Sheshbazzar

My non-vote is for the not listed "Something else" or "None of the above", as I believe that the origins of the source materials inspiring and incorporated into Mark are so diverse, eclectic, and complex that it cannot be neatly pigeonholed into any one of these particular categories.
Intertestemental Hebrew midrashim and loads of Enochian angelology and mythology, mingled with elements of Zoroastrian dualism, all blended and adapted into a Jewish Greco-Roman Tragedy-cum-Biography + YHWH alone knows what all else.

I would certainly not account it as intended as any form of a valid historical account. More like an Ethical Drama written to inspire its hearers to think 'higher thoughts' and to serve as a literary cohesive delivery vehicle to get all of those weighty intertestemental midrashic parables, -ethical truism's- 'sayings', and an expression of messianic yearnings, into greater circulation and into the attention and vernacular of both the Jewish and the Hellenist general public.






.

No Robots

In most Jewish households, for instance, then as now, the stories of Esther and Daniel, whether told in Hebrew or the language current in everyday intercourse, are likely to have beeen thought (at best) as belonging to a twilight world between imaginative fiction, holy writ, and historical truth. Conversely, some Hellenised Jews will have approached many parts of the canonical scriptures with unconcern or scepticism regarding their historicity. As Wills is well aware, a similar kind of ambivalence may be thought to attach to the way that parts of the Christian Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles were presented: despite their novelistic features, and even though Gospel truth may not be the same thing as historical truth, the latter were clearly not intended to strike the reader as fictitious.--Review of Lawrence M. Wills, The Jewish Novel in the Ancient World.

No Robots

Burridge's case for defining the Gospels as bioi appears strong in large part because he did not seriously consider any alternative. The very brief review of scholarship under the heading "The Jewish Background" on pages 19-21 does not constitute a serious consideration of the relevant genres of Jewish literature. It is certainly essential to interpret the Gospels in light of Greek and Roman literature. But it is equally essential to interpret them in light of Jewish literature.--Review of What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography by Richard A. Burridge.

Vorkosigan

$100 bucks for the kindle!!! That's why I haven't gotten an electronic reader for NT books, because there is no saving.

Vorkosigan

JoeWallack

JW:
I think the proper Way to evaluate genre is to try and pick a representative sample of each competing genre contemporary to "Mark". Than determine the primary characteristics of each sample. Characteristics that help distinguish genre should be emphasized. Than compare how well "Mark's" characteristics match to the characteristics of each sample.

As mentioned Burridge's approach is fatally flawed as he only uses a sample for Greco-Roman Biography (GRB). His attitude is Apologetic. His positive target, GRB, is made as broad as possible, by using everything in his sample (without properly considering extent) and everything in the Gospels (not just "Mark"). His negative target, Greek Tragedy (GT), is made as narrow as possible by only using Aristotle's non contemporary description of an ideal Greek Tragedy (prescriptive).

Just trying to compare "Mark" to GRB and GT initially, I see the following 10 characteristics that distinguish GRB from GT:

1) Sources = GRB identifies sources

2) Background = GRB gives background to the writing

3) Theme = GT has a definite theme

4) Literary Form = GT is a connected narrative

5) Structure = GT has a formulaic structure

6) Style = GT has significant style

7) Irony = GT features irony

8) Divine = GT features Divine intervention

9) Impossible = GRB tries to avoid the Impossible

10) Effect = GT has emotional effect

The above suggests that "Mark" is clearly GT if you are only choosing between GT and GRB but is not intended as a substitute for a formal study.

As has been noted here, "Religious" is another candidate for genre and is not a mutually exclusive genre to GT or GRB. The problem with trying to evaluate for Hellenistic folk literature is that when your sample consists of fiction you lack limits to characteristics.

My main point in all this is that if/when someone goes to the trouble of doing a formal study of contemporary samples of GT and GRB and comparing the parallels to "Mark", I suspect that GT will parallel better. A secondary point is that subsequent Gospels move away from GT towards GRB but if we already know the change in genre how much historical evidence weight should we put on subsequent GRB genre?



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

No Robots

You are still ignoring, in the tradition of Gentile Bible scholarship, the question of the New Testament within the context of Jewish literature.

Solo

Mark was written as an allegorical epistle to the Nazarenes (not saying that it was the title, but Mark would not have used the first verse as it stands now, out of respect for Paul. Michael Turton's website suggests the virst verse was originally εν αρχη του ευαγγελιου - from Phl 4:15).

I am convinced from the central koan at 4:10-4:12, that the collection of anecdotes, allegorical events, and the therapeut(ic) passion play used internally by the community was offered to the Petrine exiles who were proselytizing in Mark's 'hood.... 4:12 is a generous offer that they repent their stubborn denial of the cross and join with Paulines under their tutelage.

The answer came via Jesus on the Mount: I am sure JW or Andrew or spin can read the parody of Mk 4:12 inserted into the sermon !

Clues: it's right after where Jesus rips into Mark for the Bethsaida cure, and before Jesus denounces him for the nasty response to the Petrine request for the gospel of Paul - lampooned by Mark as the cure of Bartimaeus.

Have fun hunting !

Jiri

JoeWallack

JW:
My update to my review of Burridge's What Are The Gospels? (The Appendix at the end) has now been posted at Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/What-Are-Gospe...rBy=addOneStar

Enjoy!



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack

JW:
Super Skeptic Neal Godfree suggested that I create a grid to try and visualize the relative strength of distinguishing qualities in "Mark" to the competing genres. Off the top of my head, 5 dominant characteristics in "Mark" are:

1) The use of Irony.

2) A Contrived style.

3) The extent of Impossible/Improbable.

4) Divine intervention.

5) Fictional sources.

So here goes, with "5" strongest and "1" weakest.

Characteristic	Greek Tragedy	GR Biography	Religious	Hellenistic
Irony	-------5-------	-------1-------	-----3-----	-----2-----
Contrivance	-------5-------	-------1-------	-----4-----	-----3-----
Impos/Improb	-------5-------	-------1-------	-----4-----	-----2-----
Divine Inter	-------4-------	-------1-------	-----5-----	-----3-----
Fict. Sources	-------4-------	-------1-------	-----3-----	-----2-----

I've already noted in Wrestling With Greco Tragedy. Reversal From Behind. Is "Mark" Greek Tragedy? that when you use generic characteristics for criteria as Burridge did, competing genres are not distinguished from each other (surprise).

The above table is not meant to replace a formal study of comparison with representative samples from competing genre, but only an initial observation. It suggests that "Mark" is actually anti-biographical/historical witness as all 5 significant elements of "Mark" are actively avoided by Greco-Roman Biography in general. This is consistent with "Mark's" attitude of Revelation as source and discrediting of historical witness. I don't think Greco-Roman Biography is even a serious contender here.

Note that the Religious genre also matches up here very well. I've thought all along that "Mark" is either Greek Tragedy with Religion as the subject or Religion with a style of Greek Tragedy. What makes me think it is Greek Tragedy with Religion as the subject is that you can best tell what the author intended by the ending. "Mark's" ending is clearly failure. Jesus' Mission is to convince his followers that he was resurrected (not to just be resurrected) which he fails to do. This failure fits Greek Tragedy much better than Religion.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki