JoeWallack

JW:
I don't automatically give weight to the consensus of Christian Bible scholarship. You should know that by now. I quote Brown only to show that there is no consensus. Brown is guilty of exactly what Burridge is in his classic The Birth of the Messiah regarding the question of likely source for the Infancy Narratives. Brown only looks at possible Jewish sources and summarily dismisses Pagan sources through bibliography to books exponentially worse than his. That's how the game is played but homily don't play that game.

As the sage Spin keeps saying, "If all you can do is quote others, than you have nothing to say." Right Jeffrey? Of course we need to look at the analysis ourselves to decide what genres "Mark" includes. Why in the world does "Mark" have to fit one genre?

I look at "Mark" and see amazing parallels to Greek Tragedy:

http://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/Tragedy.htm

"Tragedy depicts the downfall of a noble hero or heroine, usually through some combination of hubris, fate, and the will of the gods."

This applies to Peter/Disciples

"The tragic hero's powerful wish to achieve some goal inevitably encounters limits, usually those of human frailty (flaws in reason, hubris, society), the gods (through oracles, prophets, fate), or nature."

The goal is to have a successful Messiah.

"Aristotle says that the tragic hero should have a flaw and/or make some mistake (hamartia)"

The flaw of Peter/Disciples is that they lack faith.

"The hero need not die at the end, but he / she must undergo a change in fortune."

Peter/Disciples abandon the Messiah

"In addition, the tragic hero may achieve some revelation or recognition (anagnorisis--"knowing again" or "knowing back" or "knowing throughout" ) about human fate, destiny, and the will of the gods. Aristotle quite nicely terms this sort of recognition "a change from ignorance to awareness of a bond of love or hate."

Peter has a catharsis:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_14

Additionally, I think the demons fit the role of chorus quite nicely giving information to the audience that is not received by the characters:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_1

It's been noted by commentators that the characters in "Mark" other than Jesus don't react much to the demons. It may have originally been a play with a character wearing a demon mask or maybe "Mark" is just imitating the style in narrative.

This looks promising:

The liberated Gospel: A comparison of the Gospel of Mark and Greek tragedy (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Regarding Gospels being quality evidence of history because they supposedly fall into the category of GRB, consider that "Luke" is much closer to GRB than "Mark" yet we know it likely that "Luke" has a primary (unattributed) source of "Mark" which in my opinion has more elements of Jewish Midrash and Greek Tragedy in it than GRB.

Regarding how the ancients would have seen the Gospels, Christians came to see them as religious bios but non-Christians saw them as religious propaganda. That tells me that perception was based on religious orientation which supports that the genre was religious as in Gospels (surprise)



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Ben C Smith

But there was pretty much a consensus at the time Brown wrote (a fairly solid Bultmannian consensus). And there is something at least approaching a consensus right now (in the opposite direction, of course). Quoting Brown (before the consensus was essentially reversed) can be misleading, no matter what information you hoped to convey.

He does not have to fit only one genre. But each genre should be argued, not assumed.

I do too.

I think the gospels fall into that category, but I do not think that this determination alone does much to establish history. What it does is to help eliminate some kinds of mythicist scenario (certainly not all kinds).

I disagree with those who think that Mark being a biography in and of itself implies that there is quality history.

I am unfamiliar with these labels (religious biographies, religious propaganda) as ancient categories. Perhaps you can point me to an ancient discussion of them.

I think, pending your reference(s) to religious biographies and propaganda, that Celsus viewed the gospels as inaccurate βιοι. Both of those categories (inaccurate texts, βιος) were certainly known to the ancients.

Ben.

Jeffrey Gibson

You might wish to know that after reading the works of Burridge Talbert, Stanton and others, Brown changed his mind on the genre of the Gospels. See his discussion of this on pp. 102-103 of his 1997 An introduction to the New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk).


Jeffrey

Ben C Smith

Brown still does not sound completely convinced on those pages, and still ignores several arguments made by Burridge. For example, Burridge showed that not all Greco-Roman biographies require a birth narrative or an account of the early life of the protagonist, but Brown still writes:

Especially Mark differs from a biography pattern that would highlight the unusual birth and early life of the hero....

Is he merely saying that Mark is not like those biographies whose pattern includes an unusual birth? If so, why point this out, since Mark is like those biographies whose pattern does not include this?

Nevertheless, Brown does write:

It is likely that many 1st-century hearers/readers familiar with Greco-Roman biographies would not have been so precise and would have thought of the Gospels almost as lives of Christ....

This is more in line with Burridge than anything in Brown so far, but then he adds:

...particularly Matt and Luke which begin with an infancy narrative.

He just cannot seem to shake the infancy narrative bit.

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
So now you realize that Brown wrote after Burridge. Be sure not to confess it. I've quoted Brown here before (for you) and An Introduction to the New Testament is exactly what I quoted from. Page 103 is what I quoted. Here's all of the relevant excerpt:

This is the main issue in the related Threads here, what was the intent of the story teller. Clearly Brown's opinion, with apologies to Burridge, is that the Gospels were not intended to be GRB. The secondary issue is what would have been the perception of the reader. Brown continues:

JW:
That was really sweet of you Ben trying to soften the blow to Jeffrey who I think has some issues going on. I've never seen any supposed Bible scholar say there is a consensus that the Gospels are GRB. Who is saying that?

So glad to hear that you now accept that "Mark", which is the sole focus of this Thread, has elements of Greek Tragedy. Consider other differences between "Mark" and GRB:

1) "Mark" is focused on Jesus' Mission, not his life. There's nothing about Jesus before or after his mission which lasted less than a year. Please provide an example of this in GRB.

2) There's nothing in "Mark" about Jesus' birth or death (as the word is normally used in GRB). At the end of "Mark" Jesus is not dead. Please provide an example of this in GRB.

3) The 3 known sources for "Mark", The Jewish Bible, Paul and Josephus, are all non-biographical. Please provide an example of this in GRB.

4) "Mark" operates at the Text and Sub-text level. Please provide an example of this in GRB.

5) "Mark's" characters generally have a reaction to Jesus of Fear. Instead of identifying with this emotion the Readers generally react to the reaction of the characters instead of identifying with them. Please provide an example of this in GRB.

6) In "Mark's" story the characters are not good witnesses. Please provide an example of this in GRB.

7) "Mark" is clearly Separationist. God's spirit is what put the Christ into Jesus. The point is that Jesus was ordinary before and even Jesus reacts to Christ in the narrative. The implication at the end is that once the spirit has left Jesus he is once again ordinary so there is nothing more to tell about him. Please provide an example of this in GRB.

I have Faith that Burridge did point out the many similarities between "Mark" and GRB (did Burridge even try to distinguish "Mark" from the other Gospels?) such as both having people, places and events but how hard did he try to point out the differences? As usual I think it would do more good for Burridge to be here than for me to read his book.



Joseph

SATIRE, n.
An obsolete kind of literary composition in which the vices and follies of the author's enemies were expounded with imperfect tenderness. In this country satire never had more than a sickly and uncertain existence, for the soul of it is wit, wherein we are dolefully deficient, the humor that we mistake for it, like all humor, being tolerant and sympathetic. Moreover, although Americans are "endowed by their Creator" with abundant vice and folly, it is not generally known that these are reprehensible qualities, wherefore the satirist is popularly regarded as a soul-spirited knave, and his ever victim's outcry for codefendants evokes a national assent.

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Ben C Smith

You once quoted Brown from before Burridge (Death of the Messiah, maybe; I looked up the date at the time), and that is the quote I thought you meant, especially since you used the words summarily dismissed, and Brown did not summarily dismiss the gospels as biographies in the pages that Jeffrey gave.

Burridge summarizes the reaction to his book in his second edition, and concludes (A) that the old consensus no longer exists and (B) that, if anything, the new trend is to regard the gospels as biographies.

One point of caution on vocabulary here, BTW. I myself do not connect the gospels exclusively with Greco-Roman biographies. (I mention this because you almost always use this qualifier.) I also think there are similarities with non-Greco-Roman biographies.

Serious question for you; why do you slant your words so frequently? In this case, what is the now doing in that sentence? I once said that you do not very often track my position accurately, and this is the sort of thing that led me to make that pronouncement. If the now above is supposed to indicate that I once thought, let alone claimed, there were no overlaps in Mark with Greek tragedy, I think you are mistaking me for somebody else. At least, I do not recall ever thinking, much less claiming, that Mark was devoid of tragic elements.

The rest of your questions will have to wait. I am pressed for time. Sorry. (Besides, I do not feel like proving to you that the gospel of Mark discusses the death of Jesus. Nor do I feel like proving to you that 1 + 1 = 2. I have learned my lesson from your incredible comments on abrupt Mark not surviving to the time of Marcion. I will not endeavor to prove the obvious to you.)

Ben.

gentleexit

Philostratus' Lives of the Sophists. You don't see birth or death in most of them. The writer is celebrating a great movement - Greece renewed. Lives are told to sell that. Eunapius does the same.

As you say, Mark focuses on "the mission". The extensions beyond Mark push destiny too and so promote mode of birth, lineage. (Aside: none focus on name. I don't think any claim "Jesus" signifies in the way "Pythagoras" does. But then Jews don't, do they?)

As for the "life" of Apollonius. Wide travel to all fonts of wisdom. Facing down tyrants - old Nero the favorite. The ultimate holy man, "the man from Hope", "it's Spring time in America", yes he can.

Tropes like "based on" don't make categorical difference. Each of these tellings sells hard. To paraphrase, each has a focus other than a life, renders it incidental.

mountainman

Dear Joe and gentleexit,

Dont you think that it is necessary to qualify this a little when you use the term "mission" since although perhaps we can all agree that "Mark" is focused on Jesus' mission, so too are al least three other purported authors - Matthew, Luke and John. So we must be aware that Mark is not focused on this alone. He is one of four, each of whom appear to be lacking in the complete picture - either purposefully, or accidentally. It is like selecting one of the philosophers in Philostratus' "Lives" and finding a reality where we have four indepent contributing authors, not one.

I understand the OP is being restricted to "Mark", but we must be aware that "Mark" is part of a package which was designed to "focus on the mission of Jesus", and "Mark" was specifically deployed in the field with only part of the details, not all of the details.

Apollonius may have had more than one biographer (Philostratus mentions others, as does Eusebius) but we do not find manuscripts combining both biographers, in the same way that the editor(s) of the "new testament" used "Mark" and 3 others to present "Jesus".


Best wishes,


Pete

Ben C Smith

The Lives of the Prophets. (I cannot find this in English on the web; but it is available in Greek at the OCP website.) For most of the prophets only a brief notice of place of origin is given (such as: Isaiah was from Jerusalem). The focus of the life of each prophet is his prophetic mission and the circumstances of his death.

There is plenty in Mark about the death of Jesus. The resurrection is a(n alleged) biographical detail that one can hardly expect the biographer to omit; even the more skeptical Greco-Roman biographers noted prevalent opinions about the immortality of their biographical subjects (Augustus, Apollonius).

A bit unusually, Evagoras by Isocrates lacks any account of the death of Evagoras, although the narrative does make clear that Evagoras is dead.

Mark lacks a birth narrative, of course. So do Agricola, Demonax, and Cato.

It has not been demonstrated that Mark used either Paul or Josephus as sources. (Your own attempts to base Mark on Josephus have proven lackluster.) As for the Hebrew scriptures, I already gave an example of an ancient biography using the death of an historical personage as a model for the subject of the biography.

Please provide an example of any genre that cannot operate at both a text and a subtext level.

I am not entirely sure what you are talking about here, nor what it has to do with genre. Please provide some examples of the contrast you are seeing between Mark and the ancient biographies.

What do you mean by not good witnesses? Mark does not explicitly say that any of his characters were witnesses that he consulted.

Mark is adoptionist (I think), not separationist. The text says that the spirit descended into him, not that the Christ descended into him. I deny the implication you see in the spirit leaving him (that there was nothing more to tell); the gospel does not end at 15.37.

This is hubris.

Ben.

DCHindley

It be here:

http://www.summascriptura.com/html/L...ts_Torrey.html

DCH