lmbarre

Here is a summary of the traits of the tragic hero according to Aristotle and subsequent extensions of his definition:

Aristotelian tragic hero:

In a complex Aristotelian tragedy, the hero is of noble birth and is more admirable than ordinary men. He cannot, however, be morally perfect because the best plots arise when his downfall is the inevitable consequence of some defect in character (or tragic flaw).The spectacle of a good man dragged to destruction by a single error arouses in the audience both pity and fear, leading to the catharsis, a psychological state through which those emotions are purged; the audience leaves the theater relieved, or even exalted, rather than depressed.

Characteristics:

An Aristotelian tragic hero must have four characteristics:
Nobleness (of a noble birth) or wisdom (by virtue of birth).
Hamartia (translated as tragic flaw, somewhat related to hubris, but denoting excess in behavior or mistakes).
A reversal of fortune (peripetia) brought about because of the hero's tragic error.
The discovery or recognition that the reversal was brought about by the hero's own actions (anagnorisis).

Other common traits:

Hero must suffer more than he deserves.
Hero must be doomed from the start, but bear no responsibility for possessing his flaw.
Hero must be noble in nature, but imperfect so that the audience can see themselves in him.
Hero must have discovered his fate by his own actions, not by things happening to him.
Hero must see and understand his doom, as well as the fact that his fate was discovered by his own actions.
Hero's story should arouse fear and empathy.
Hero must be physically or spiritually wounded by his experiences, often resulting in his death.
Ideally, the hero should be a king or leader of men, so that his people experience his fall with him.

The hero must be intelligent so he may learn from his mistakes.

Now, an important part of my argument rests upon the probable thesis that the final form of Mark betrays an underlying narrative that has been expanded by textual insertions. I do not think that you face this issue of composition criticism and seem to be sort of in denial of it. That many texts reflect the work of more than one hand is strongly in evidence in all kinds of ancient literature. Take for example textual criticism. How are many of the unintentional variants are to be ignored. Scribes made deliberate alternations. So there's that. Also, the famous passage from Josephus which mentions the Christ is widely thought to have been expanded with Christian glosses. So there's that. Also, there is compelling evidence that certainly 2 Corinthians and also 1 Corinthians has received expansions. Then their is the widespread conviction of earlier versions of all of the Gospels as noted by the sigla pMatthew, pLuke and pJohn. Of these the most obvious is the convincing argument that the Gospel of John is not a unified composition. Bultmann's "Sign source" comes to mind. Surely John 21 is an addition, where chapter 20 fittingly concludes with:

20:30 Now Jesus performed55 many other miraculous signs in the presence of the56 disciples, which are not recorded57 in this book.58 20:31 But these59 are recorded60 so that you may believe61 that Jesus is the Christ,62 the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.63

Again, there is massive evidence that the continuous story starting with Genesis and ending in 2 Kings is hardly a unified composition. Here we have all the evidence cited by the Documentary Hypothesis and the Dueteronomistic History hypothesis of Martin Noth, and this with two editions, one Josianic and one Exilic, so convincingly argued by Cross and further support by Richard Nelson in his The Double Redaction of the Dueteronomistic History. No competent scholar thinks that Genesis through 2 Kings is a unified composition. This is way beyond doubt. Since this is true, historical exegesis must asked the question of whether a given text is unified or composite. Albright didn't reject the DH. Who does except Evangelicals for obvious dogmatic reasons.

So let that be settled.

Now what about the Gospel of Mark? Is it regarded as a unified composition? No. I was just studying the composition criticism of the Passion Narrative. You might find this page informative as I did.:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ion-young.html

Furthermore, the Synoptic Problem, and the widespread conviction of the existence of Q for that matter, shows that at least Matthew and Luke used sources, Q and Mark and added their own M and L.

Getting back to Mark, I fnd no less that eight examples of probable textual expansions that interrupt the flow of the narrative that continues across the alleged insertion. The story of the Baptizer's death is the most painfully obvious one. Here is a collection of the eight examples:

Eight major Markan expansions of pMark

1) The insertion of the story of John the Baptizer's death:

6:7 And He summoned the twelve and began to send them out in pairs, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits ; 8 and He instructed them that they should take nothing for their journey, except a mere staff -no bread, no bag, no money in their belt - 9 but to wear sandals ; and He added, "Do not put on two tunics." 10 And He said to them, "Wherever you enter a house, stay there until you leave town. 11 "Any place that does not receive you or listen to you, as you go out from there, shake the dust off the soles of your feet for a testimony against them." 12 They went out and preached that men should repent. 13 And they were casting out many demons and were anointing with oil many sick people and healing them.

14 And King Herod heard of it, for His name had become well known ; and people were saying, "John the Baptist has risen from the dead, and that is why these miraculous powers are at work in Him." 15 But others were saying, "He is Elijah." And others were saying, "He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old." 16 But when Herod heard of it, he kept saying, "John, whom I beheaded, has risen !" 17 For Herod himself had sent and had John arrested and bound in prison on account of Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip, because he had married her. 18 For John had been saying to Herod, "It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife." 19 Herodias had a grudge against him and wanted to put him to death and could not do so; 20 for Herod was afraid of John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and he kept him safe. And when he heard him, he was very perplexed ; but he used to enjoy listening to him. 21 A strategic day came when Herod on his birthday gave a banquet for his lords and military commanders and the leading men of Galilee ; 22 and when the daughter of Herodias herself came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his dinner guests ; and the king said to the girl, "Ask me for whatever you want and I will give it to you." 23 And he swore to her, "Whatever you ask of me, I will give it to you; up to half of my kingdom." 24 And she went out and said to her mother, "What shall I ask for?" And she said, "The head of John the Baptist." 25 Immediately she came in a hurry to the king and asked, saying, "I want you to give me at once the head of John the Baptist on a platter." 26 And although the king was very sorry, yet because of his oaths and because of his dinner guests, he was unwilling to refuse her. 27 Immediately the king sent an executioner and commanded him to bring back his head. And he went and had him beheaded in the prison, 28 and brought his head on a platter, and gave it to the girl ; and the girl gave it to her mother. 29 When his disciples heard about this, they came and took away his body and laid it in a tomb.

30 The apostles gathered together with Jesus ; and they reported to Him all that they had done and taught.

2) Jesus' family comes to get him because he seems unbalanced:

3:20 And He came home, and the crowd gathered again, to such an extent that they could not even eat a meal. 21 When His own people heard of this, they went out to take custody of Him; for they were saying, "He has lost His senses."

22 The scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, "He is possessed by Beelzebul," and "He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons." 23 And He called them to Himself and began speaking to them in parables, "How can Satan cast out Satan ? 24 "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 "If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 "If Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but he is finished ! 27 "But no one can enter the strong man's house and plunder his property unless he first binds the strong man, and then he will plunder his house. 28 "Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter ; 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin "- 30 because they were saying, "He has an unclean spirit."

31 Then His mother and His brothers arrived, and standing outside they sent word to Him and called Him. 32 A crowd was sitting around Him, and they said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You." 33 Answering them, He said, "Who are My mother and My brothers ?" 34 Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers ! 35 "For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother."

3) Jesus' assertion about an unknown exorcist:

9:33 They came to Capernaum ; and when He was in the house, He began to question them, "What were you discussing on the way ?" 34 But they kept silent, for on the way they had discussed with one another which of them was the greatest. 35 Sitting down, He called the twelve and said to them, "If anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all." 36 Taking a child, He set him before them, and taking him in His arms, He said to them, 37 "Whoever receives one child like this in My name receives Me; and whoever receives Me does not receive Me, but Him who sent Me."

38 John said to Him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us." 39 But Jesus said, "Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me. 40 "For he who is not against us is for us. 41 "For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because of your name as followers of Christ, truly I say to you, he will not lose his reward.

42 "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea.

4) Fasting

2:18 John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting ; and they came and said to Him, "Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast ?" 19 And Jesus said to them,

"While the bridegroom is with them, the attendants of the bridegroom cannot fast, can they? So long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. 20 "But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day.

21 "No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment ; otherwise the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear results. 22 "No one puts new wine into old wineskins ; otherwise the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost and the skins as well; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins."

5) Anointing

14:1 Now the Passover and Unleavened Bread were two days away ; and the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to seize Him by stealth and kill Him; 2 for they were saying, "Not during the festival, otherwise there might be a riot of the people."

3 While He was in Bethany at the home of Simon the leper, and reclining at the table, there came a woman with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume of pure nard ; and she broke the vial and poured it over His head. 4 But some were indignantly remarking to one another, "Why has this perfume been wasted ? 5 "For this perfume might have been sold for over three hundred denarii, and the money given to the poor." And they were scolding her. 6 But Jesus said, "Let her alone ; why do you bother her? She has done a good deed to Me. 7 "For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them; but you do not always have Me. 8 "She has done what she could ; she has anointed My body beforehand for the burial. 9 "Truly I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be spoken of in memory of her."

14:10 Then Judas Iscariot, who was one of the twelve, went off to the chief priests in order to betray Him to them. 11 They were glad when they heard this, and promised to give him money. And he began seeking how to betray Him at an opportune time.

6) Peter's denials (a). This addition is distinguished from the foregoing in that it does not insert pre-given material.

14:53 They led Jesus away to the high priest ; and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes gathered together.

544 Peter had followed Him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest ; and he was sitting with the officers and warming himself at the fire.

55 Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, and they were not finding any. 56 For many were giving false testimony against Him, but their testimony was not consistent. 57 Some stood up and began to give false testimony against Him, saying, 58 "We heard Him say, 'I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.' " 59 Not even in this respect was their testimony consistent. 60 The high priest stood up and came forward and questioned Jesus, saying, "Do You not answer ? What is it that these men are testifying against You?" 61 But He kept silent and did not answer. Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" 62 And Jesus said, "I am ; and you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN." 63 Tearing his clothes, the high priest said, "What further need do we have of witnesses ? 64 "You have heard the blasphemy ; how does it seem to you?" And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death. 65 Some began to spit at Him, and to blindfold Him, and to beat Him with their fists, and to say to Him, "Prophesy !" And the officers received Him with slaps in the face.

7) Peter's denials (b)

66 As Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant-girls of the high priest came, 67 and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him and said, "You also were with Jesus the Nazarene." 68 But he denied it, saying, "I neither know nor understand what you are talking about." And he went out onto the porch. and a rooster crowed.#2871 69 The servant-girl saw him, and began once more to say to the bystanders, "This is one of them!" 70 But again he denied it. And after a little while the bystanders were again saying to Peter, "Surely you are one of them, for you are a Galilean too." 71 But he began to curse and swear, "I do not know this man you are talking about!" 72 Immediately a rooster crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had made the remark to him, "Before a rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times." And he began to weep.　

63 Tearing his clothes, the high priest said, "What further need do we have of witnesses ? 64 "You have heard the blasphemy ; how does it seem to you?" And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death. 65 Some began to spit at Him, and to blindfold Him, and to beat Him with their fists, and to say to Him, "Prophesy !"

8) Insertion of Jesus before Pilate and the release of Barabbas

And the officers received Him with slaps in the face.

15:1 Early in the morning the chief priests with the elders and scribes and the whole Council, immediately held a consultation ; and binding Jesus, they led Him away and delivered Him to Pilate. 2 Pilate questioned Him, "Are You the King of the Jews ?" And He answered him, "It is as you say." 3 The chief priests began to accuse Him harshly. 4 Then Pilate questioned Him again, saying, "Do You not answer ? See how many charges they bring against You!" 5 But Jesus made no further answer.

6 Now at the feast he used to release for them any one prisoner whom they requested. 7 The man named Barabbas had been imprisoned with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the insurrection. 8 The crowd went up and began asking him to do as he had been accustomed to do for them. 9 Pilate answered them, saying, "Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews ?" 10 For he was aware that the chief priests had handed Him over because of envy. 11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to ask him to release Barabbas for them instead. 12 Answering again, Pilate said to them, "Then what shall I do with Him whom you call the King of the Jews ?" 13 They shouted back, "Crucify Him!" 14 But Pilate said to them, "Why, what evil has He done ?" But they shouted all the more, "Crucify Him!" 15 Wishing to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas for them, and after having Jesus scourged, he handed Him over to be crucified.

16 The soldiers took Him away into the palace (that is, the Praetorium ), and they called together the whole Roman cohort. 17 They dressed Him up in purple, and after twisting a crown of thorns, they put it on Him; 18 and they began to acclaim Him, "Hail, King of the Jews !" 19 They kept beating His head with a reed, and spitting on Him, and kneeling and bowing before Him. 20 After they had mocked Him, they took the purple robe off Him and put His own garments on Him. And they led Him out to crucify Him. 21 They pressed into service a passer-by coming from the country, Simon of Cyrene (the father of Alexander and Rufus), to bear His cross.


Actually, it takes merely one example to make probable the existence of what is commonly known as pMark. No back-translation into an alleged Aramaic version will be able to overthrow this much evidence of the pMark hypothesis. The evidence is simply overwhelming.

Where does pMark conclude? While debated, I have argued convincingly, I should think, that it ended in Mark 15:39 with an Aristotlean "epiphany." Here also, all the dramatic plot tension is resolved. Then, at 15:40, the women become the primary characters and link together the burial and empty tomb episodes and make the plot of the Story now a dramatic comedy in sharp contrast to the pathetic tragedy that concluded in 15:39. So also the style and content changes. No longer is the narrative very dense as in the passion narrative but now reverts to a more episodic, loosely integrated relationship between of the final two episodes. So one simply needs to know what to look for to see that these episodes are a supplement that very much transforms the tragedy of pMark into a Christianized, comedic drama. As for the ending, on text critical grounds, the longer ending is rejected by many as spurios and is a collection (I forget the technical name for this) based upon the other gospels. Thus both the method and the results of composition criticism is hardly in question.

In terms of style and content, the PN differs from that material which precedes it. What we have in both pMark and Mark are episodes, in which some, if not most, are drawn from oral tradition, and had a previous independent status, loosely strung together by means of an itinerary. In betraying this compositional situation, these episodes are as the final two episodes in the Gospel. Further, pMark itself is comprised of the PN, prefaced by a series of non-integrated episodes. And both PMark's major sections have received textual additions by a Christian redactor whom I simply refer to as "Mark." So I see the development of the composition as first, PN, then PN+pMark, then PN+pMark+Mark, as this best satisfies the compositional evidence of the Gospel's developmental make-up. If there is any alleged Aramaic source, I would have to look at that evidence according to the three stages I have just mentioned. And the alleged Aramaic source can not be just sporadic. Each stage must be completely back-translated into Aramaic. I should think that that possibility would be in evidence only in the second and third levels of redaction. I still need to look at the distribution of the Aramaic words and the Latin loan words.
As for 'eloi, the vowel of the first syllable is wrong. The epsilon represents an I-class vowel while the Aramaic forms has an a-class vowel. Thus, eloi does not back-translate into Aramaic. The differing class of the vowel makes all the difference. Furthermore, the context clearly indicates that Jesus mis-spoke because the hostile bystanders seized upon it and make mockery of it. Clearly, Jesus did not get Psalm 22:1 right, which has 'eli. Matthew corrects to the Psalm. Furthermore, Aristotle goes into a detailed analysis of what makes for good, tragic diction, down to the details of meter and vowels! Thus, I would defend against the charge that I am being overly subtle. What I think the author of PN is scoring is that Jesus' lack of breath did not permit him to pronounce the he in 'elohi. Thus in weakness of breath he could only muster 'eloi! Say 'elohi and you will get this most subtle but most exquisite, Aristotlean-based, point. Only the PN operates on this level of tragic subtlety and extreme pathos. Recall, that a good tragedy aims at creating "pity" in the audience. This is most pitiful.
Here is just one example of how skillfully and Aristotlean is the PN. And there are many reasons that support that the author was a Roman Gentile and also adept at creating an Aristotlean tragedy. This is not the work of a Jew, Hellenistic or otherwise. He was a dramatist, skilled in the art of classic Tragedy. Indeed, in terms of plot, characterization and diction, I can only conclude that he was a professional, Roman playwright, who skillfully applied Aristotlean principles to create this stunning and most pathetic tragedy.

How was he able to construct such a story? That question, I think, can only be satisfactorily answer that he learned of what happened to Jesus from the Centurion's own account! Is it not amazing that we may very well have here in the PN, and eye-witness account of what actually happened to Jesus as told by one who was an official escort of Jesus from the time of his arrest to his death. Furthermore, Aristotle's main point is that tragedy should be "imitation." The more realistic it is, the more it is commended. So for aesthetic reasons, we have every justification to conclude that here now is the historical Jesus and the quest is over. At least basically is so far as myself is concerned.

But there is more. Aristotle argues convincingly that tragedy is not only to be favored over comedy, it is even superior to Homeric epic! And this at a time where one author named McDonald, is arguing the classical Greek compositions provide the framework from which to understand the Gospel of Mark. I recall that the title of his book was, Homeric Epic and the Gospel of Mark. After all, the Gospel was written in Greek!

Unfortunately, I am hardly a classics scholar. But one of my oldest friend, Dr. Roy David Kotansky is, having received his doctorate from the University of Chicago under Deiter Betz. Roy is an expert on ancient amulets. Even when he was a teenager, he was deep into the study of Greco-Roman culture. I recall very clearly that on his bedroom wall he had an map of the ancient Mediterrean. I hope to collaborate with him on a book as I am not equiped to write one that does the topic worthy.

And still more. With the support of Aristotle, I can claim that here we find a historical Jesus that is more sublime that the Christian Jesus, as the Jesus here is historically portrayed as a Tragic Hero, not the Comedic Hero of John 3:16. Holy shit. If this gets out, it is going to be extremely disturbing to a vast amount of people in the most profound way that I can even imagine. So I plan for the time being, to introduce it as quietly as possible. Here on my little Yahoo group forum. It's not an the easiest thing in the world to inform that Christians that their Jesus has been bested by a probable, historical Jesus. . . an Aristotlean Tragic Hero.

LMB

outhouse

I really think this is one of your major flaws. You have provided no evidence at all! to be able to attribute anything to a Centurian. If you have any evidence, now would be a good time to provide it.


Much of all scholarship's follows that the PN is whole cloth fiction, created among other reasons, to further the division of the movement from Judaism playing to the Roman Empire.

I see no reason at all to give up modern scholarships for this, at this time.




You keep stating "expansion"



You are showing as most modern scholarship follow, that it was compiled from previous written and oral sources. Each of which evolved into it's own right.


What evidence do you posit towards expansion VS compilation?





If your claiming "expansion" then what dates are you assuming for PN-Pm-M? Your hypothesis demands more then pre existing written and oral sources to take it beyond compilation to "expansion".


Do these 8 different expansion's have different dates?, and if so, how did you determine this?

Chili

Holy shit is right. No salvation recipe is needed since the reader is the tragic hero to get done. Even the savages knew that when they put the preacher in the pot, and so did Aristotle who is doing his reader in the tragedy they see, while failing to identify themselves as the noble king in his own domain with followers categorical to him, that requires a re-emergent to elevate the being in its own essense beneath his subjects that only pertain to the naked animal man.

Tragedy does not exist, period, except inside our own mansion that we created for ourselves that must collapse like a 'trinity' up there for us 'to be' and see ourselves in the formal cause we truly are.

To this end both Plato and Aristotle urge us to re-enter logos to remove all paralogism (outside talk such as salvation recipies) that tragedies are made of and actualize our condition neologically in the logos that we truly are.

And so yes, America must put the believer in the pot, and cook'm before they fry their neighbor as their friend.

lmbarre

With the original PN isolated, we may then ask the form-critical question regarding its literary genre. My contention is that it is a tragedy, and more speciically, an Artistolean tragedy. Evidence for this genre designation is drawn first of all from Aristotle's Poetics:

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/poetics.mb.txt

Here again I need to go into some quite detailed arguments to show that original PN does indeed conform to Aristotle's ideal tragedy. They may be summarized as parallel in terms of plot, characterization of the tragic hero, motifs and diction. Here is a summary of the literary features of a Aristotlean tragedy:

An Aristotelian tragic hero must have four characteristics:

- Nobleness (of a noble birth) or wisdom (by virtue of birth).
- Hamartia (translated as tragic flaw, somewhat related to hubris, but denoting excess in behavior or mistakes).
- A reversal of fortune (peripetia) brought about because of the hero's tragic error.
- The discovery or recognition that the reversal was brought about by the hero's own actions (anagnorisis).

As I have said, I can go into much greater detail to show that the PN is to be generically classified as an (Aristotlean) tragedy. Your denial that this is not so needs to engage what arguments I have just advanced.

Note also that Aristotle's tragic hero was developed in the history of the genre. Here is a list of certain refinements and addition to Aristotle's original definition of the tragic hero:

Other common traits

Hero must suffer more than he deserves.
Hero must be doomed from the start, but bear no responsibility for possessing his flaw.
Hero must be noble in nature, but imperfect so that the audience can see themselves in him.
Hero must have discovered his fate by his own actions, not by things happening to him.
Hero must see and understand his doom, as well as the fact that his fate was discovered by his own actions.
Hero's story should arouse fear and empathy.
Hero must be physically or spiritually wounded by his experiences, often resulting in his death.
Ideally, the hero should be a king or leader of men, so that his people experience his fall with him.
The hero must be intelligent so he may learn from his mistakes.

Conclusion: The genre of the original PN is a tragedy as defined by Aristotle in his Poetics and as later expounded in other tragedies descending from an Aristotlean origin.

I submit that I have offered detailed arguments regarding the literary-critical isolation of an origina PN and correctly identified its genre as (Aristotlean) tragedy.

With this definition, I have a basis to argue that the PN is based upon an eye-witness account. I go further to argue that that eye-witness was the historical centurion as the source of factual information. Let me be quick to say that I am not here "cherry-picking" the centurion as the probable witness that the author of PN used to compose his tragedy. That we may rationally determine that the centurion's account is the basis of the PN should not be dismissed because it is often the case that we cannot usually make such a specific determination of a literary source. Let me also clear the air that I am not compelled by any ideology which "needs" to have an eye-witness report regarding the historical Jesus. I very much argue to this is a remarkable and unprecedented conclusion, and am fully aware of its radical claim. It seem most grandiose that I should claim that I have concluded the quest for the essential historical Jesus! I cannot put enough exclamation points behind that allegation.

That the PN is based upon an eye-witness account is argued upon two bases:

- the probable conclusion that eloi eloi lama sabachtani is an authentic saying of Jesus.
- that the genre of a Aristotlean tragedy aims at above all "imitation" or what we call "realism."

While the traditional criteria for isolating an authentic sayings of Jesus has been critiqued in scholarly literature, I would argue that the following criteria are, with noted qualification, are yet valid:

- dissimularity
- embarassment
- orality

I have argued to the conclusion that the above saying is authentic here:

http://www.freewebs.com/lmbarre/jesusastragichero.htm

That the genre of Aristotlean tragedy aims to be "realistic" is stated in the "Poetics." Indeed, this is a major characteristic of his ideal tragedy--"imitation." What it imitates is the acutual phenomenon of a tragic dimension of human existence. This is the basis of his argument that it should inspire not only pity but also "fear." That fear is to be inspired among the audience is based on the threat that they may experience a possible tragic situation. The "catharsis" consists of the enlightenment that a seemingly senseless tragedy has a most profound, and most positive significance. In effect, it is a "prophetic" debunking of Existential, Sartrean Absurdity" Regarded as such, it is indeed both an epiphany and a most profound catharsis-- why it is that such extremely good people should experience such profound suffering. According to my interpretation of the PN, the conclusion that Fate (and therefore God) demonstrated to Jesus himself that he could not be the Messiah and drove him to a moment of exquisite insantity as expressed in his final loud cry with his very last breath. According to the keryma of the author of PN, an imitation of tragic experienced is portrayed as an archetypical experience of tragedy where imitation become reality in the historical person and actual tragic fate of one Jesus of Nazareth.

The report of this event ultimately goes to making a statement about a pantheistic or pan-en-theistic God that transcends Jewish, messianic apocalypticism. That god is too small and severely warns against theological reductionism. Even more, this non-idolatros deity is portaryed as extremely mercifiul. For the experience shows that God, in his mercy, did not allow Jesus to live with is most profound and painful realization that he was not the Messiah for long. That realization was with him for but the shortest period possible, in the moment of a last breath. Indeed, the relative short duration of Jesus' crucifixion scores the same point. Here we have a God of fate that suffers with his tragic hero and relieves himself of empathetic divine suffering, who authored a suffering but most quicly relieved the hero of anagnorisis. "God had mercy on the man who doubted what he was sure of."

Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?

Isaiah 53:1

All this was a long time ago, I remember,
And I would do it again, but set down
This set down
This: were we lead all that way for
Birth or Death? There was a Birth, certainly,
We had evidence and no doubt. I have seen birth and death,
But had thought they were different; this Birth was
Hard and bitter agony for us, like Death, our death.
We returned to our places, these Kingdoms,
But no longer at ease here, in the old dispensation,
With an alien people clutching their gods.
I should be glad of another death.

"Journey of the Magi"

T.S. Eliot

lmbarre

With the original PN isolated, we may then ask the form-critical question regarding its literary genre. My contention is that it is a tragedy, and more specifically, an Aristotelian tragedy. Evidence for this genre designation is drawn first of all from Aristotle's Poetics:

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/poetics.mb.txt

Here again I need to go into some quite detailed arguments to show that original PN does indeed conform to Aristotle's ideal tragedy. They may be summarized as parallel in terms of plot, characterization of the tragic hero, motifs and diction. Here is a summary of the literary features of a Aristotelian tragedy:

An Aristotelian tragic hero must have four characteristics:

- Nobleness (of a noble birth) or wisdom (by virtue of birth).
- Hamartia (translated as tragic flaw, somewhat related to hubris, but denoting excess in behavior or mistakes).
- A reversal of fortune (peripetia) brought about because of the hero's tragic error.
- The discovery or recognition that the reversal was brought about by the hero's own actions (anagnorisis).

As I have said, I can go into much greater detail to show that the PN is to be generically classified as an (Aristotelian) tragedy. Your denial that this is not so needs to engage what arguments I have just advanced.

Note also that Aristotle's tragic hero was developed in the history of the genre. Here is a list of certain refinements and addition to Aristotle's original definition of the tragic hero:

Other common traits

Hero must suffer more than he deserves.
Hero must be doomed from the start, but bear no responsibility for possessing his flaw.
Hero must be noble in nature, but imperfect so that the audience can see themselves in him.
Hero must have discovered his fate by his own actions, not by things happening to him.
Hero must see and understand his doom, as well as the fact that his fate was discovered by his own actions.
Hero's story should arouse fear and empathy.
Hero must be physically or spiritually wounded by his experiences, often resulting in his death.
Ideally, the hero should be a king or leader of men, so that his people experience his fall with him.
The hero must be intelligent so he may learn from his mistakes.

Conclusion: The genre of the original PN is a tragedy as defined by Aristotle in his Poetics and as later expounded in other tragedies descending from an Aristotelian origin.

I submit that I have offered detailed arguments regarding the literary-critical isolation of an original PN and correctly identified its genre as (Aristotelian) tragedy.

With this definition, I have a basis to argue that the PN is based upon an eye-witness account. I go further to argue that eye-witness was the historical centurion as the source of factual information. Let me be quick to say that I am not here "cherry-picking" the centurion as the probable witness that the author of PN used to compose his tragedy. That we may rationally determine that the centurion's account is the basis of the PN should not be dismissed because it is often the case that we cannot usually make such a specific determination of a literary source. Let me also clear the air that I am not compelled by any ideology which "needs" to have an eye-witness report regarding the historical Jesus. I very much argue to this is a remarkable and unprecedented conclusion, and am fully aware of its radical claim. It seem most grandiose that I should claim that I have concluded the quest for the essential historical Jesus! I cannot put enough exclamation points behind that allegation.

That the PN is based upon an eye-witness account is argued upon two bases:

- the probable conclusion that eloi eloi lama sabachtani is an authentic saying of Jesus.
- that the genre of a Aristotelian tragedy aims at above all "imitation" or what we call "realism."

While the traditional criteria for isolating an authentic sayings of Jesus has been critiqued in scholarly literature, I would argue that the following criteria are, with noted qualification, are yet valid:

- dissimilarity
- embarrassment
- orality

I have argued to the conclusion that the above saying is authentic here:

http://www.freewebs.com/lmbarre/jesusastragichero.htm

That the genre of Aristotlelian tragedy aims to be "realistic" is stated in the "Poetics." Indeed, this is a major characteristic of his ideal tragedy--"imitation." What it imitates is the actual phenomenon of a tragic dimension of human existence. This is the basis of his argument that it should inspire not only pity but also "fear." That fear is to be inspired among the audience is based on the threat that they may experience a possible tragic situation. The "catharsis" consists of the enlightenment that a seemingly senseless tragedy has a most profound, and most positive significance. In effect, it is a "prophetic" debunking of Existential, Sartrean Absurdity" Regarded as such, it is indeed both an epiphany and a most profound catharsis-- why it is that such extremely good people should experience such profound suffering. According to my interpretation of the PN, the conclusion that Fate (and therefore God) demonstrated to Jesus himself that he could not be the Messiah and drove him to a moment of exquisite insanity as expressed in his final loud cry with his very last breath. According to the keryma of the author of PN, an imitation of tragic experienced is portrayed as an archetypical experience of tragedy where imitation become reality in the historical person and actual tragic fate of one Jesus of Nazareth.

The report of this event ultimately goes to making a statement about a pantheistic or pan-en-theistic God that transcends Jewish, messianic apocalypticism. That god is too small and severely warns against theological reductionism. Even more, this non-idolatrous deity is portrayed as extremely merciful. For the experience shows that God, in his mercy, did not allow Jesus to live with is most profound and painful realization that he was not the Messiah for long. That realization was with him for but the shortest period possible, in the moment of a last breath. Indeed, the relative short duration of Jesus' crucifixion scores the same point. Here we have a God of fate that suffers with his tragic hero and relieves himself of empathetic divine suffering, who authored a suffering but most quickly relieved the hero of anagnorisis. "God had mercy on the man who doubted what he was sure of."

Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?

Isaiah 53:1

outhouse

Peripatics influence, handed down through Hellenistic authors is widely known.

But your over emphasis without valid substanciation however, has been noted multiple times already.

lmbarre

It has?