Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 02-14-2009, 11:15 AM

JW:
The purpose of this Thread will be to determine if the genre of "Mark" is straight-forward Greek Tragedy or merely has major elements of Greek Tragedy. It will be assumed here that "Mark" is not a Greco-Roman biography.

In an attempt to start out on a neutral note I will quote Wikipedia

Tragedy

Quote:

Aristotle
Further information: Poetics (Aristotle)

The philosopher Aristotle said in his work Poetics that tragedy is characterized by seriousness and dignity and involving a great person who experiences a reversal of fortune (Peripeteia). Aristotle's definition can include a change of fortune from bad to good as in the Eumenides, but he says that the change from good to bad as in Oedipus Rex is preferable because this effects pity and fear within the spectators. Tragedy results in a catharsis (emotional cleansing) or healing for the audience through their experience of these emotions in response to the suffering of the characters in the drama.

According to Aristotle, "the structure of the best tragedy should be not simple but complex and one that represents incidents arousing fear and pity--for that is peculiar to this form of art."[13] This reversal of fortune must be caused by the tragic hero's hamartia, which is often mistranslated as a character flaw, but is more correctly translated as a mistake (since the original Greek etymology traces back to hamartanein, a sporting term that refers to an archer or spear-thrower missing his target).[14] According to Aristotle, "The change to bad fortune which he undergoes is not due to any moral defect or flaw, but a mistake of some kind."[15] The reversal is the inevitable but unforeseen result of some action taken by the hero. It is also a misconception that this reversal can be brought about by a higher power (e.g. the law, the gods, fate, or society), but if a character’s downfall is brought about by an external cause, Aristotle describes this as a misadventure and not a tragedy.[16]

In addition, the tragic hero may achieve some revelation or recognition (anagnorisis--"knowing again" or "knowing back" or "knowing throughout") about human fate, destiny, and the will of the gods. Aristotle terms this sort of recognition "a change from ignorance to awareness of a bond of love or hate."

In Poetics, Aristotle gave the following definition in ancient Greek of the word "tragedy" (τραγωδία):

Ἐστὶν οὖν τραγωδία μίμησις πράξεως σπουδαίας καὶ τελείας, μέγεθος ἐχούσης, ἡδυσμένῳ λόγῳ, χωρὶς ἑκάστῳ τῶν εἰδὼν ἐν τοῖς μορίοις, δρώντων καὶ οὐ δι'ἀπαγγελίας, δι' ἐλέου καὶ φόβου περαίνουσα τὴν τῶν τοιούτων παθημάτων κάθαρσιν.

which means Tragedy is an imitation of an action that is admirable, complete (composed of an introduction, a middle part and an ending), and possesses magnitude; in language made pleasurable, each of its species separated in different parts; performed by actors, not through narration; effecting through pity and fear the purification of such emotions.

Common usage of tragedy refers to any story with a sad ending, whereas to be an Aristotelian tragedy the story must fit the set of requirements as laid out by Poetics. By this definition social drama cannot be tragic because the hero in it is a victim of circumstance and incidents which depend upon the society in which he lives and not upon the inner compulsions — psychological or religious — which determine his progress towards self-knowledge and death.[17] Exactly what constitutes a "tragedy", however, is a frequently debated matter.

JW:
I get the following major elements of Greek Tragedy from the above:

1) Serious nature.

2) Involves great person.

3) Reversal of fortune.

4) Effect of pity and fear.

5) Result of catharsis.

6) Complex stucture.

7) Reversal of fortune due to mistake.

8) Imitation of an action that is admirable.

9) Composed of an introduction, a middle part and an ending.

10) Language made pleasurable.

11) Performed by actors.

Evaluating the extent of the presence in "Mark" is subjective. Some of the elements are present in the classical sense (with qualifications) per Aristotle and some are present, but not in the classical sense. If the element is present in the classical sense I will rate a "Match". If the element is present, but not in the classical sense, I will rate a "Mix and Match":

1) Serious nature.

Match. No attempt at the text level to be funny.

2) Involves great person.

Mix and Match. In the Bar(d)'s word, "Mark's" Jesus is not born great and does not achieve greatness, but has greatness thrust upon him (so to speak).

3) Reversal of fortune.

Match!

4) Effect of pity and fear.

Match.

5) Result of catharsis.

Mix and Match. Peter has the catharsis and I see Peter as the tragic hero of "Mark". Yet the classic presentation would have the main character (Jesus) as the tragic hero.

6) Complex stucture.

Match.

7) Reversal of fortune due to mistake.

Mix and Match. Peter's mistake is to deny Jesus but the classic presentation would be the main character.

8) Imitation of an action that is admirable.

Match.

9) Composed of an introduction, a middle part and an ending.

Match.

10) Language made pleasurable.

Match.

11) Performed by actors.

No Match.

Summary:

Match = 7

Mix and Match = 3

No Match = 1

Conclusion = "Mark" is a Greek Tragedy but not in classical form.

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Clivedurdle · 02-14-2009, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Performed by actors.

No Match.

Nope - Game Set and Match!

Quote:

The economy of the Gospel narratives is related to the ritual commemoration of the Passion; taking them literally we run the risk of transposing into history what are really the successive incidents of a religious drama,

so wrote Alfred Loisy, one of the most perceptive New Testament scholars of our time.[2] J. M. Robertson went even further, claiming that the story of the passion is

the bare transcript of a primitive play... always we are witnessing drama, of which the spectators needed no description, and of which the subsequent transcriber reproduces simply the action and the words...[3]

Even theologians who are less daring in framing hypotheses continue to stumble upon traces of some ancient drama that appears to underlie the passion narrative.[4] S.G.F. Brandon is impressed by the superb theatrical montage of the trial of Jesus[5] ; Raymond Brown finds that John’s gospel contains touches worthy of great drama in many of its scenes and suggests that our text may be the product of a dramatic rewriting on such a scale that little historical material remains.[6

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

premjan · 02-15-2009, 05:32 AM

Passion play.

JoeWallack · 03-31-2009, 07:44 AM

JW:
Gilbert G. Bilezikian is the go to guy for "Mark" as Greek Tragedy having written:

The liberated Gospel: A comparison of the Gospel of Mark and Greek tragedy (Baker Biblical monograph) (or via: amazon.co.uk)

The book apparently is even more difficult to obtain than The Nine Gates of the Kingdom of Shadows.

Here The synoptic gospels there is an outline of Bilezikian's view of "Mark" as Greek Tragedy:

The structure per Aristotle:

1) Opening scene/prologue (arche) 1:1-15

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

Quote:

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

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

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

Mark 1:4 John came, who baptized in the wilderness and preached the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins.

Mark 1:5 And there went out unto him all the country of Judaea, and all they of Jerusalem; And they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

Mark 1:6 And John was clothed with camel`s hair, and [had] a leathern girdle about his loins, and did eat locusts and wild honey.

Mark 1:7 And he preached, saying, There cometh after me he that is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose.

Mark 1:8 I baptized you in water; But he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit.

Mark 1:9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in the Jordan.

Mark 1:10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens rent asunder, and the Spirit as a dove descending upon him:

Mark 1:11 And a voice came out of the heavens, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased.

Mark 1:12 And straightway the Spirit driveth him forth into the wilderness.

Mark 1:13 And he was in the wilderness forty days tempted of Satan; And he was with the wild beasts; And the angels ministered unto him.

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

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

JW:
Jesus' mission is to prepare for the kingdom of God (no matter what your perspective is).

2) Complication (desis) 1:16 - 8:26

Quote:

Mark 1:16 And passing along by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net in the sea; for they were fishers.

Mark 1:17 And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.

Mark 1:18 And straightway they left the nets, and followed him.

...

Mark 8:18 Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember?

Mark 8:19 When I brake the five loaves among the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces took ye up? They say unto him, Twelve.

Mark 8:20 And when the seven among the four thousand, how many basketfuls of broken pieces took ye up? And they say unto him, Seven.

Mark 8:21 And he said unto them, Do ye not yet understand?

Mark 8:22 And they come unto Bethsaida. And they bring to him a blind man, and beseech him to touch him.

Mark 8:23 And he took hold of the blind man by the hand, and brought him out of the village; and when he had spit on his eyes, and laid his hands upon him, he asked him, Seest thou aught?

Mark 8:24 And he looked up, and said, I see men; for I behold [them] as trees, walking.

Mark 8:25 Then again he laid his hands upon his eyes; and he looked stedfastly, and was restored, and saw all things clearly.

Mark 8:26 And he sent him away to his home, saying, Do not even enter into the village.

JW:
Note that under the Greek Tragedy framework here, the means of Jesus preparing for the Kingdom of God is to make his disciples understand, not making others understand or even just resurrecting. He has to make his disciples understand to be successful. The complication is that through this stage he has not been able to make his disciples understand as they are resisting (can/will not "see").

3) Climax (anagnorisis). Recognition scene. Discovery of an identity previously concealed. 8:27-30:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_8

Quote:

Mark 8:27 And Jesus went forth, and his disciples, into the villages of Caesarea Philippi: and on the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Who do men say that I am?

Mark 8:28 And they told him, saying, John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but others, One of the prophets.

Mark 8:29 And he asked them, But who say ye that I am? Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.

Mark 8:30 And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.

JW:
Now the disciples understand that Jesus is the Christ. But they still do not understand ("see") what that means.

4) Change in the hero's circumstances (peripeteia) 9:1-9

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

Quote:

Mark 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There are some here of them that stand [by], who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power.

Mark 9:2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them;

Mark 9:3 and his garments became glistering, exceeding white, so as no fuller on earth can whiten them.

Mark 9:4 And there appeared unto them Elijah with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.

Mark 9:5 And Peter answereth and saith to Jesus, Rabbi, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah.

Mark 9:6 For he knew not what to answer; for they became sore afraid.

Mark 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.

Mark 9:8 And suddenly looking round about, they saw no one any more, save Jesus only with themselves.

Mark 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.

JW:
"Christ" equals the son of God and the son of God's mission is the Passion as opposed to the Christ's mission of Ministry.

5) Denouement (katastrophe). 9:10-16:8

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

Quote:

Mark 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.

Mark 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!

Mark 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.

Mark 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.

JW:
In this framework, the failure of Jesus' mission to make his disciples understand is made explicit:

"But go, tell his disciples" verses "and they said nothing to any one".

Mark also has Provenance for Greek Tragedy as it was likely written in Rome late 1st or early 2nd century.

I doubt that "Mark" was recognized as theology when it was first written as it is the original Jesus narrative in Greek Tragedy style. Note that all subsequent Gospels try to reduce this style. It was not until the Forged ending and connection with the more theological and historical sounding "Matthew" and "Luke" that "Mark" was recognized as theology. This is the best explanation for an early dating of "Mark". It existed but was not recognized as theology.

What other religious writing ever had such a distinctive Greek Tragedy style? I note in OutSourcing Paul, A Contract Labor of Love Another's(Writings). Paul as Markan Source that "Mark" does use Paul's ironically contrasting style from 1 Thessalonians but that is just an Epistle and not a narrative. The idea of the ironically contrasting/balancing spirit is also found in the Jewish Bible where the good spirit leaves Saul for David and is replaced by a bad spirit. Than David plays spirited music to soothe Saul's bad spirit. But again, I don't believe there has ever been a religious narrative in Greek Tragedy style like "Mark" which would mean it would have initially been recognized as Greek Tragedy and not theology.

Joseph

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

PhilosopherJay · 03-31-2009, 09:51 AM

Paul Goodman in "The Structure of Literature (or via: amazon.co.uk)" makes an interesting point that Aristotle, while taking Oedipus as the model for Greek tragedy has missed another model in Philoctetes. In Oedipus, it is the hubris of Oedipus that leads to the resolution, the fall of the hero. However in Philoctetes, it is Neoptolemus discovering a virtue in himself (he cannot hurt and trick an old man Philoctetes, even when it is necessary for him to do so to attain glory) that causes the plot to reach an impasse. After this a miracle happens (Heracles, as a god, comes to make things right). Goodman seems to be suggesting that there is a type of Miracle Greek Tragedy that does not rely on a tragic fault in the hero, but the noble action of the hero leads to an impasse which requires a miracle to resolve the plot.

Goodman notes in passing that this describes the Passion of Christ. Applying this to the Passion, we see that Jesus' obedience (a virtue) to his father, leads to an impasse in the plot - Jesus' death. A miracle is now required to save the plot - the coming of God in a future kingdom of God on Earth. The miracle is Jesus' resurrection.

Goodman also makes a distinction between the epic and the tragic hero that is very important. The epic hero is naturally virtuous and does not hesitate to die for the greater good of some community, while in the tragic hero, there are generally character flaws in the hero that lead to the needless and shameful downfall of the hero.

In the epistles, Jesus is always treated as an epic hero, while in the Gospels, he appears much more as a tragic hero with character flaws. In the earlier version/s of the gospels, it is likely that Jesus was even more of a flawed tragic hero.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

gentleexit · 03-31-2009, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Note that under the Greek Tragedy framework here, the means of Jesus preparing for the Kingdom of God is to make his disciples understand, not making others understand or even just resurrecting. He has to make his disciples understand to be successful. The complication is that through this stage he has not been able to make his disciples understand as they are resisting (can/will not "see").

So the listeners' lack of understanding leads to the teller's downfall. He keeps having to up the ante and meets his end in Jerusalem. Laocoön ends on a cross. "If only we'd listened" hangs in the air.

Judaism normally has the prophet ignored, then the nation falls. The other gospels layer on a more traditional flow. "The Jews" get it for ignoring the call.

Is this what you're saying?

JoeWallack · 04-01-2009, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Paul Goodman in "The Structure of Literature" makes an interesting point that Aristotle, while taking Oedipus as the model for Greek tragedy has missed another model in Philoctetes. In Oedipus, it is the hubris of Oedipus that leads to the resolution, the fall of the hero. However in Philoctetes, it is Neoptolemus discovering a virtue in himself (he cannot hurt and trick an old man Philoctetes, even when it is necessary for him to do so to attain glory) that causes the plot to reach an impasse. After this a miracle happens (Heracles, as a god, comes to make things right). Goodman seems to be suggesting that there is a type of Miracle Greek Tragedy that does not rely on a tragic fault in the hero, but the noble action of the hero leads to an impasse which requires a miracle to resolve the plot.

Goodman notes in passing that this describes the Passion of Christ. Applying this to the Passion, we see that Jesus' obedience (a virtue) to his father, leads to an impasse in the plot - Jesus' death. A miracle is now required to save the plot - the coming of God in a future kingdom of God on Earth. The miracle is Jesus' resurrection.

Goodman also makes a distinction between the epic and the tragic hero that is very important. The epic hero is naturally virtuous and does not hesitate to die for the greater good of some community, while in the tragic hero, there are generally character flaws in the hero that lead to the needless and shameful downfall of the hero.

In the epistles, Jesus is always treated as an epic hero, while in the Gospels, he appears much more as a tragic hero with character flaws. In the earlier version/s of the gospels, it is likely that Jesus was even more of a flawed tragic hero.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

JW:
Good stuff PJ. There's no question that "Mark" contains the basic elements of Greek Tragedy. The question is if "Mark" is a classical Greek Tragedy. The elements of Greek Tragedy compare well between "Mark" and the classic Greek Tragedy, Oedipus Rex (King).

The Blind Seer vs. the Jewish Bible

Prophecy that O will kill his king vs. TJ (the Jews) will kill his king

The blind can "see" while O and TJ, who can see, can not "see".

O and TJ are both seeking their father.

O does not recognize his father and kills him vs. TJ does not "recognize" his father's son and kills him.

O recognizes that he killed his king vs. it is recognized (the sign) that TJ killed his king.

O blinds himself and than he can "see" vs. TJ's eyes to God, the Temple, is maimed.

The big difference between "Mark" and Oedipus Rex for most people though is the flaw of the hero. O's flaw is hubris while it's commonly thought that J had no flaw. I have previously demonstrated in Was Jesus perfect according to “Mark" and “Matthew" that "Mark's" J was definitely not perfect. There is a clear flaw of J in "Mark", the only time he is instructed and corrected (shown up) by someone else. Predictably "Matthew" softens it and "Luke" is forced to exorcise it altogether. A clue is that Paul is the solution. Everyone is welcome to guess what J's flaw is in "Mark" except for Harvey Dubish.

Joseph

MessianicApologetic.com.edy

Solo · 04-04-2009, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:

Quote:

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

JW:
Jesus' mission is to prepare for the kingdom of God (no matter what your perspective is).

2) Complication (desis) 1:16 - 8:26

JW:
Note that under the Greek Tragedy framework here, the means of Jesus preparing for the Kingdom of God is to make his disciples understand, not making others understand or even just resurrecting. He has to make his disciples understand to be successful. The complication is that through this stage he has not been able to make his disciples understand as they are resisting (can/will not "see").

I think the comparison is useful and the framework valid [as far as that goes] but I think the "plot" is really elsewhere. It has been said that the underlying principle of Greek of tragedy lies in the vain struggle of the hero against destiny, i.e. an outcome that has been fixed. The difference between the classical form (say Oedipus) and Mark's Jesus is that Jesus knows this. Jesus is not trying to do anything with his disciples - he knows they are dumb and cowardly and their idolatry amounts to nothing. He is not trying to be successful. His mission simply is to fulfil his destiny. Faithfully !. He is not even like Job in having hope to be restored to God's grace: 'though he slay me, yet I will trust in him'. (BTW ...I always thought Job 13:15 should be read: 'Even if he were to slay me...'). Jesus has no vista of being restored on earth, his faith is in that his human destiny is not some sadistic whim of God. His fault is in that he is human, and that he seeks secretly relief of the burden imposed on him. Kazantzakis read right the Markan paradox ! Even the Redeemer has doubts that human existence is meaningful, if he is truly human. Markan Jesus' anguished, visceral, cry on the cross is the final irony of human existence.

Jiri

PhilosopherJay · 04-06-2009, 03:33 AM

Hi Solo and Joe,

I do not think the theatricality of the gospels necessarily lie with any general affinity with Greek tragedy, but with the use of specific theatrical devices. In this regard the Gospel of John stands out.

In the Gospel of John "the Jew" act as a chorus. There are even strophe and anti-strophes as in most classical choruses. As is typical, this represents the divided views of the townspeople.

Quote:

7.11 The Jews were looking for him at the feast, and saying, "Where is he?" 7.12 And there was much muttering about him among the people. [strophe] While some said, "He is a good man," [antistrophe] others said, "No, he is leading the people astray."

7.25 [strophe] Some of the people of Jerusalem therefore said, "Is not this the man whom they seek to kill? 7.26 And here he is, speaking openly, and they say nothing to him! Can it be that the authorities really know that this is the Christ? 7.27 Yet we know where this man comes from; and when the Christ appears, no one will know where he comes from." 7.28 So Jesus proclaimed, as he taught in the temple, "You know me, and you know where I come from? But I have not come of my own accord; he who sent me is true, and him you do not know. 7.29 I know him, for I come from him, and he sent me." 7.30 So they sought to arrest him; but no one laid hands on him, because his hour had not yet come. 7.31 [antistrophe] Yet many of the people believed in him; they said, "When the Christ appears, will he do more signs than this man has done?"

7.40 When they heard these words, [strophe] some of the people said, "This is really the prophet." 7.41 [antistrophe] Others said, "This is the Christ." But some said, "Is the Christ to come from Galilee? 7.42 Has not the scripture said that the Christ is descended from David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was?" 7.43 So there was a division among the people over him. 7.44 Some of them wanted to arrest him, but no one laid hands on him.

9.8 [strophe] The neighbors and those who had seen him before as a beggar, said, "Is not this the man who used to sit and beg?" 9.9 Some said, "It is he"; [antistrophe] others said, "No, but he is like him."

10.19 There was again a division among the Jews because of these words. 10.20 [strophe] Many of them said, "He has a demon, and he is mad; why listen to him?" 10.21 [antistrophe] Others said, "These are not the sayings of one who has a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?"

11.33 When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled; 11.34 and he said, "Where have you laid him?" They said to him, "Lord, come and see." 11.35 Jesus wept. 11.36 [strophe] So the Jews said, "See how he loved him!" 11.37 [antistrophe] But some of them said, "Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?"

12.27 "Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? No, for this purpose I have come to this hour. 12.28 Father, glorify thy name." Then a voice came from heaven, "I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again." 12.29 [strophe] The crowd standing by heard it and said that it had thundered. [antistrophe] Others said, "An angel has spoken to him."

Besides the chorus, for theatrical conventions, we can look at Jesus' final line in John: 19.30 When Jesus had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished"; and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

When an actor dies on stage, it is hard for the audience to know that he is actually dead, especially in this case where the actor is tied standing up and cannot fall down. In this case, if Jesus had closed his eyes and one of the Roman guards had said, "He is dead," the audience would have asked, "How does he know?" The logical solution is to have Jesus pronounce that he is dead with the announcement that "It is finished".

Now the writer of John may have added the chorus and just decided to copy a theatrical death that he had seen onstage and give it to Jesus. However, I suspect that the original material may have been in the form of a play and John was simply copying what he found there.

If we discover instances of theatricality in Mark, that would be a good indication that both are using a play as their source material.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:

JW:
Jesus' mission is to prepare for the kingdom of God (no matter what your perspective is).

2) Complication (desis) 1:16 - 8:26

JW:
Note that under the Greek Tragedy framework here, the means of Jesus preparing for the Kingdom of God is to make his disciples understand, not making others understand or even just resurrecting. He has to make his disciples understand to be successful. The complication is that through this stage he has not been able to make his disciples understand as they are resisting (can/will not "see").

Quote:

[/I]

I think the comparison is useful and the framework valid [as far as that goes] but I think the "plot" is really elsewhere. It has been said that the underlying principle of Greek of tragedy lies in the vain struggle of the hero against destiny, i.e. an outcome that has been fixed. The difference between the classical form (say Oedipus) and Mark's Jesus is that Jesus knows this. Jesus is not trying to do anything with his disciples - he knows they are dumb and cowardly and their idolatry amounts to nothing. He is not trying to be successful. His mission simply is to fulfil his destiny. Faithfully !. He is not even like Job in having hope to be restored to God's grace: 'though he slay me, yet I will trust in him'. (BTW ...I always thought Job 13:15 should be read: 'Even if he were to slay me...'). Jesus has no vista of being restored on earth, his faith is in that his human destiny is not some sadistic whim of God. His fault is in that he is human, and that he seeks secretly relief of the burden imposed on him. Kazantzakis read right the Markan paradox ! Even the Redeemer has doubts that human existence is meaningful, if he is truly human. Markan Jesus' anguished, visceral, cry on the cross is the final irony of human existence.

Jiri

gentleexit · 04-06-2009, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

... but I think the "plot" is really elsewhere. It has been said that the underlying principle of Greek of tragedy lies in the vain struggle of the hero against destiny, i.e. an outcome that has been fixed. The difference between the classical form (say Oedipus) and Mark's Jesus is that Jesus knows this. ... His mission simply is to fulfil his destiny. ... his faith is in that his human destiny is not some sadistic whim of God. His fault is in that he is human, and that he seeks secretly relief of the burden imposed on him.
Jiri

Contrast Jesus and Achilles.

The father of gods and men says "nothing is more miserable than man, of all that breathes and crawls upon the earth". And Achilles bemoans the Jars of Zeus, evil and good thrown down on whim. Still he leaves the ships, stops being "a useless dead weight", at first in revenge, but then feels pity and is no longer "god-like". He is "just" a man but he doesn't crawl.

Jesus is never fatalistic in this Greek sense (as you say), a man apart from the gods who must not presume too much. He's very Jewish - God plans, is knowable, man in his image etc. For this reason, pushing Greek drama on Mark seems forced.

03-31-2009, 09:51 AM	#5
PhilosopherJay Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Orlando Posts: 2,014	Jesus as Tragic Hero Paul Goodman in "The Structure of Literature (or via: amazon.co.uk)" makes an interesting point that Aristotle, while taking Oedipus as the model for Greek tragedy has missed another model in Philoctetes. In Oedipus, it is the hubris of Oedipus that leads to the resolution, the fall of the hero. However in Philoctetes, it is Neoptolemus discovering a virtue in himself (he cannot hurt and trick an old man Philoctetes, even when it is necessary for him to do so to attain glory) that causes the plot to reach an impasse. After this a miracle happens (Heracles, as a god, comes to make things right). Goodman seems to be suggesting that there is a type of Miracle Greek Tragedy that does not rely on a tragic fault in the hero, but the noble action of the hero leads to an impasse which requires a miracle to resolve the plot. Goodman notes in passing that this describes the Passion of Christ. Applying this to the Passion, we see that Jesus' obedience (a virtue) to his father, leads to an impasse in the plot - Jesus' death. A miracle is now required to save the plot - the coming of God in a future kingdom of God on Earth. The miracle is Jesus' resurrection. Goodman also makes a distinction between the epic and the tragic hero that is very important. The epic hero is naturally virtuous and does not hesitate to die for the greater good of some community, while in the tragic hero, there are generally character flaws in the hero that lead to the needless and shameful downfall of the hero. In the epistles, Jesus is always treated as an epic hero, while in the Gospels, he appears much more as a tragic hero with character flaws. In the earlier version/s of the gospels, it is likely that Jesus was even more of a flawed tragic hero. Warmly, Philosopher Jay

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

02-15-2009, 05:32 AM	#3
premjan Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 61,538	Passion play.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.