Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 01-20-2009, 12:53 PM

Argument by harrumph?

Quote:

B. A Greek Tragedy?
Still, some argue that Mark's story is one of disappointment. Of raised hopes and expectations that go unmet. A Greek tragedy perhaps. He raises expectations of great hope and accomplishment, only to have them end in failure and hopelessness. There is no merit to such arguments. Not only does Mark clearly believe in the resurrection, but the entire purpose of his Gospel is to spread good news.

http://www.christiancadre.org/member...rk_Ending.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy

Ben C Smith · 01-20-2009, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Argument by harrumph?

Quote:

B. A Greek Tragedy?
Still, some argue that Mark's story is one of disappointment. Of raised hopes and expectations that go unmet. A Greek tragedy perhaps. He raises expectations of great hope and accomplishment, only to have them end in failure and hopelessness. There is no merit to such arguments. Not only does Mark clearly believe in the resurrection, but the entire purpose of his Gospel is to spread good news.

http://www.christiancadre.org/member...rk_Ending.html

Who are these anonymous some who argue that Mark is perhaps a Greek tragedy (and with whom the author of that page disagrees)? Do you know? I do not.

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy

From that page (emphasis added):

While most cultures have developed forms that provoke this paradoxical response, tragedy refers to a specific tradition of drama that has played a unique and important role historically in the history of Western civilization.

Mark does not qualify. Sorry.

I do not deny, and in fact I wholeheartedly affirm, that Mark has tragic elements. That does not make it a tragedy, nor yet a drama or theatrical play.

Ben.

Ben C Smith · 01-20-2009, 01:40 PM

From Aristotle, Poetics 1449b:

Tragedy is an imitation of an earnest and complete action, and one holding magnitude, in language made pleasing with each of its kinds in different parts [of the work], acted out and not through narration, through pity and fear bringing about the catharsis of such passions. I am speaking of language made pleasing with rhythm, harmony, and melody, and of different kinds, [to wit,] that brought about through meters [or verse] alone and others again through melody [or song].

Does this describe the gospel of Mark? Is there anyone on this board who wishes to argue that Mark can aptly be characterized as having been written either in verse in some parts and in song in other parts (the Greek chorus)? Or that it is, in (any of) its extant form(s), a play to be acted out rather than a simple narration?

Ben.

bacht · 01-20-2009, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

While most cultures have developed forms that provoke this paradoxical response, tragedy refers to a specific tradition of drama that has played a unique and important role historically in the history of Western civilization.

Mark does not qualify. Sorry.

I do not deny, and in fact I wholeheartedly affirm, that Mark has tragic elements. That does not make it a tragedy, nor yet a drama or theatrical play.

Ben.

But isn't Christianity by definition a hybrid of Jewish and pagan traditions? If Galileans could emulate Cynic philosophy (Q kingdom sayings), why couldn't Mark be fusing Greek theatrical form with Jewish content?

andrewcriddle · 01-20-2009, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

I do not deny, and in fact I wholeheartedly affirm, that Mark has tragic elements. That does not make it a tragedy, nor yet a drama or theatrical play.

Ben.

The concept of tragic history may be relevant.

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle · 01-20-2009, 01:48 PM

Quote:

From Aristotle, Poetics 1449b:

Tragedy is an imitation of an earnest and complete action, and one holding magnitude, in language made pleasing with each of its kinds in different parts [of the work], acted out and not through narration, through pity and fear bringing about the catharsis of such passions. I am speaking of language made pleasing with rhythm, harmony, and melody, and of different kinds, [to wit,] that brought about through meters [or verse] alone and others again through melody [or song].

Does this describe the gospel of Mark? Is there anyone on this board who wishes to argue that Mark can aptly be characterized as having been written either in verse in some parts and in song in other parts (the Greek chorus)? Or that it is, in (any of) its extant form(s), a play to be acted out rather than a simple narration?

Ben.

Yes I have been arguing that for a long time.

It probably is not written by Seneca, but don't forget Vorsigan's study of structural elements.

Nazarenus.

Quote:

Ever since the Enlightenment, when the gospels began to be studied in a rationalistic frame of mind as literary works within their ancient context, parallels have been drawn between the passion of Jesus and the rituals and mysteries of the dying and resurrecting gods such as Dionysus and Osiris. The death and resurrection of Osiris was enacted annually in a dramatic performance. Greek tragedy evolved from sacred plays in honor of Dionysus. Did primitive Christianity, too, begin as ritual drama?

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] But none of these scholars has succeeded in reconstructing this drama or identifying its author. They came very close to the truth but missed a crucial elementthe drama that constituted the kernel of the passion story was not a primitive ritual performance, but a tragedy of considerable subtlety and sophistication.
The gospels themselves contain evidence that the creator of this tragedy was someone imbued with the cultural values of the early Roman Empire, a playwright of unusual abilities, who used drama as a vehicle for expressing specific philosophical concepts. The gospels of Mark and Luke originated in Rome in the late fifties or early sixties A.D., a period that coincided with the last great flourishing of Roman tragedy in the work of Lucius Annaeus Seneca (3 B.C.–65 A.D.). Seneca was the author of at least nine tragedies, all modeled on other, more ancient dramas. His philosophical writings are still admired for their elegant exposition of the Stoic view of life. Was it Seneca who wrote the tragedy on the passion of Jesus that the evangelists used in constructing their narratives? A question such as this can never be answered with certitude. It can be, however, adopted as a working hypothesis, whose success can be judged by the extent to which it helps solve the innumerable enigmas of the passion narratives.
Seneca’s choice of Jesus as a tragic hero may at first seem surprising; but we must remember that there was a whole gendre of Roman tragedy that dealt with historical events from the recent past (the so-called fabulae praetextae). Moreover, Seneca had a lifelong interest in oriental religions and wrote several books on the subject.[7] That Seneca had received some information about the founder of Christianity may be inferred from the allusion in one of his works to an unnamed individual who had aspired to royalty, but instead was condemned to suffer a cruel death upon the cross.[8] Seneca encountered, in the trial of Jesus, a subject worthy of his aspirations as a philosopher and dramatist. His treatment of it was strictly within the conventions of the ancient theater, since it corresponded point by point with the original cultic tragedy of Dionysus, which every subsequent tragedy tried to emulate:

The hero is defeated in a struggle.
He is killed in a sacrificial ritual.
A messenger arrives, announcing his fate, and the chorus responds with its lamentations.
The body is brought onto the stage and is buried.
There follows a recognition that the hero is not truly dead, but has gained immortality. He appears to men as a god, and mourning turns into a joyful celebration.[9]

bacht · 01-20-2009, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Argument by harrumph?

Quote:

B. A Greek Tragedy?
Still, some argue that Mark's story is one of disappointment. Of raised hopes and expectations that go unmet. A Greek tragedy perhaps. He raises expectations of great hope and accomplishment, only to have them end in failure and hopelessness. There is no merit to such arguments. Not only does Mark clearly believe in the resurrection, but the entire purpose of his Gospel is to spread good news.

http://www.christiancadre.org/member...rk_Ending.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy

Is it not possible to read the Transfiguration scene in Mark as a substitute for the resurrection?

Clivedurdle · 01-20-2009, 01:53 PM

Quote:

The Chorus Leaves the Stage

An ancient tragedy was concluded by the exit march of the chorus from the stage: this exit marked the end of the action of the play and was a most fundamental element in ancient drama; the entire last part of the play was a preparation for it, and hence was known as the exode. Since in the Greek stage there was no curtain, the end of a tragedy was indicated by the departure of the chorus from the stage. The chorus could exit silently or reciting a few parting lines. In his Heracles, Euripides reduced the final chorus to only two lines which are rather prosaic:

We depart lamenting and full of tears,
Having lost the greatest of friends.

The most effective ending is that of Sophocles’ Women of Trachis, in four lines:

You have seen astounding deaths,
innumerable sufferings,
never suffered before:
All this is the will of Zeus.

In the tragedies of Seneca the chorus usually exits silently, but in Hercules on Oeta, after the last words of Hercules’ mother, the chorus concludes the tragedy by reciting fourteen lines which express two thoughts, both of which could also have applied to Jesus. The first is that Hades cannot hold Hercules. In his analysis of the play Frank Justus Miller observes: The chorus strikes a fitting final note that the truly brave are not destined for the world below:

But when life’s days are all consumed
And comes the final hour,
for them a pathway to the gods is spread by glory.

The second is that the peace brought to the world by Hercules will come again to the earth. But from the gospels it can be inferred that in Seneca’s Nazarenus the chorus of Daughters of Jerusalem exited without any song. In Seneca’s play Mary and the chorus of her companions twice were about to leave the stage for good when they were called back, but they left in the third scene. Hence, the final exit was well prepared. In Hercules on Oeta the last words of Hercules are it is time for me to ascend to the celestial region, whereupon Alcmene (before the mentioned chorus lines) utters her last thought:

I shall go to the kingdom of Thebes
and there proclaim the new god added to their temples.

In terms of a stage presentation, this meant that the women exited on the right side of the stage, the direction of the city. The end of Luke’s gospel is very similar. Jesus blessed his followers and started ascending to heaven, while they

worshipped him and went back into Jerusalem, filled with great joy
and spent all their time in the Temple giving thanks to God.

The three final verses of Luke’s gospel originally referred only to the women. In the third scene of the last act the women had bowed down to the ground and, having followed with their gaze the white cloud in which Jesus was understood to have ascended, left the stage in the direction of the right. Luke’s gospel, like that of Mark, ends where Seneca’s play ended, but Luke interrupted his narrative by inserting a series of appearances of the risen Jesus. These appearances, which Luke felt compelled to include in order to prove the reality of the resurrection, required some far-reaching changes, which Luke was unable to carry out consistentlythe result being that the ascension of Jesus was described twice (Lk 24:51, Acts 1:9) as was of the exit of the women (Lk 24:10, 24:52). Such flaws, however, throw into even sharper relief the original scheme of Seneca’s play.

http://www.nazarenus.com/5-4-chorusleaves.htm

Ben C Smith · 01-20-2009, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The concept of tragic history may be relevant.

I agree. Some of the historians drew inspiration from Greek drama. I think some of the biographers did, too, and it would not surprise me if Mark were among them.

Ben.

Toto · 01-20-2009, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The concept of tragic history may be relevant.

The link is to Greek and Roman Historians (or via: amazon.co.uk) By Michael Grant

01-20-2009, 01:40 PM	#213
Ben C Smith Veteran Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Midwest Posts: 4,787	From Aristotle, Poetics 1449b: Tragedy is an imitation of an earnest and complete action, and one holding magnitude, in language made pleasing with each of its kinds in different parts [of the work], acted out and not through narration, through pity and fear bringing about the catharsis of such passions. I am speaking of language made pleasing with rhythm, harmony, and melody, and of different kinds, [to wit,] that brought about through meters [or verse] alone and others again through melody [or song]. Does this describe the gospel of Mark? Is there anyone on this board who wishes to argue that Mark can aptly be characterized as having been written either in verse in some parts and in song in other parts (the Greek chorus)? Or that it is, in (any of) its extant form(s), a play to be acted out rather than a simple narration? Ben.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.