gstafleu

No problem, my apologies if I sounded a bit curt (it had been a rather longish week ).

My problem with "genre" is that it can so easily result in circular reasoning. When you say "a lot of what we discern in authorial purpose has to do with our perceptions of the genre," you at once show that there is a close connection between the two. I'm not sure how to approach this, so allow me to try a few angles.

First a cartoon version: Pyramus and Thisbe is written in dactylic hexameters. Hence the story cannot possibly be about Pyramus and Thisbe, because nobody had written about them in dactylic hexameters before. This goes towards your remark that the purpose can be (partially) inferred from the genre. It is quite possible that an author uses a certain genre in order to do something that has not been done in that genre before.

Second, you object to my use of "cautionary tale" as a genre. I think you can only do that if there is something like a generally agreed upon taxonomy of ancient literature. In that case it make sense to say "that genre does not exist," just as it makes sense for a taxonomist to complain if I assign a plant to the family of the Gerardiacaeae. But in the absence of such a taxonomy things become more difficult. "Genre" does after all have a common meaning, something like "type." In that context I'm free to say that gMark is of the genre (type) cautionary tale. That, after all, is a well known type of story.
But how do we determine the genre? Presumably from elements of the story. But once we have determined that the story is a heroic biography, for example, we must have some characteristics in the story we can point to and say: "This is why it is a heroic biography." At that point, do we still need the genre? We can always point to the relevant characteristics if we want to make a point.
Maybe so, but I think it is more robust to try and infer the purpose of the author from the story itself, without bringing in externalities in the form of some vaguely established taxonomy. In plant taxonomy the situation is different, simply because there is a generally agreed upon discipline and classification (that whole thing Linnaeus started). Plant taxonomy accomplishes some useful things, like a rigorous classification, which can be used for identification and to say something about evolutionary relationships. Is the literary taxonomy equally rigorous?

All in all, I think it is more productive, in hind sight, to ignore the red herrings that "genre" tends to spawn, and rather concentrate on the meat of the matter: What is the message Mark is trying to give? Specifically, does my interpretation "Messiahs don't work" make sense? My claim is that this interpretation can be easily derived from the story, and in fact makes as much if not more sense as other interpretations. What do you think?

Gerard

aa5874

I think it is a bit naive to claim both authors of gMatthew and gLuke did not realize that gMark was not a historical account. For such a scenario to be realistic, these authors of gMatthew and gLuke would then be writing their stories very long after gMark and would have done no research, investigation, or consulted or talked to any persons who would be able to confirm or deny the veracity of gMark's accounts.

It seems more realistic that the authors of gMatthew and gLuke knew that gMark was not an historical account and in turn tried to historicised gMark's account by making additions and changes with the birth and post-resurrection stories.

gstafleu

All throughout the story Mark shows that the Messiah doeas not work. The disciples constantly don't understand his teachings, the greater public may like his miracles but balks at the decisive moment. The women run away in confusion when they find out he has been resurrected. Believing that there could be a viable Messiah is then clearly silly. It is possibly dangerous if it leads to revolution, or becomes at odds with Roman civic religion. That is an implication, not something stated outright.

Both. The spiritual Messiah is a constant subtext in Mark--he actually knew quite a bit about that subject as witnessed by the water crossing bit, the walking on water and the feeding of the multitudes. A good example of the disciples not getting the spiritual bit is the water walking and the business of the leaven of Herod and the Pharisees.

Gerard Stafleu

gstafleu

Don't forget that this was not the era of modern research! Let's say aMatt and aLuke wrote a generation after aMark. Is it then so strange to think they could just take it as a more or less historical account?

They certainly spruced it up. But in your view they sort of intentionally deceived their readership. Could be, but I see no reason to assume that.

Gerard Stafleu

Elijah

I don’t think it’s meant to show a messiah that doesn’t work but to end the people’s waiting around for a leader to rise up and make everything better. He’s trying to spiritually/ideologically kill the concept of earthly authority which is a theme that goes back to Moses... meme warfare. Get the people to worship a king or concept of a king that serves and dies for the people instead of the kings/emperors that want the people to serve and die for them.

gstafleu

If Jesus was supposed to be that king, it didn't work. When the people had the chance to set Either Jesus free or Mr. Anonymous, they chose Mr. Anonymous. Again: Messiah's don't work.

(As Ben pointed out in another thread, people were often identified by pointing to their father. Barabbas means "Son of father." So the father in question is not even mentioned, "Son of Who-cares" in effect. Sort of like our John Doe.)

Gerard Stafleu

Elijah

I don’t know if I’m supposed to treat this as HJ or MJ but I would say that it worked if your goal is to spread an idea be it either from an author or historical figure.

I’m not sure about the story of the people not saving Christ as a statement against messiahs working but more of a statement against the people naturally doing what’s right.
Are you sure that son of father” equals “son of who cares? “Son of man” seems to be a title of substance, just wondering.

aa5874

The author of Mark ,in his Jesus story, did not want Jesus to be freed. The author already put words in the mouth of Jesus ,as prophecy, claiming that he would be killed and then be raised on the third day.

Mark 10.34 [quote] And they shall mock him, ......scourge him......spit upon him........and shall kill him and on the third day he shall rise again.

I think the author of gMark was propagating a new Messiah, one who would never REALLY die, a new Messiah that was the Son of the God of the Jews and that did work, at least, up to now.

Mark 14.61-62

Elijah

I agree? The writers went to great lengths to make Jesus appear like a willing sacrifice.

Also agree they are trying a new kind of messiah, a spiritual/ideological one instead of an actual/political one.

vid

Couldn't Mark simply mean it as contrast?
Jesus = Son of God
Barabbas = Son of man (eg. human)

... and those stupid Jews *once again* didn't recognize Jesus, so they really really deserved their destruction from god.