arnoldo

Richard Burridge (What Are The Gospels?: A Comparison With Graeco-roman Biography (or via: amazon.co.uk))also seems to be on your side.

.

JoeWallack

JW:
Abe, you've been here long enough to know that in detailed analysis you should identify your sources. My main objective in the offending Thread is to use a Markan two-step approach to teaching. "Mark's" steps:

1) Identify the who = "Mark's" Jesus is the Christ/son of god

2) Interpret what that means = The Christ must be Passionated.

My steps:

1) Identify the what = "Mark" is Greek Tragedy

2) Interpret what that means = The Jesus' Mission at the Text level is a Failure

I'll deal first with your objection that Tragedy should/must have one protagonist who clearly meets all the classical definitions of a Greek Tragedy (GT).

Bilezikian (B) points out that generally Poetics (P) is the primary authority for the definition of Greek Tragedy (GT). B notes that Aristotle (A) never states that a quality of GT is that there is one protagonist who is the primary character. B's few examples though do show this. B thus concludes that the issue is disputed. B writes:

A wrote c. 350 BCE and describes the gradual development of GT from one character, to two and than three. B notes the expansion and variety of GT to "Mark's" time. Thus by "Mark's" time there is variation from what would have been considered classical GT by A. A and B both also describe character as secondary to plot. The standard objection to "Mark" being GT is that the hero Jesus is not a failure. The objections to this objection are:

1) Stating that "Mark" is a specific genre is a subjective assertion. What is objective is noting the strength of parallels between "Mark" and genres. If the best parallels are to GT, than even though "Mark" does not have all elements of classical GT, asserting that "Mark" is GT is a fair statement. The weight of the conclusion is proportional to the strength of the parallels.

2) A and B agree that character is subservient to plot in GT.

3) GT may have expanded to the point in "Mark's" time where the hero did not have to be a failure.

4) In GT the divine characters are typically part of the setting that the human characters are subject to. "Mark's" Christ is divine and the dominant part of the Jesus Christ character so it would be natural for the usual character qualities of the hero in GT to fall on Peter since after Jesus the story is mainly about him and a primary element of GT is identifying with the hero and "Mark" is constructed for us to identify with Peter and not Jesus.

5) 1-4) are unnecessary defenses here anyway as "Mark's" Jesus, as I have already explained in this Thread, is clearly a Failure. His primary Mission is to have the Disciples promote his resurrection. The text explicitly shows that this did not happen. This is not merely the best explanation for "Mark", it is the only explanation. There is no support in the text of "Mark" for the disciples promoting Jesus' resurrection (no support at the Text level. Sub-text is another story).

Jesus' failure here does not have to be the result of any fault on his part. He was simply unable to persuade "Mark's" disciples to promote a Passionated Christ. The standard objection at this point is that even if Jesus was a failure, in GT the hero has a tragic fault. But now you are conflating requirements to try and defend the hero failure requirement.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki