to promote the teacher. Note that "Mark" explicitly presents the disciples as not telling anyone the only important thing that Jesus did (according to "Mark"), resurrect. This is the most (only?) important group for success and that is why it dominates the narrative. They are supposed to tell everyone and tell no one (irony).

The next most important group for success would be the religious authority. They are supposed to identify the Messiah for the masses (so to speak). They identify Jesus as a Messiah, but as a false Messiah. Now the stage is set for false messiahs to be identified as real messiahs. Thanks guys (irony).

Another group are the political leaders. Political leaders are supposed to show leadership. Herod recognizes JtB as a Prophet but is emasculated on the subject by Herodias and kaitons to her by destroying JtB (just as the Disciples are shown up (so to speak) by the women at the Passion). His subject Jesus is being crucified by the Romans. Who cares?(irony).

Pilate is the judiciary. He judges that Jesus is innocent so he finds him guilty (irony).

The military give Jesus a conquering hero salute (irony). They should follow orders from Jesus. They follow orders to Jesus.

Jesus' family try to shut him up and bring him home (irony). They should be bringing him to the outside. They try to bring him back to the inside.

Jesus' followers leave him (irony).

Lotta style here. This is l-o-n-g way from bio.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 08-01-2010, 01:24 PM

JW:
Chapter 3 - The Plot: Complication and Crisis

B makes great observations here as to the lack of recognition of what being the Messiah means and why it is not recognized but tries to avoid attributing these observations to the Disciples even though an objective reading makes clear that the Disciples are in fact the primary target of "Mark's" related criticism. As a Conservative believer B does not want to concede a supposed link between J and the Church.

B writes:

Quote:

In the first half of the Gospel, the complication in regard to the accomplishment of the messianic mission arises from the fact that this concept of the suffering Messiah remains hidden from everyone except Jesus Himself.

During the Teaching and Healing Ministry Jesus knows that fulfillment of the Traditional expectation of the Messiah will create resistance to a Passion of the same Messiah. As a side note "Mark's" conception of the traditional Messiah at the time is fictional anyway as the historical expectation was a military/political hero such as BK. Going with "Mark's" fictional universe though the Messianic Secret is explained. Jesus teaches in secret and forbids publicity because he knows it will hurt belief in his Passion. The unintended irony though is that Jesus' popularity as a T & H Messiah is what makes his Passion possible. In order for everyone to abandon Jesus (and note that in "Mark" God's Spirit leaves Jesus at the crucifixion so everyone abandons Jesus -understand dear Reader) everyone (including and especially the Disciples) must have the mistaken concept of the T & H Messiah who is supposed to conquer and not be conquered. These types of contradiction only exist in Fiction and not history.

B writes that Jesus recognized his Passion mission but did he recognize the full montyage? Again, as a Conservative, B wants to believe that "Mark's" Jesus has full recognition, but "Mark" indicates otherwise. Jesus did not know that God would abandon him at the crucifixion and appears to have lost his faith here. The fatal flaw of the hero? Likewise Jesus expected his disciples to promote his Passion which per "Mark" they did not. Another fatal flaw?

As always, consider what the Reader would have thought of Jesus and his Disciples without knowing of subsequent Gospels. The reliance of subsequent Gospels on "Mark" tells us that there was no other Jesus narrative which means the Readers of "Mark" would have only had Paul and Fake Paul as background. Based on Paul and Fake Paul what would a Reader have thought of the historical Disciples going into "Mark" and how would "Mark" have changed that?

B falls into the same error as mainstream Christian Bible scholarship, the anachronistic reading of supposed subsequent Disciple success back into "Mark".

As another side, the complete theme in "Mark" of specifically Disciple failure and generally of all audience failure versus the same near failures in Forged "Mark" and subsequent Gospels and the clear relationship between distance to "Mark" and the level of failure in subsequent Gospels is probably the best evidence for priority of "Mark", even though it is never even mentioned as a factor, as identification of themes is exponentially better evidence than lesser grouping as large pieces of evidence such as themes give consistency, which is the gold of evidence.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 11-20-2010, 02:38 PM

JW:
Chapter 3 - The Plot: Complication and Crisis

Later in his book B notes that foreshadowing is a common literary technique of GT. In Chapter 3 B notes the parallels between JtB and JC:

Quote:

25. Both John and Jesus are introduced into the narration with the same formula, Καὶ ἐγένετο (1:4, 9). They both suddenly appear on the scene according to prophecy (1:2), with identical messages and similar ministries. John, however, designates himself as the lesser one and as the herald of the other. His precursory ministry and death foreshadow Jesus' passion...
It is interesting to note that Mark postponed the explanation for John's arrest from the very first lines of the Gospel to this point where decisive confrontations have taken place between Jesus and his opponents...
The circumstances surrounding the death of John suggest a foreshadowing of the passion of Jesus, complete with an allusion to the resurrection.

A very good part of the Structure of GT, the Complication or resistance to Jesus, to put all this.

Super Skeptic Neil Godfree has likewise inventoried the parallels between JtB and JC:

John the Baptist’s head: a eucharist for the Herods

Quote:

1. John the Baptist’s death is signalled by Jesus as a forerunner of his own death. What “they did to John” they will do to Jesus, too.
2. It was not Herod’s will to kill John the Baptist, since he knew he was a good man, but he was pressured by his wife; Pilate is arguably reluctant to kill Jesus, knowing him to be innocent, but is pressured by the priests.
3. Herodias wants John dead because he condemns her sin; Jesus is hated by the priests for exposing their hypocrisy.
4. Both the deaths of John and Jesus are associated with ensuing resurrections. Herod believes Jesus is John the Baptist risen from the dead.
5. John the Baptist’s followers reverentially bury him; not the disciples, but a few women followers and Joseph of Arimathea, bury Jesus.
6. Herod promised his girl whatever she asked, up to half his kingdom; disciples of Jesus (James and John) asked Jesus to grant their desire — to sit on either side of him over the entire kingdom. But Jesus said such a request was not in his power to grant.
7. Herod’s special feast and Jesus’ last supper both take place on momentous days: Herod’s birthday and Passover. A secular and a holy memorial juxtaposed.
8. At both feasts there was a betrayal and entrapment.
9. Both Herod and Jesus suffer grief, sorrow, when realizing what they had to follow through — Herod because of is promise, Jesus because of his piety. (John the Baptist probably suffered a twinge of grief, too, at least for a moment.)
10. The most vivid detail is that the head is served on a dinner dish. Herod had thought Jesus was John the Baptist. Jesus had instructed his disciples to “eat his flesh”. (MacDonald points to the possibility that Mark here was also drawing on a scene in Book 10 of the Odyssey in which cannibalism also features.)

The parallels are multiple. What is the simplest explanation for the tale in Mark, unique in this Gospel for its rambling and gruesome character?

1. That Mark had a literary relapse and waxed ramblingly out of character?
2. That Mark’s source here (in Aramaic or other) was unique in being written on a much longer or wider piece of papyrus or parchment?
3. That Mark was filling out the story to draw as many links with the death of Jesus as he could?

As usual note that MT and L have edited out many of the parallels presumably to make it sound less contrived.

As a side note, my recent Thread:

Is the Gospel of Mark "ungrammatical" or Smooth, Sualvific and Deboanerges?

potentially stands in opposition to this one. If "Mark" has a genre of Greek Tragedy this is a sophisticated literary adjective as opposed to "ungrammatical" which is crude. An explanation though is that Greek was secondary to "Mark" but I find it unlikely that a skilled Latin author of the time would not know basic Greek.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

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

06-28-2010, 07:26 AM	#52
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Is this not very easily tested? Run the works of Seneca and gMark through some plagiarism software?

07-04-2010, 05:31 AM	#56
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	My question now is if the first three gospels still are synoptic? or should rightfully be called synoptic if Matthew and Luke are opposite to each other in that Matthew is a tragedy and Luke is a comedy. To me it is obvious that Mark does not know exactly 'what' is going on as he reports only 'that' something is going on, . . . kind of like the evangelist who really does not know 'what' he is doing but only knows that whatever he is doing seems to work and that it has a lasting effect on people, who so effectively are reborn but functionally are 'from their mother's womb untimely ripped' and will remain like a butterfly without wings until they die nonethelsss.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.