JoeWallack

JW:
Continuing the assault on Burridge's What the Hell are the Gospels?, a comparison of "Mark" to Suetonius, The Life of Julius Caesar and Oedipus the King using Burridge's criteria to see which would parallel better:

2 - Subject

Significance of subject = B notes that in "Mark" Jesus is the most referred to character. He discusses the issue of whether "Mark" is primarily about Jesus or the related Mission, failing to conclude that "Mark" is primarily about a Mission which is distinct from the sample.

However, just comparing this criterion to Caesar vs. Oedipus, "Mark" clearly parallels better to Caesar as both almost always are referring to their subject while Oedipus is usually doing so. Match to Caesar. See how easy it is to confess a criterion that goes against your conclusion?

3 - External Features

Mode of representation = B notes "Mark" is in narrative form but fails to note that it is one continuous connected narrative which is distinct from the sample.

Oedipus is clearly a continuous connected narrative as opposed to Caesar which consists of highlights. Any way you look at it "Mark" matches to Oedipus here. Even if you doubt that "Mark" is a continuous narrative the time frame of less than one year still parallels better to Oedipus than the near lifetime of Caesar. Match to Oedipus.

Metre = B claims "Mark" is prose narrative and therefore metre is not applicable. B confesses though that "Mark" "may have the occasional oral cadence." The definition of metre is the rhythmic structure of verses and "Mark" clearly has chiasms which form rhythm. Oedipus clearly has meter while Caesar does not. Match to Oedipus.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

andrewcriddle

The events in Oedipus take place over the course of a few hours. (There are info-dumps providing years of back story.) This is very different from the period of around a year covered by Mark.

Andrew Criddle

JoeWallack

JW:
I think Oedipus is more like a day. I'm not sure to what extent you think the above is an objection to my analysis. The relatively short time period of Greek Tragedies is often cited/proof-texted as an argument against "Mark" being GT so I'll deal with it here.

Remember that at this point I Am only using Burridge's (B) criteria. I have a potential complication if he makes interpretations of the meaning of a criterion which are different from the norm.

The offending criterion here is:

Mode of Representation

B never gives a clear definition for his use of "mode" but he appears to use the modern one of Mode (literature). If so, than ironic is a major type and we have a clear match to Oedipus.

When B goes to specific analysis of modes in testing the Gospels he switches to the ancient definition of the form of presentation. I think he properly identifies two major characteristics of form here, Style and Connectivity. Style clearly matches to Oedipus.

Regarding connectivity, "Mark" is clearly a connected narrative as is Oedipus, while Caesar is not. Time length does not necessarily determine connectivity. Even if chronological time was a criterion I still think "Mark's" year parallels better with Oedipus' day than Caesar's mature period since both relate to a single issue. Related to this, the second half of "Mark", which the author makes clear, is the important part, takes place over a few days with the first half a set-up for it.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack

JW:
Super-Skeptic Neil Godfree is at it again, looking at the ancient literary technique of taking specific story elements from the ancient famous and using them in new stories with settings of real historical people:

Novels like Gospels (3) : How a Hero is Created from Myths and Meets Historical Persons

The Legendary Vorkosigan had already detected this technique in the Gospels:

Hellenistic Literary and Dramatic Conventions

Godfree is expanding the discussion and articulating the issue.

Obviously this technique of taking settings in prior literature and using them for a new creation is evidence of fiction and would be a very good criterion to have in trying to distinguish Bios from other ancient genre (an example of a criterion B should have).



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

andrewcriddle

My point is that Sophocles' Oedipus is a paradigm example of Aristotle's unities required in a good play (unity of place, unity of time and unity of action) Mark does not show any of these. The action takes several months (at least) wanders over Galilee Syria and Judea, and although the passion narrative in the second part may have unity of action the work as a whole does not.

Andrew Criddle

JoeWallack

JW:
I've already explained that I am comparing "Mark" to Oedipus and Life of Julius Caesar here using Burridge's criteria. I've likewise already explained that Burridge uses a mixture of the modern and ancient definitions of "mode" and using either one per Burridge's definition shows "Mark" parallels better to Oedipus here. So which would parallel better per Aristotle's definition is a side question.

As I've also mentioned, Aristotle's definitions for Greek Tragedy look prescriptive more than descriptive and there are acknowledged Greek Tragedies contemporary to Aristotle that don't fit his prescriptions. This is why he refers to good and bad Greek Tragedies. The basic Apologetic technique is to broaden the desired target and shrink the undesired one. Burridge is very much an Apologist and specifically here he is deliberately cherry-picking generic criteria that most writings would fit and avoiding criteria that would tag the Gospels as non-Biographical. Criteria don't lie but liars criterize. A few times in his book he picks a restrictive criteria per Aristotle of Greek Tragedy and than proof-texts that the Gospels can not be Greek Tragedy because of that one criterion.

In order to fairly evaluate the genre of "Mark" you have to use criteria that help distinguish between genre. The main distinction between Greek Tragedy and Bios is that Greek Tragedy is mainly supposed to be Art while Bios is mainly supposed to be History. Both can have some element of the other but this is an exception to the overall composition in general. Aristotle explains that Art is an imitation of History and this accounts for the similarity. The differences though are the artistic touches of Greek Tragedy which Bios generally tries to avoid. Note that in the 5 examples of Bios that Burridge gives (the best part of his book) all 5 avoid using artistic techniques and style.

If we are moving here from using Burridge's definition of mode here to using Aristotle's, Aristotle's key to mode was connectivity. Note that connectivity is artistic. It is a stylish technique. History is not connected. It consists of many unrelated events. "Mark" is a completely connected narrative which is all about Jesus' Mission. Life of Julius Caesar consists of mostly unrelated but major events in the life of Julius Caesar. Match to Oedipus. Length of time is a secondary consideration but would still match to Oedipus as the near Year of "Mark" is closer to a day than the 40 years of Julius Caesar.

The point is that I would not dismiss "Mark" as Bios just because it does not come close to encompassing his life just as Burridge/you should not dismiss "Mark" as Greek Tragedy because it takes more than a day. The criterion is which is "Mark" closer to in substance.

By the way, I asked Dr. Carrier what he thought about Burridge's book and he said he did not bother to read it since it was considered obsolete by authors he respects.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

andrewcriddle

Hi Joe

At a comon sense level tragedy was the sort of thing one presented on stage, ie a tragedy was something which fit the conventions for theatrical presentation.

There are tragedies, like those attributed to Seneca, which it is unlikely were ever performed or intended to be performed but they broadly fit the rules for theatrical presentation.

Some of the criticisms you have made of Burridge are very cogent, but I'm not sure if you have fully understood the type of argument from genre Burridge is putting forward.

The underlying claim or assumption is that people read a work by fitting it into an already existing category, (even if it doesn't fit very well). The alternative is to find the work incomprehansible.

IE if an ancient reader was handed a copy of Mark without explanation and struggled through it, (or eagerly read it from start to finish), he or she would have to interpret the reading experience as, "I have just read a rather odd history of early Christianty, or "I have just read a rather strange tragedy", or "I have just read a rather peculiar biography of Jesus the person the Christians claim to follow", or etc...

Now Burridge may be wrong in claiming that the uninstructed reader would say "I have just read a rather peculiar biography of Jesus the person the Christians claim to follow" but it seems extremely unlikely that the reader would say "I have just read a rather strange tragedy". The genuine resemblences between Mark and (some) tragedies, are not, on the whole, labels identifying the genre of a work. Mark may in genre terms, possibly be an example of 'tragic history' in which encouraging the appropriate emotions in the reader takes priority over historical accuracy, but 'tragic history' is not the same genre as tragedy.

Andrew Criddle

JoeWallack

JW:
I have here a Riddle for Andrew, Abe, Dave and Richard (a rhetorical question for everyone else). Regarding what's at this link:

http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/soph...pustheking.htm

what genre is this?



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

andrewcriddle

I will fearlessly walk into the trap.

I say it is a tragedy.

What is the catch ?

Andrew Criddle

JoeWallack

JW:
Ahem, continuing the assault on Burridge's What the Hell are the Gospels?, a comparison of "Mark" to Suetonius, The Life of Julius Caesar and Oedipus the King using Burridge's criteria to see which would parallel better:

3 - External Features

Size
"Mark" logos in at 11,242 words per Burridge. I see 24,358 words in The Life of Julius Caesar and 15,567 words in Oedipus the King. Match to Oedipus the King.

Structure = Burridge defines Structure in general as groupings of a narrative based on a common subject. Specifically he identifies the following common subjects, birth, family background, accomplishments/teaching and death.

General = Burridge notes that the Synoptics have a structure based on geography. He uses the apologetic language "not dissimilar" from Bios. He fails to note that "Mark" has a clear structure based on plot. Ministry and Passion. Oedipus only has a structure based on plot. Caesar only has structure based on the specifics above. Sub-match to Oedipus.

Specific = "Mark" has the specific identified subjects of accomplishments/teaching and death (qualified because it is a different type of death). Oedipus has none. Caesar has all. "Mark" has two of the four specifics that Caesar has but sub-match to Caesar because one of the specific matches of "Mark", accomplishments/teaching, is the most important one.

Overall match to Oedipus because the general match of structure based on plot is clearer than the specific matches to Caesar.

Side note = Regarding plot note that "Mark" and Oedipus have clear plots which dominate the narratives. I have faith that plots would be unknown in Bios. Do I summarily reject "Mark" as Bios because of this? God forbid. I try to determine and look at all good criteria.

Note in general that Fiction tends to embrace the appearances of fiction while Bios tends to avoid them (like plot).


Joseph

ErrancyWiki