Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Solo · 04-06-2009, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gentleexit

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

... but I think the "plot" is really elsewhere. It has been said that the underlying principle of Greek of tragedy lies in the vain struggle of the hero against destiny, i.e. an outcome that has been fixed. The difference between the classical form (say Oedipus) and Mark's Jesus is that Jesus knows this. ... His mission simply is to fulfil his destiny. ... his faith is in that his human destiny is not some sadistic whim of God. His fault is in that he is human, and that he seeks secretly relief of the burden imposed on him.
Jiri

Contrast Jesus and Achilles.

The father of gods and men says "nothing is more miserable than man, of all that breathes and crawls upon the earth". And Achilles bemoans the Jars of Zeus, evil and good thrown down on whim. Still he leaves the ships, stops being "a useless dead weight", at first in revenge, but then feels pity and is no longer "god-like". He is "just" a man but he doesn't crawl.

Jesus is never fatalistic in this Greek sense (as you say), a man apart from the gods who must not presume too much.

I am not saying that Mark's Jesus is a man apart from (the) god(s). At least I am not quite saying that. What I am saying is - unlike the tragic Greek heroes and because of his god-like nature - Jesus knows his fate. He is not thwarted by it. He is overwhelmed by it.

Mk 8:31 And he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

Quote:

He's very Jewish - God plans, is knowable, man in his image etc. For this reason, pushing Greek drama on Mark seems forced.

The historical figure presumably would have been.

Besides, if you read what I say, you will not accuse me of "pushing" Greek drama on the gospel. I find the similarity in that it evidently operates with the concept of destiny. But I also find there is a significant difference in that Mark's translation of Paul's Christ into a passion play, Jesus knows his mission which is to carry God's will of his sacrifice. Mark transforms the hero's tragic fault (I don't agree with JW that Mark thought Jesus was flawed) into human weakness, in which the adopted man-god asks God for a reprieve from his destiny and in his torment on the cross feels the separation from, and abandonment by, his heavenly Father. Those are the key dramatic elements of Mark that I see.

Jiri

Solo · 04-06-2009, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Solo and Joe,

I do not think the theatricality of the gospels necessarily lie with any general affinity with Greek tragedy, but with the use of specific theatrical devices. In this regard the Gospel of John stands out.

In the Gospel of John "the Jew" act as a chorus. There are even strophe and anti-strophes as in most classical choruses. As is typical, this represents the divided views of the townspeople.

[INDENT]

Quote:

7.11 The Jews were looking for him at the feast, and saying, "Where is he?" 7.12 And there was much muttering about him among the people. [strophe] While some said, "He is a good man," [antistrophe] others said, "No, he is leading the people astray."

7.25 [strophe] Some of the people of Jerusalem therefore said, "Is not this the man whom they seek to kill? 7.26 And here he is, speaking openly, and they say nothing to him! Can it be that the authorities really know that this is the Christ? 7.27 Yet we know where this man comes from; and when the Christ appears, no one will know where he comes from." 7.28 So Jesus proclaimed, as he taught in the temple, "You know me, and you know where I come from? But I have not come of my own accord; he who sent me is true, and him you do not know. 7.29 I know him, for I come from him, and he sent me." 7.30 So they sought to arrest him; but no one laid hands on him, because his hour had not yet come. 7.31 [antistrophe] Yet many of the people believed in him; they said, "When the Christ appears, will he do more signs than this man has done?"

7.40 When they heard these words, [strophe] some of the people said, "This is really the prophet." 7.41 [antistrophe] Others said, "This is the Christ." But some said, "Is the Christ to come from Galilee? 7.42 Has not the scripture said that the Christ is descended from David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was?" 7.43 So there was a division among the people over him. 7.44 Some of them wanted to arrest him, but no one laid hands on him.

9.8 [strophe] The neighbors and those who had seen him before as a beggar, said, "Is not this the man who used to sit and beg?" 9.9 Some said, "It is he"; [antistrophe] others said, "No, but he is like him."

10.19 There was again a division among the Jews because of these words. 10.20 [strophe] Many of them said, "He has a demon, and he is mad; why listen to him?" 10.21 [antistrophe] Others said, "These are not the sayings of one who has a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?"

11.33 When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled; 11.34 and he said, "Where have you laid him?" They said to him, "Lord, come and see." 11.35 Jesus wept. 11.36 [strophe] So the Jews said, "See how he loved him!" 11.37 [antistrophe] But some of them said, "Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?"

12.27 "Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? No, for this purpose I have come to this hour. 12.28 Father, glorify thy name." Then a voice came from heaven, "I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again." 12.29 [strophe] The crowd standing by heard it and said that it had thundered. [antistrophe] Others said, "An angel has spoken to him."

Besides the chorus, for theatrical conventions, we can look at Jesus' final line in John: 19.30 When Jesus had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished"; and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Hi PJ,
I grant you there are dramatic elements in the gospels. I think, though, Joe in the OP was more after the narrative structure of Mark rather than dramatic techniques in the gospels generally.

Best,
Jiri

show_no_mercy · 04-06-2009, 05:25 PM

Wouldn't the writer of Mark, if writing in Greek, have learned how to read and write by imitating popular Greek works of his time (Plato, Homer)? Much like how we all learn Shakespeare?

I'm more than likely wrong, but weren't the only two types of stories for entertainment written back then either Greek tragedies or Greek comedies?

PhilosopherJay · 04-07-2009, 08:30 AM

Hi Jiri,

Yes, I think Joe is trying to bring out the affinity of Mark with Greek tragedy.

I think it is more interesting that while Mark, Matthew, and Luke are attempting retelling the Jesus tale as a Greek tragedy, John seems to be retelling it as a comedy. In this, he seems to be agreeing with the gnostics.

A good question may be, was the Jesus story based on a comedy before it was turned into a pseudo-tragedy?

As a comedy, the romance between Mary Magdalene and Jesus would have been a key and central element. Despite the extreme censorship in all the bible versions, it appears over and over again -the meeting at the well, the Martha-Mary scenes, the Lazarus resurrection scenes, the annointing scenes, and the tomb scenes.

Except for the crucifixion scene, almost all of the scenes in the gospels are comedic in one way or another. This is a huge clue that the original source material was comedic.

So how does comedy get turned into tragedy? Consider, Francois Truffaut's film "Jules and Jim." What is the most lighthearted of comedies, ends suddenly on a tragic note. But then, before we have time to grieve for the tragedy, there emerges a cute little coda to soften things: Jules narrates that Katherine had wanted her ashes scattered to the winds, but "that was against the rules." Katherine, of course, made her own rules, so the ending is perfectly ironic: rules only apply to the dead, not the living. Katherine is the ultimate femme fatale.

In the same way, the gospel endings, the appearances and resurrections and even the ending of Mark with the women saying nothing are also ironic in the same way. They soften the tragedy of the crucifixion, but at the cost of making the appearance of Jesus on Earth totally meaningless. The son of God appears and nobody notices. The son of God goes back home. Nothing changes. This too indicates that the source material was likely comedic.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Solo and Joe,

I do not think the theatricality of the gospels necessarily lie with any general affinity with Greek tragedy, but with the use of specific theatrical devices. In this regard the Gospel of John stands out.

In the Gospel of John "the Jew" act as a chorus. There are even strophe and anti-strophes as in most classical choruses. As is typical, this represents the divided views of the townspeople.

[INDENT]

Besides the chorus, for theatrical conventions, we can look at Jesus' final line in John: 19.30 When Jesus had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished"; and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Hi PJ,
I grant you there are dramatic elements in the gospels. I think, though, Joe in the OP was more after the narrative structure of Mark rather than dramatic techniques in the gospels generally.

Best,
Jiri

gentleexit · 04-07-2009, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Besides, if you read what I say, you will not accuse me of "pushing" Greek drama on the gospel. I find the similarity in that it evidently operates with the concept of destiny. But I also find there is a significant difference in that Mark's translation of Paul's Christ into a passion play, Jesus knows his mission which is to carry God's will of his sacrifice. Mark transforms the hero's tragic fault (I don't agree with JW that Mark thought Jesus was flawed) into human weakness, in which the adopted man-god asks God for a reprieve from his destiny and in his torment on the cross feels the separation from, and abandonment by, his heavenly Father. Those are the key dramatic elements of Mark that I see.

I see fate which is interesting - there's a topic: fate in the gospels, novel for Judaism? And a Greek-speaking Jew couldn't escape the concept. But I don't think Mark played with notions like "tragic fault". I don't see a Henry James figure musing on technique as he composes. I don't think he "wrote" a tragedy (or John a comedy for that matter. Where's the mother-in-law?). Now, we can analyse the work, copy of Poetics in hand, but this doesn't mean Mark wrote to such rules or emulated works that gave rise to those rules.

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Wouldn't the writer of Mark, if writing in Greek, have learned how to read and write by imitating popular Greek works of his time (Plato, Homer)? Much like how we all learn Shakespeare?
I'm more than likely wrong, but weren't the only two types of stories for entertainment written back then either Greek tragedies or Greek comedies?

The extent of Homer studied during basic education is overplayed. Sayings were learned by rote but it is doubtful that many - including those who had more than elementary education - ever read a full copy of say the Iliad from start to finish. It's long and expensive. And Plato - he was never a part of primary education.

As for tragedies and comedies. Pericles' Athens was the high-point for such drama. The mainstay of entertainment throughout antiquity was slapstick and mime. High-mime drew off the same lore as earlier high drama (Hippolytus etc.) but it was played for laughs and immediate reaction.

In other words, per Solo, there is Greekness in Mark (Fate) but not Greek drama.

andrewcriddle · 04-07-2009, 12:22 PM

The tendency in Hellenistic writing to merge together History and the conventions of tragic drama may be relevant.

See tragic history

Andrew Criddle

JoeWallack · 01-25-2010, 07:55 AM

JW:
It's clear that "Mark" has significant elements of Greek Tragedy. I see the intended genre of the Gospels as follows:

"Mark" = Greek Tragedy

"Matthew" = Interpretation of "Mark" as history

"Luke" = History based on witnesses.

"John" = The Gospel is the witness testimony for history.

Note that "Mark" than falls in the category of Poetics per Aristotle. Since "Mark" is primarily fiction the source can not be historical. It must be fiction (which can contain some history). The d-e-v-e-l-o-p-m-e-n-t of Christianity than could not be explained by history, it could only be explained by what the writers of "history" wanted as history. Hence, the path above.

In Poetics Aristotle describes the features of Poetics and specifically Tragedy and the elements of Tragedy. Included are characteristics of the Tragic hero.

Here is one summary of the characteristics:

Litonline Introduction to Literature English 112 (English Composition II)

Quote:

1. The tragic hero is a character of noble stature and has greatness. This should be readily evident in the play. The character must occupy a "high" status position but must ALSO embody nobility and virtue as part of his/her innate character.

2. Though the tragic hero is pre-eminently great, he/she is not perfect. Otherwise, the rest of us--mere mortals--would be unable to identify with the tragic hero. We should see in him or her someone who is essentially like us, although perhaps elevated to a higher position in society.

3. The hero's downfall, therefore, is partially her/his own fault, the result of free choice, not of accident or villainy or some overriding, malignant fate. In fact, the tragedy is usually triggered by some error of judgment or some character flaw that contributes to the hero's lack of perfection noted above. This error of judgment or character flaw is known as hamartia and is usually translated as "tragic flaw" (although some scholars argue that this is a mistranslation). Often the character's hamartia involves hubris (which is defined as a sort of arrogant pride or over-confidence).

4. The hero's misfortunate is not wholly deserved. The punishment exceeds the crime.

5. The fall is not pure loss. There is some increase in awareness, some gain in self-knowledge, some discovery on the part of the tragic hero..

6. Though it arouses solemn emotion, tragedy does not leave its audience in a state of depression. Aristotle argues that one function of tragedy is to arouse the "unhealthy" emotions of pity and fear and through a catharsis (which comes from watching the tragic hero's terrible fate) cleanse us of those emotions. It might be worth noting here that Greek drama was not considered "entertainment," pure and simple; it had a communal function--to contribute to the good health of the community. This is why dramatic performances were a part of religious festivals and community celebrations.

JW:
It's natural to assume that Jesus would be the Tragic or otherwise hero of "Mark" and therefore, the common objection here is that Jesus had no fatal flaw. While I think you can use "Mark's" Jesus to fit most of the above fairly well, I think it is actually Peter that "Mark" intends as the tragic hero and if so, than the Tragic flaw is fixed (so to speak),

The support for this is that "Mark's" Jesus is clearly Separationist. The Christ part is Divine. Therefore, Jesus Christ in "Mark" is primarily a Divine character, a god, something that is limited to creating the setting for the choices that the human characters will make. Since the audience is not Divine they can not identify with Jesus directly, the audience can only identify with the human characters like Peter.

Jesus' Mission in "Mark" is to convince the Disciples of his Passion. This Mission is clearly a failure in "Mark" (this is exactly what the subsequent Gospels/Forged "Mark" needed to fix thereby moving them out of the Tragedy genre). The question becomes, "who's failure is this?". If it was not Jesus' fault than it must be the disciples and Peter's fault. Let's look at the characteristics:

Quote:

1. The tragic hero is a character of noble stature and has greatness. This should be readily evident in the play. The character must occupy a "high" status position but must ALSO embody nobility and virtue as part of his/her innate character.

JW:
Peter meets all the requirements here:

1) Noble = His intentions are good

2) Status = He is the lead disciple of Jesus

Quote:

2. Though the tragic hero is pre-eminently great, he/she is not perfect. Otherwise, the rest of us--mere mortals--would be unable to identify with the tragic hero. We should see in him or her someone who is essentially like us, although perhaps elevated to a higher position in society.

1) Ordinary = fisherman

Quote:

3. The hero's downfall, therefore, is partially her/his own fault, the result of free choice, not of accident or villainy or some overriding, malignant fate. In fact, the tragedy is usually triggered by some error of judgment or some character flaw that contributes to the hero's lack of perfection noted above. This error of judgment or character flaw is known as hamartia and is usually translated as "tragic flaw" (although some scholars argue that this is a mistranslation). Often the character's hamartia involves hubris (which is defined as a sort of arrogant pride or over-confidence).

1) Choice = Peter chooses to deny Jesus.

2) Hubris = Peter

Quote:

4. The hero's misfortunate is not wholly deserved. The punishment exceeds the crime.

1) Disproportionate = Saves life at cost of eternal life (see Jesus' explanation of relative values)

Quote:

5. The fall is not pure loss. There is some increase in awareness, some gain in self-knowledge, some discovery on the part of the tragic hero..

Mark 14

Quote:

71 But he began to curse, and to swear, I know not this man of whom ye speak.

72 And straightway the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word, how that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.

Quote:

6. Though it arouses solemn emotion, tragedy does not leave its audience in a state of depression. Aristotle argues that one function of tragedy is to arouse the "unhealthy" emotions of pity and fear and through a catharsis (which comes from watching the tragic hero's terrible fate) cleanse us of those emotions. It might be worth noting here that Greek drama was not considered "entertainment," pure and simple; it had a communal function--to contribute to the good health of the community. This is why dramatic performances were a part of religious festivals and community celebrations.

1) Fear = The most common emotion in the Gospel

2) Pity = The most common emotion of Jesus within the Gospel and the most
common emotion of the audience to Jesus outside the Gospel.

3) Catharsis = Peter has at the Text level and the Reader has at the
Sub-text level

4) Religious festivals and community celebrations = Kramer?

Kramer: (pointing emphatically) Uh, Bingo!

Thus we have it on good authority that "Mark's" Peter fits Aristotle's definition of the Tragic hero well.

Again, the go to book appears to be Gilbert G. Bilezikian's

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

Which apparently is even more difficult to obtain than The Nine Gates of the Kingdom of Shadows. As I appear to currently be the foremost authority in the world now on "Mark" as Greek Tragedy there would seem to be no escaping my destiny of a fate of purchasing this book (and maybe even reading it).

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

neilgodfrey · 01-30-2010, 06:14 AM

Something seems not quite the fit we are looking for when we apply the qualities to a support role and not the main character. Peter is there as a foil to make the main character look extra good.

Is it right to try to apply Aristotle's description to a "tragedy" about a god? Is not Aristotle addressing a more human story?

What can be said about Prometheus (Aeschylus) and The Bacchinalia (Euripides) -- these might be closer types to the gospel?

Clivedurdle · 01-30-2010, 09:20 AM

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=272011

Quote:

Tragedy stresses the vulnerability of human beings whose suffering is brought on by a combination of human and divine actions

JoeWallack · 01-30-2010, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Something seems not quite the fit we are looking for when we apply the qualities to a support role and not the main character. Peter is there as a foil to make the main character look extra good.

Is it right to try to apply Aristotle's description to a "tragedy" about a god? Is not Aristotle addressing a more human story?

What can be said about Prometheus (Aeschylus) and The Bacchinalia (Euripides) -- these might be closer types to the gospel?

JW:
No question that in the classical Greek Tragedy the main character is the hero and the main character in "Mark" is clearly Jesus. Here I'm just asking that you consider how well Peter otherwise fits Aristotle's definition of tragic character.

Aristotle explains that a key element of Tragedy is to evoke strong emotions in the audience, especially fear. Ask yourself who the author wants you the Reader to identify with. I think its Peter and not Jesus. You may as a Reader be critical of Peter, but I think Peter is the viewpoint of the Reader and not Jesus. The Reader is supposed to learn mainly by Peter's negative formula example as a disciple and not Jesus' positive formula example as a savior.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

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

04-06-2009, 05:25 PM	#13
show_no_mercy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Dancing Posts: 9,940	Wouldn't the writer of Mark, if writing in Greek, have learned how to read and write by imitating popular Greek works of his time (Plato, Homer)? Much like how we all learn Shakespeare? I'm more than likely wrong, but weren't the only two types of stories for entertainment written back then either Greek tragedies or Greek comedies?

04-07-2009, 12:22 PM	#16
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	The tendency in Hellenistic writing to merge together History and the conventions of tragic drama may be relevant. See tragic history Andrew Criddle

01-30-2010, 06:14 AM	#18
neilgodfrey Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Darwin, Australia Posts: 874	Something seems not quite the fit we are looking for when we apply the qualities to a support role and not the main character. Peter is there as a foil to make the main character look extra good. Is it right to try to apply Aristotle's description to a "tragedy" about a god? Is not Aristotle addressing a more human story? What can be said about Prometheus (Aeschylus) and The Bacchinalia (Euripides) -- these might be closer types to the gospel?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.