gstafleu

In another thread Ben asked me what I think the Genre of Mark is. This is always a risky question, as it begs circular answers like "The genre of a gospel is gospel." While I think that Matthew, Luke, John and others may indeed be of a genre "gospel," I don't think this is the case with Mark. Rather, I think Mark is a "Cautionary Tale," or possibly "Satire," see below--I'll describe the "Cautionary Tale" version first, although it does not essentialy differ from the "Satire" version. Now if you don't think that "cautionary tale" is an officially recognized genre, you can call it something like a cautionary tale in the form of a heroic biography. But "cautionary tale" is the meat of the matter.

Mark wrote, by usual reckoning, at about the same time as Josephus, that is some time not too long after the first Jewish war. Connections between Mark and Josephus have been frequently pointed out. Josephus, as is also well known, was not a fan of Jewish Messianism, he had little good to say about a variety of Messiah-types he describes. The reason for this was simple: Messianism was just asking for trouble with the Romans, as the first war had already shown, and the second war would show.

Mark shared these concerns. He had probably heard about the various Messiah-types Josephus describes (probably from Josephus), and had also heard about the Jesus Messiah cult as for example propagated by Paul. Historical details about Jesus may be sparse in Paul, but we have in this forum often seen how certain passages in him can certainly be read as referring to a historical person, whether Paul intended it thus or not. The Jesus cult was by that time taking on aspects of a Messiah who either had already been, or, more threateningly, who was about to come and liberate Palestine from the Romans. It was this latter possibility that had Mark concerned.

He therefore decided to write a cautionary tale about such a Messiah, with a simple message: "Messiahs don't work." "Don't bother with them," he was saying, "even if a real-life Messiah was to make an appearance, this is what would happen to him."

Mark's tale thus begins with a very simple Christogenesis, he didn't need more, just establishing that there was a Messiah was enough. So an otherwise unspecified Jesus shows up at a baptist cult, gets baptized, and during the process gets appointed Messiah by God. Enough said, nativities are not needed.

The tale then continues to establish two things. First that he is a bona fide Messiah, which is done by having him perform various miracles. Second, the tale establishes that people in general, and specifically his closest associates, the disciples, just don't get it. Hence the frequent put-downs by Mark's Jesus of the disciples. Sure, people will go for the miracle bit, after all they benefit from it, but that is where it stops.

While Jesus may enjoy some limited success in the boonies (Galilee), things really fall apart once he reaches the center, the part where he is supposed to messianically shine and liberate all and sundry: Jerusalem. The crowds may greet him with some enthusiasm, no doubt hoping for further juicy miracles, but the power elite, for obvious reasons, is less impressed. Jesus, as bona fide Messiah, of course knew this, and correctly predicted that he would not get out alive. But, as a last proof of his bona fides, he would perform a final and convincing miracle: he would resurrect. That should certainly to help convict everyone on the spot, wouldn't it?

Right. Everything proceeds as planned, except for the convincing part. The end of Marks tale, the resurrection, is as sparse as the beginning, the Christogenesis. Again Mark doesn't need much here, his work is now almost done. Jesus has actually resurrected, as a good Messiah should, but again nobody believes him. The women who discover it just run of without telling anybody. Sic transit gloria in excelcis dei.


As a final note, the Satire version. I have presented Mark's motivation as sharing Josephus' concerns about the futility of resisting the Romans. It is also possible that Mark's primary audience was not the Jewish community, but rather the gentiles amongst whom Christianity was spreading. Mark was then not so much concerned about negative results for the Jews, rather he just thought the whole thing silly and possibly, expecting negative Roman reaction, dangerous for those involved. In that case the primary message still remains "Messiahs don't work," but the secondary message would now no longer be "be careful," but rather "don't be silly," perhaps still with a dose of "be careful." This would make the genre of Mark more of a Satire. This possibility would relate more to the case where Jesus was seen as a historical Messiah who had already come (while the "cautionary tale" interpretation is more directed towards a Messiah-to-be.)

[BTW, it is tempting to postulate that Mark=Josephus, but I assume the work has been done to show that this is not the case?]

Gerard Stafleu

Ben C Smith

Thanks for starting this thread, Gerard. Let me at this point simply point out a minor issue or two; I will hopefully be able to address the more major points later on.

First, I do not personally think that there is a separate genre of gospel. I might prefer to call it a subgenre. You appear to agree with me that the genre is actually βιος, more specifically the kind of βιος that describes a divine hero of some kind (like Augustus, Romulus, Empedocles, or Alexander). Within this basic genre (βιος) or, if you will, this basic genre with a particular focus (heroic βιος), the gospels fit nicely as a subgenre; they can be shown, I think, to be more closely related as a group to other (heroic) βιοι than to works from other genres (such as histories, novels, or epics), but they can also be shown, I think, to be more closely related individually to each other than to other heroic βιοι. This is practically the definition of a subgenre, provided the differences and similarities are sharp enough to make such a subdivision practical.

Second, I object strongly to calling cautionary tale a genre; it is an authorial purpose. As a genre, cautionary tale is not even fit enough to distinguish between fiction and nonfiction. Fables can be (principally fictional) cautionary tales, and stories from my own youth that I tell my children in hopes that they avoid the mistakes I made can be (principally nonfictional) cautionary tales.

So I am glad you stuck that bit in there about the form of a heroic biography. That genre, I think, we can work with.

The rest I will have to save for later.

Cheers.

Ben.

spamandham

I am hard pressed to differentiate between the genres of 'hero biography' and 'legendary tale'. In both cases, an author starts with a story he has heard before, and adds whatever he sees fit to it to harmonize parts of it that are odd, to insert his own agenda with little constraint, or to puff up the hero that much more.

Can someone elaborate the difference?

andrewcriddle

IIUC and IMHO a "hero biography" concentrates on a person while a "legendary tale" concentrates on a set of events.

eg the story of the Trojan War is a legendary tale while the life of Achilles is a hero biography. There would be considerable overlap between the two but still a difference.

Andrew Criddle

gstafleu

To nip a possible diversion in the bud, what I'm interested in is the authorial purpose, not the genre. Feel free to make the substitution. "Genre" does not seem a very interesting subject, as it easily leads to points like `Well, in this "genre" we don't usually find X, so it is unlikely the author meant X.' That, I think, is rather useless. It is an attempt to establish certain things about a story a priori, given a certain classification that may or may not hold.

So, never mind "genre," that seems much too laden a term. Let us focus on authorial purpose here.

Gerard Stafleu

bacht

The word "gospel" is used a couple of times by Peter, and extensively by Paul

Does it not derive ultimately from Deutero-Isaiah ("good news")? Does Mark use the word ironically?

gstafleu

Yes, ευαγγελιον means "good news." Mark is using it in the same sense as Paul, more or less. Paul's "good news" was that the Messiah already had done his thing, just believe in it. In Mark's historicized version it means more the good news that Jesus is announcing, e.g. Mark 1:14 "Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God." Mark's purpose, however, is to show that a belief in something like that is bogus (at least the effectiveness of a Messiah preaching it is bogus, as is the belief in the effectiveness of such a Messiah--the message of the kingdom of god is a different story), while Paul was encouraging belief in his gospel.

Gerard Stafleu

bacht

Okay, I accept the point that Paul's use of the word is different than Mark's, but I'm not sure I understand what you're saying about Mark's authorial purpose, can you elaborate?

gstafleu

Well, that is what the OP is about. Mark's purpose with the story is not to tell the story of this wonderful Messiah named Jesus. Rather it is to show that the idea of a Messiah just doesn't work and hence that believing in it is at least silly and possibly dangerous.

Gerard Stafleu

bacht

Thanks. Do you mean the Messiah idea generally, or the Christian version of it preached by the apostles?