Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 12-21-2010, 08:01 AM

JW:
Just found an audio lecture here:

Was Mark Framed? Killing the Messenger in Mark's Greek Tragedy (Audio)Was Mark Framed?

Where a Michael Halcomb argues (well) that "Mark" is Greek Tragedy. Probably inspired by this Thread (Why are all Markan experts named "Michael"?). Halcomb, like Bilezikian before him, is a believer who just thinks that GT is a stylish and effective Way to communicate the Passion and resurrection. Perhaps they will eventually come to accept the significance of the endings of GT.

AnyWay, he has lots of good parallels between "Mark" and GT and related insights. He notes that historically there is no consensus on the Frame (big picture presentation style) of "Mark". The most popular is Geographic (Galilee, Judea & Jerusalem). He righteously points out that in trying to ID "Mark's" Jesus, above all else, this Jesus is a Messenger (GT). The relatively short stories fit the episode structure of GT, the supposed 12 disciples parallel the common 12 members of the chorus (GT) and the select 3 disciples at a time fit the limit of 3 actors on stage at a time (GT).

Enjoy!

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 01-05-2011, 08:17 AM

JW:
Continuing with Poetics and looking for parallels to "Mark":

Quote:

Part IX

It is, moreover, evident from what has been said, that it is not the function of the poet to relate what has happened, but what may happen- what is possible according to the law of probability or necessity. The poet and the historian differ not by writing in verse or in prose. The work of Herodotus might be put into verse, and it would still be a species of history, with meter no less than without it. The true difference is that one relates what has happened, the other what may happen.[1] Poetry, therefore, is a more philosophical and a higher thing than history: for poetry tends to express the universal, history the particular.[2] By the universal I mean how a person of a certain type on occasion speak or act, according to the law of probability or necessity; and it is this universality at which poetry aims in the names she attaches to the personages. The particular is- for example- what Alcibiades did or suffered. In Comedy this is already apparent: for here the poet first constructs the plot on the lines of probability, and then inserts characteristic names- unlike the lampooners who write about particular individuals. But tragedians still keep to real names, the reason being that what is possible is credible: what has not happened we do not at once feel sure to be possible; but what has happened is manifestly possible: otherwise it would not have happened. Still there are even some tragedies in which there are only one or two well-known names, the rest being fictitious.[3] In others, none are well known- as in Agathon's Antheus, where incidents and names alike are fictitious, and yet they give none the less pleasure. We must not, therefore, at all costs keep to the received legends, which are the usual subjects of Tragedy. Indeed, it would be absurd to attempt it; for even subjects that are known are known only to a few, and yet give pleasure to all.[4] It clearly follows that the poet or 'maker' should be the maker of plots rather than of verses; since he is a poet because he imitates, and what he imitates are actions.[5] And even if he chances to take a historical subject, he is none the less a poet;[6] for there is no reason why some events that have actually happened should not conform to the law of the probable and possible, and in virtue of that quality in them he is their poet or maker.

[1] Note how "Mark" is much more open to possibility than its editors. While "Mark's" disciples fail and are rehabilitated by forgers and editors, the success of non disciple followers is an open question Mark in "Mark". "Matthew" implies success, "Luke" claims general witnesses to the author's time and "John" claims a specific witness to the author's time.

[2] Note how "Mark's" Jesus' advice is more general to followers compared to the others which is more specific to the supposed disciples.

[3] A explains that in general contrived names are a literary technique of Poetry (as opposed to History/Bios) although less common in Tragedy compared to Comedy.

[4] While B assumes that the genre of GT means the background of the story of "Mark" was well known to the audience (supporting a historical base) A explains that GT can use a little known story.

[5] A explains that GT is defined by Action as opposed to Verse. Clearly "Mark" is the most action oriented Gospel.

[6] Per A, selecting a historical subject is an acceptable starting point for GT.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Jarhyn · 01-07-2011, 11:46 AM

It all makes me wonder whether Christianity started off as a cult classic, and then lost the "classic" somewhere (early) along the line.

Chili · 01-09-2011, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

What do you know Joe, I think you've just about got me convinced. I'd say the parallels to GT are much stronger than the parallels Talbert gives in "What is a Gospel", wherein he concludes they are biographies.

It is a tragedy for sure and a Greek Tragedy for all I care but since Aristotle is not familiar with a divine comedy he is trying to fit together the workings of a failed divine comedy and must leave the punchline out. Aristotle just doesn't know!

Let me make it clear that such a tragedy only can be conceived to exist if a divine comedy is real and the difference between these two is ascension to heaven (Elysium) or return to the misery of Galilee.

Chili · 01-09-2011, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarhyn

It all makes me wonder whether Christianity started off as a cult classic, and then lost the "classic" somewhere (early) along the line.

The Classic is still there but Christianity ran away with the tragedy and set the world on fire for Jesus totally void of Christ: "Any of you [Christians] who seek your justification in the law have severed yourself from Christ and falled from Gods favor!" (Gal 5:4) . . . and Aristotle does not know the difference either.

JoeWallack · 01-15-2011, 03:04 PM

JW:
Continuing with Poetics and looking for parallels to "Mark":

Quote:

Part X

Plots are either Simple or Complex, for the actions in real life, of which the plots are an imitation, obviously show a similar distinction. An action which is one and continuous in the sense above defined, I call Simple, when the change of fortune takes place without Reversal of the Situation and without Recognition

A Complex action is one in which the change is accompanied by such Reversal, or by Recognition, or by both[1]. These last should arise from the internal structure of the plot, so that what follows should be the necessary or probable result of the preceding action[2]. It makes all the difference whether any given event is a case of propter hoc or post hoc.

Part XI

Reversal of the Situation is a change by which the action veers round to its opposite[3], subject always to our rule of probability or necessity. Thus in the Oedipus, the messenger comes to cheer Oedipus and free him from his alarms about his mother, but by revealing who he is, he produces the opposite effect. Again in the Lynceus, Lynceus is being led away to his death, and Danaus goes with him, meaning to slay him; but the outcome of the preceding incidents is that Danaus is killed and Lynceus saved[4].

Recognition, as the name indicates, is a change from ignorance to knowledge[5], producing love or hate between the persons destined by the poet for good or bad fortune.[6] The best form of recognition is coincident with a Reversal of the Situation[7], as in the Oedipus. There are indeed other forms. Even inanimate things of the most trivial kind may in a sense be objects of recognition. Again, we may recognize or discover whether a person has done a thing or not. But the recognition which is most intimately connected with the plot and action is, as we have said, the recognition of persons.[8] This recognition, combined with Reversal, will produce either pity or fear;[9] and actions producing these effects are those which, by our definition, Tragedy represents. Moreover, it is upon such situations that the issues of good or bad fortune will depend.[10] Recognition, then, being between persons, it may happen that one person only is recognized by the other- when the latter is already known- or it may be necessary that the recognition should be on both sides.[11] Thus Iphigenia is revealed to Orestes by the sending of the letter; but another act of recognition is required to make Orestes known to Iphigenia.

Two parts, then, of the Plot- Reversal of the Situation and Recognition- turn upon surprises.[12] A third part is the Scene of Suffering. The Scene of Suffering is a destructive or painful action, such as death on the stage, bodily agony, wounds, and the like.[13]

JW:
A has already explained that the most important element of GT is plot. Now he explains the most important components of plot:

[1] http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_8

Quote:

8:27 And Jesus went forth, and his disciples, into the villages of Caesarea Philippi: and on the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Who do men say that I am?

28 And they told him, saying, John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but others, One of the prophets.

29 And he asked them, But who say ye that I am? Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.

30 And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.

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.

Recognition = Jesus is the Christ

Recognition = Christ means suffering

Reversal = Instead of a conquering Christ, the Christ will be conquered

Change of Fortune = Jesus will change from being crowd pleaser to crowd displeaser

Note the author has carefully placed the pivotal R & R scene exactly half the Way through. This author is fond of doubling literary contrivance and here the Reversal of GT is reversed. Good fortune (saving your life) is bad fortune and bad fortune (giving up your life) is good fortune.

[2] R & R should have a cause and effect relationship with what preceded. Jesus is recognized as the Christ because of the preceding T & H Ministry. Jesus' Ministry is reversed from T & H to Passion only after he is recognized as the Christ.

[3] The Recognition is what triggers the Reversal.

[4] "Mark" has the typical GT ironic reversal regarding death of the hero. "The Jews" think that by killing Jesus it prevents him from being the Messiah when it actually is what makes him the Messiah. They think they are preventing prophecy but they are fulfilling it. More doubling up of ironic contrivance as in addition to Peter fulfilling Jesus' prophecy while "The Jews" make fun of Jesus not being able to prophecy, the very act of the Jews making fun of Jesus' supposed inability is fulfillment of Jesus' ability.

[5] Note that all the lead in questions of Jesus highlight the ignorance before the knowledge.

[6] Peter is explicitly the one who recognizes Jesus and this produces hate between the two:

Quote:

8:32 And he spake the saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him.

33 But he turning about, and seeing his disciples, rebuked Peter, and saith, Get thee behind me, Satan; for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men.

We also have the fit of the good/bad fortune contrast between Jesus/Peter.

[7] This could not fit any better. It is the Recognition of Jesus which is the cause of the Reversal.

[8] Classic GT. Recognition of a person.

[9]

Quote:

9:31 For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered up into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and when he is killed, after three days he shall rise again.

32 But they understood not the saying, and were afraid to ask him.

The response of the disciples is fear.

[10] "Mark" is all about good verses bad fortune

[11]

Quote:

8:33 But he turning about, and seeing his disciples, rebuked Peter, and saith, Get thee behind me, Satan; for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men.

True to GT form Peter recognizing Jesus as the Christ is coincident with Jesus recognizing Peter as the opposition.

[12] I have faith that "Mark" does have the obligatory scene of suffering. For the fans out there who like to play, note that suffering would be the most difficult thing for a play to show so a narrative form would need a lot of detail.

It should be clear by now to the objective student that plot is the heart of GT and ironic recognition, reversal and change of fortune is the heart of GT plot. "Mark" matches up extremely well to classic GT here so we are justified in simply describing "Mark" as Greek Tragedy while in detail noting some differences. On the other hand, with the strength of these parallels I think it is misleading not to describe "Mark" as GT.

Regarding other possible genres for "Mark", "Mark" has a primary source of The Jewish Bible and also sources of Paul and Josephus where the context is changed. "Mark" also has a primary theme of discrediting the supposed historical witness. We can therefore summarily execute Bios as a possible genre for "Mark" since everything about "Mark" is anti-biography. The extreme literary contrivance evidences genre. What genre has better parallels here than GT?

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 01-24-2011, 07:28 AM

JW:
Before continuing to demonstrate the qualitative and quantitative parallels between "Mark" and Greek Tragedy I briefly want to make an excursion the other Way and look at a specific criterion in Richard Burridge's god-awful What Are The Gospels?: A Comparison With Graeco-roman Biography.

Super Skeptic Kneel Godfree is at it again getting the analysis started here:

Are the Gospels Really Biographies? Outlining and Questioning Burridge

The brave and truthful Skeptic writes:

Quote:

Burridge structures his analysis of the generic features shared by βιοι and the gospels as follows. His comments that I cite are from his discussion of the synoptic gospels only. (The italics are Burridge’s.)

...

6. Use of Sources

It was common in βιοι to mention any sources used, e.g. Philostratus’ and Philo’s references to oral and written sources. . . . [T]he evangelists [also] had access to oral and written sources, including notes, collections and in some cases another gospel, from which they selected and edited their material. . . . Thus the freedom to select and edit sources to produce the desire picture of the subject is another feature shared by both the gospels and Graeco-Roman βιοι. (p. 198-9)

Jesus! There are 3 underlieing issues behind this entire study:

1) Sources

2) Sources

3) Sources

Source is the key criterion to evaluate historical evidence. It is not just a criterion, it is not just an important criterion, it is not just the most important criterion. It is the dominant criterion. The best potential historical evidence for source is its identification. Here Bui (Burridge) claims the criterion of source as a parallel because the author:

1) Had sources

2) Edited sources

These are generic in nature and have little value in determining quality of parallel. What should be looked at here is identification of sources. Per Kneel Godfree here are the sample Greco-Roman biographies, contemporary to Jesus' supposed time, that Bui uses:

Quote:

Later

Tacitus on Agricola

Plutarch on Cato the Younger

Suetonius on the Caesars (e.g. Julius Caesar)

Lucian on Demonax

Philostratus on Apollonius

By an act of Providence, all are easily available online. Let's see for ourselves if they identify sources:

Tacitus on Agricola

Quote:

Meanwhile this book, intended to do honour to Agricola, my father-in-law, will, as an expression of filial regard, be commended, or at least excused.

Quote:

I remember that he used to tell us how in his early youth he would have imbibed a keener love of philosophy than became a Roman and a senator, had not his mother's good sense checked his excited and ardent spirit.

Yet again, in an irony that I think "Mark" would really appreciate, the spirit of Truth drives me to buy this book. But not because of how good it is but because of how bad it is.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 01-26-2011, 06:24 AM

JW:
Next on the list:

The Life of Cato the Younger

Quote:

3 This is the only speech of Cato which has been p291preserved, we are told, and its preservation was due to Cicero the consul, who had previously given to those clerks who excelled in rapid writing instruction in the use of signs, which, in small and short figures, comprised the force of many letters; these clerks he had then distributed in various parts of the senate-house. For up to that time the Romans did not employ or even possess what are called shorthand writers, but then for the first time, we are told, the first steps toward the practice were taken. Be that as it may, Cato carried the day and changed the opinions of the senators, so that they condemned the men to death.

Quote:

25 Then he married a daughter of Philippus, Marcia, a woman of reputed excellence, about whom there was the most abundant talk; and this part of Cato's life, like a drama, has given rise to dispute and is hard to explain. However, the case was as follows, according to Thrasea, who refers to the authority of Munatius, Cato's companion and intimate associate. 2

Quote:

37 Munatius, however, states that his anger arose, not from Cato's distrust of him, but from his inconsiderate conduct towards him, and from a certain jealousy which Munatius himself felt towards Canidius. For Munatius himself also published a treatise about Cato, which Thrasea chiefly followed. 2 Munatius says that he came to Cyprus after the others, and found that no provision had been made for his entertainment; he says, too, that on going to Cato's door he was repulsed, because Cato had some engagement inside with Canidius. He says, further, that his measured protest met with no measured reply, for Cato told him that excessive affection, according to Theophrastus, was likely to become a ground for hatred in many cases. "And so thou too," said Cato, "by reason of thine especial affection for me, art vexed to think thyself less honoured than is meet. 3 Canidius I employ more than others both because I have made trial of him, and because I trust him; he came at the very first, and shows himself to be incorrupt." This private conversation, however, between himself and Cato, Munatius says was reported by Cato to Canidius, and that therefore, when he heard of it, he would no longer go to Cato's table, or visit him, or share his counsels, when he was invited. Further, Munatius says, when Cato threatened to take security from him, as the Romans do in the case of those who refuse to obey orders, he paid no attention to the threat, but sailed away, p327and for a long time continued to be angry with Cato. 4 Then, Munatius says, Marcia, who was still living with Cato,48 spoke with her husband about the matter; and when it chanced that both men were invited to supper by Barca, Cato, who came late and after the others had taken their places, asked where he should recline; and when Barca told him to recline where he pleased, Cato looked about the room and said: "I will take my place by Munatius." So he went round and reclined by his side, but made no further show of friendship during the supper. 5 Marcia, however, made a second request in the matter, Munatius says, and Cato wrote to him, saying that he wished to confer with him about something. So Munatius went to Cato's house early in the morning, and was detained there by Marcia until all the other visitors had gone away. Then Cato came in, threw both arms about him, kissed him, and lavished kindness upon him. Such incidents, now, in my opinion, quite as much as deeds of greatness and publicity, shed considerable light upon the perception and manifestation of character, and I have therefore recounted them at greater length.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

dog-on · 01-26-2011, 07:12 AM

Well Joe, he didn't mean that kind of ancient biography. He meant the other examples of ancient biographies. You know, the ancient biographies written by Mark, Matt, Luke and John...

andrewcriddle · 01-26-2011, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
Next on the list:

The Life of Cato the Younger

Quote:

3 This is the only speech of Cato which has been p291preserved, we are told, and its preservation was due to Cicero the consul, who had previously given to those clerks who excelled in rapid writing instruction in the use of signs, which, in small and short figures, comprised the force of many letters; these clerks he had then distributed in various parts of the senate-house. For up to that time the Romans did not employ or even possess what are called shorthand writers, but then for the first time, we are told, the first steps toward the practice were taken. Be that as it may, Cato carried the day and changed the opinions of the senators, so that they condemned the men to death.

Quote:

25 Then he married a daughter of Philippus, Marcia, a woman of reputed excellence, about whom there was the most abundant talk; and this part of Cato's life, like a drama, has given rise to dispute and is hard to explain. However, the case was as follows, according to Thrasea, who refers to the authority of Munatius, Cato's companion and intimate associate. 2

Quote:

37 Munatius, however, states that his anger arose, not from Cato's distrust of him, but from his inconsiderate conduct towards him, and from a certain jealousy which Munatius himself felt towards Canidius. For Munatius himself also published a treatise about Cato, which Thrasea chiefly followed. 2 Munatius says that he came to Cyprus after the others, and found that no provision had been made for his entertainment; he says, too, that on going to Cato's door he was repulsed, because Cato had some engagement inside with Canidius. He says, further, that his measured protest met with no measured reply, for Cato told him that excessive affection, according to Theophrastus, was likely to become a ground for hatred in many cases. "And so thou too," said Cato, "by reason of thine especial affection for me, art vexed to think thyself less honoured than is meet. 3 Canidius I employ more than others both because I have made trial of him, and because I trust him; he came at the very first, and shows himself to be incorrupt." This private conversation, however, between himself and Cato, Munatius says was reported by Cato to Canidius, and that therefore, when he heard of it, he would no longer go to Cato's table, or visit him, or share his counsels, when he was invited. Further, Munatius says, when Cato threatened to take security from him, as the Romans do in the case of those who refuse to obey orders, he paid no attention to the threat, but sailed away, p327and for a long time continued to be angry with Cato. 4 Then, Munatius says, Marcia, who was still living with Cato,48 spoke with her husband about the matter; and when it chanced that both men were invited to supper by Barca, Cato, who came late and after the others had taken their places, asked where he should recline; and when Barca told him to recline where he pleased, Cato looked about the room and said: "I will take my place by Munatius." So he went round and reclined by his side, but made no further show of friendship during the supper. 5 Marcia, however, made a second request in the matter, Munatius says, and Cato wrote to him, saying that he wished to confer with him about something. So Munatius went to Cato's house early in the morning, and was detained there by Marcia until all the other visitors had gone away. Then Cato came in, threw both arms about him, kissed him, and lavished kindness upon him. Such incidents, now, in my opinion, quite as much as deeds of greatness and publicity, shed considerable light upon the perception and manifestation of character, and I have therefore recounted them at greater length.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Plutarch does sometimes explicitly identify sources, particularly when dealing with disputed episodes. He doesn't however do so anywhere as frequently as a modern writer.

For example his Life of Demetrius gives little indication (apart from Demetrius' scandalous behaviour at Athens) as to where Plutarch got his information.

Andrew Criddle

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

12-21-2010, 08:01 AM	#71
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	JW: Just found an audio lecture here: Was Mark Framed? Killing the Messenger in Mark's Greek Tragedy (Audio)Was Mark Framed? Where a Michael Halcomb argues (well) that "Mark" is Greek Tragedy. Probably inspired by this Thread (Why are all Markan experts named "Michael"?). Halcomb, like Bilezikian before him, is a believer who just thinks that GT is a stylish and effective Way to communicate the Passion and resurrection. Perhaps they will eventually come to accept the significance of the endings of GT. AnyWay, he has lots of good parallels between "Mark" and GT and related insights. He notes that historically there is no consensus on the Frame (big picture presentation style) of "Mark". The most popular is Geographic (Galilee, Judea & Jerusalem). He righteously points out that in trying to ID "Mark's" Jesus, above all else, this Jesus is a Messenger (GT). The relatively short stories fit the episode structure of GT, the supposed 12 disciples parallel the common 12 members of the chorus (GT) and the select 3 disciples at a time fit the limit of 3 actors on stage at a time (GT). Enjoy! Joseph ErrancyWiki

01-07-2011, 11:46 AM	#73
Jarhyn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Hudson, WI Posts: 2,911	It all makes me wonder whether Christianity started off as a cult classic, and then lost the "classic" somewhere (early) along the line.

01-26-2011, 07:12 AM	#79
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	Well Joe, he didn't mean that kind of ancient biography. He meant the other examples of ancient biographies. You know, the ancient biographies written by Mark, Matt, Luke and John...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.