ApostateAbe

In a debate about how to make the best sense of Mark, it was suggested that I read the thread, Wrestling With Greco Tragedy. Reversal From Behind. Is "Mark" Greek Tragedy? by JoeWallack. In it, he lists the many ways that the gospel of Mark meets the definition of a Greek tragedy (the Wikipedia definition, anyway).

I believe there are many problems with JoeWallack's analysis. For one thing, in any tragedy, you know exactly who the protagonist (the tragic hero) is, and the entire play follows that character. JoeWallack has two protagonists--Jesus and Peter. JoeWallack thinks Mark intended Peter as the tragic hero, or else some of the criteria do not fit. But that would be highly implausible, as the entire narrative focuses on Jesus. Jesus is in every scene, but not Peter. Moreover, if Peter is the tragic hero, then even fewer of the criteria fit the story. If you have two tragic heroes, then it would be the first of any tragedy. The scholars who speculate the theory that Mark was a tragedy hold that Jesus would be the tragic hero, so that will be my presumption.

I think it is equally relevant to consider the ways in which Mark is not a tragedy. Some things about Mark are very much out of place from the perspective that it is a tragedy, and I will explain in the following list.

1. Tragedies are dramatic plays, where each line is a line of speech of an actor on the stage. The gospel of Mark does not fit that format. It has excessive narration from beginning to end. There is plenty of speech in Mark, but plays are entirely speech. Mark reads like a biography, not a play.
2. In tragedies, the protagonist meets a cruel end to his life with no vindication and no redemption. There are no happy endings in tragedies. There is a resurrection at the end of Mark, which would be a happy ending for the protagonist. There is more vindication in Mark 15:38, where the curtain of the temple is torn in two, apparently from a miracle, and a Roman soldier says, “Surely this man was the Son of God!”
3. In a tragedy, the unhappy ending for the protagonist results from his own character flaws, and the ruinous end is a just consequence of his actions. If the crucifixion is considered an unhappy ending for Jesus the protagonist, then Mark does not imply that it resulted from Jesus' character flaws. Blame is placed on the Jewish chief priests, the teachers of the law, the elders and the bloodlust of a crowd. The trial was narrated as unjust. See Mark 14:53-65.

   They took Jesus to the high priest; and all the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes were assembled. Peter had followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest; and he was sitting with the guards, warming himself at the fire. Now the chief priests and the whole council were looking for testimony against Jesus to put him to death; but they found none. For many gave false testimony against him, and their testimony did not agree. Some stood up and gave false testimony against him, saying, ‘We heard him say, “I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.” ’ But even on this point their testimony did not agree. Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, ‘Have you no answer? What is it that they testify against you?’ But he was silent and did not answer. Again the high priest asked him, ‘Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?’ Jesus said, ‘I am; and “you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power”, and “coming with the clouds of heaven.” ’Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, ‘Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard his blasphemy! What is your decision?’ All of them condemned him as deserving death. Some began to spit on him, to blindfold him, and to strike him, saying to him, ‘Prophesy!’ The guards also took him over and beat him.

4. In tragedies, the protagonist does not want his own ruinous end. In Mark, Jesus is aware of his coming demise and does not resist it. He does not flee Jerusalem when he shows that he is aware of what will happen to him (Mark 14:18, 30, 41) and he does not try to defend himself in the trial (Mark 14:62, 15:5).
5. A tragedy follows an orderly and unified storyline, where every scene is essential and ties into the whole story. Mark is not an orderly and unified storyline, but it is a disjointed series of sermons, parables, miracle accounts, and conversations that, for the most part, could be rearranged in any manner and make the same sense as before.
6. In a tragedy, the hero is a flawed character who should not always be believed. In Mark, Jesus is presented as essentially perfect, winning every debate, preaching excessively and controversially with no good rebuttals presented, drawing miraculous power from God, and getting resurrected after he was unjustly put to death.

If it is speculated that Mark originated as a tragedy and it developed to be more like a religious biographical narrative, then maybe someone should rewrite Mark as an example of how Mark could have began as a tragic play before it was changed.

Whether it is posited that Mark is a tragedy or a pseudo-tragedy, the most important concern is to have a model that explains the evidence with greater plausibility and explanatory power than the model that is established in the scholarship--that Mark is a written narrative containing spoken religious myth about the life of Jesus.

I figure a new model would be appropriate only when the old model has problems. What are the problems with the old model? How does the evidence not fit the conclusion that Mark is no more than religious myth of the life of Jesus?

Chili

In a divine comedy the happy ending is not resurrection but ascension. In fact, resurrection is the return of our faculty of reason after having spend 3 days in our subconscious mind to 'set the captives free' who are the inter-generational sins of the clan, tribe and nation so that we may be internally free in eternity. Zamjatin called these 'mephistopholus' or 'persistent evils' that require a head-on confrontation to be loosed (by way of understanding their origin in the lineage that set up the Cana event), and please notice here how Mark's Jesus clung to his faith as religionist-without-end to show that his own perfection in faith (Peter is faith) was his enemy that kept him torn between heaven and earth with the veil fully rent.

spamandham

You're right that Mark is not technically a Greek tragedy, but the term 'tragedy' is being used a bit loosely in the thread you referenced to refer to an adaptation of a tragedy for personal reading.

True, but Mark does resemble the works of Homer in regard to narration. It also resembles the Jewish scriptures in that regard.

...or something other than a formal Greek tragedy. Even the scholars who have done the work to categorize the gospels as period biographies have noted that they are unique and don't fit well into any well defined category, so I think we're doing a disservice to ourselves if we try to pigeonhole them too much.

...because it has a clear plot (even if the style is somewhat disjoint), and includes literary devices that are out of place for a history or a biography, such as foreshadowing, and a climax.

ApostateAbe

Homer did not write tragedies. He wrote epic poems. The Jewish scriptures do not contain tragedies. If you do not actually agree with JoeWallack and you do not think that the gospel of Mark is a tragedy, then I would appreciate it if you do not call the gospel of Mark a "Greek tragedy" so I am not misled. Toto also said that "Mark is essentially a Greek tragedy," and linked JoeWallack's thread. Maybe you should tell me what you think the closest analogue to Mark would be and then tell me the relevant differences between Mark and the analogue. Would it be The Odyssey? The book of Job? What? Cool, thanks.
OK, that is progress. Maybe it fits the format of some kind of fiction. What do you take the plot to be?

spamandham

Of course.

....not sure why you took what I wrote to imply that either Homer or the Jewish scriptures were tragedies.

Like I said, I think we're doing ourselves a disservice by trying to pidgeonhole Mark into some well defined genre. It just doesn't fit will as anything. It has elements that are similar to period biographies, it has elements similar to epic poems, it has elements similar to Jewish scriptures, it has influence from mystery religion writings and yes, it has some elements similar to a tragedy. But it isn't any of these.

The main plot is that the Jews' long awaited savior finally arrives, and is rejected by them. I wouldn't obsess over trying to call it a fiction either, BTW. Let's just call it a 'gospel' - it's own unique genre.

Chili

Except for Moses of course and that is about the only OT story I know and then there was Noah who did it right and we converted his story with our Advent wreath to do away with Moses once and forever. They are contradictory in that Moses failed to float his boat and parted the waters to get to the other side of life in hurry and that cost him the rest of his life in agony that we call hell on earth.

ApostateAbe

OK, sorry about that.
When you can't pigeonhole the writing, then your model holds that it is a very unique writing with no known analogues, and your model will have the disadvantage of implausibility when compared to a rival explanation that can plausibly pigeonhole the writing with known analogues, because it is more likely that such a writing will fit with what is already known historically. The gospels fit the pigeonhole of cult biographical myth, where there is one heroic figure who is perfect, who performs amazing acts, and preaches a moral religious message for everyone to adhere to. Other works that fit into such a pigeonhole are the Gathas of Zoroastrianism (only it was autobiographical instead of biographical), the Sirat of Muhammad of Islam, and The Lion of Judah Hath Prevailed of Rastafarianism. Why would the gospel of Mark not fit this known category? The plot?
Does not such a plot make for a mediocre story but an appropriate cult myth?

spamandham

...except that in this case, it's mainstream scholarship that has determined it does not fit well into any category. So it isn't *my* model in this case, it's *our* model, because you always defer to mainstream scholarship, and in this case I agree with their arguments.

What I don't agree with is the decision to call them biographies in spite of the poor fit, because the purpose of such classifications is to use them to draw further conclusions. But if the classification is not very good, then any further conclusions drawn from it will also not be very good.

If you'd like a detailed analysis of the genre of Mark, I'll refer you to Talbert's "What is a Gospel". It takes much more than a few paragraphs to explain it all. Talbert classifies the four canonical Gospels independently as different types of biographies, to which they loosely compare. But the devil is in the details. They really don't fit all that well into his categories by his own admission, but that's the closest he could find. There has been subsequent work that disagrees with Talbert, but mostly it favors what I'm saying, and I think Talbert is still embraced by more scholars.

It can be both if we allow for a unique classification.

JoeWallack

JW:
Well I have JP Holding on my side:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=us



Joseph

DRAMATIST, n.
One who adapts plays from the French.

ErrancyWiki

aa5874

Some will claim that the Pope of the Roman Church is on their side.

The reason for the Brevity of gMark can be found in the VERY FIRST VERSE.

Mr 1:1 - The author of gMark is claiming that he wrote about the BEGINNING of the Gospel of Jesus, that is, from the baptism to the resurrection.

It was AFTER the baptism that Jesus BEGAN to preach the GOSPEL of the Kingdom of God.

Mr 1:14 -