Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I subscribe to the theory of pMark, an earlier version of the Gospel to which Mark has made various expansions. Some exampl are 3:20 [22-30] 31-34; 6:7-13 [14-29] 30; 2:18 [19-20] 21-22; 9:33-37 [38-41] 42; 14:1-2 [3-9] 10-11.

Perhaps the most important finding is that PN and pMark concluded at 15:39. Thus, the episodes of Jesus' burial and that of the empty tomb are regarded as Markan. In both women, are the main characters and the burial scene prepares for the one that follows.

Crucial for a proper understanding of Jesus final words, when he asks his god why he has been forsaken, is the earlier claim by Jesus that he was indeed the Messiah, a claim that would soon be vindicated by a supernatural fulfillment of the messianic prophesy of Dan 7:13-14, which partially quotes in Mark 14:62. This extreme confidence and expectatio. that he is about to be installed as the messianic king finally gives way to the abject despair of being forsaken. The last sound that Jesus makes is an anguished cry. It appears that the reader is to deduce that Jesus realized what had to be the answer to his question. He realized that was unthinkable was unmistakable. Why forsaken? Because you are not thbe Messiah! So Jesus then cried out and died. The story ends with the centurion's assessment of Jesus. He was indeed a uios theou.

When pMark is isolated, I contend that his composition was strongly informed by canons of Greek Tragedy as articulated by Aristotle in his Poetics. That is to say that pMark contains many of the essential traits belonging to the genre of Aistotlean Tragedy: nobility of the protagonist, harmatia (fatal flaw) peripetia (plot reversal), pathos (suffering), recognition and anagorisis (self-realization). It is obvious how this story may well inspire "pity and fear" as Aristotle states that good tragedy does, and also that it may well beget a "catharsis," meaning, an intellectual clarification.

Jesus' nobility lies in the portrayal of a man of great authority, as healer, exorcist, sage and would be royal Messiah. The last theme is developed in terms of concealment to revelation, announced unequivocally at his trial. It is also anticipated with his question earlier: "Who do men say that I am?". His conviction that he was the Messiah is expressed by his royal entrance on a donkey and his usurping high priestly authority with his disturbance in the Temple. " By what authority...?" Messianic authority.

But as the story concludes, it becomes clear that Jesus is not the Messiah. This is his most pathetic anagorisis. But then who and what was he? This is found in the Recognition that the author puts in the mouth of the centurion at the end. I take uios theou to mean "son of a god" or a "Divine Man," the heros of Graeco- Roman lore. Men of rare personal power and achievement.

In this way pMarks portrays Jesus as a Tragic Hero whose fatal flaw was his belief in Jewish Messianism as taught in his Jewish Scriptures. According to the author, he was sorely mistaken that he thought himself to be a bogus, mythological personage. As admirable as it might be to be to think of oneself as the Messiah, his death demonstrated that the claim was false as he himself was so pathetically forced to realize.

Hence , the literary genre of pMark is that of an (Aristotlean) Tagedy., complete with the essential literary traits that would show it to be such.

LM Barre

drbarre wrote:Hence , the literary genre of pMark is that of an (Aristotlean) Tagedy., complete with the essential literary traits that would show it to be such.

Your first post. Welcome to the forum.

I think you mean to say here that Mark imports elements of Aristotelian tragedy. Mark is clearly not, by literary genre, an Aristotelian tragedy, which (according to Aristotle himself) is a poem staged as a dramatic play with a plot driven, not by narrative, but by the actions of actors and a chorus:


Now, it is true that Aristotle deems plot to be the most important element of tragedy, and, if you can demonstrate that the plot of Mark is of a tragically Aristotelian nature, then you will certainly have done something. But I suggest that you will not have turned the prose narrative of Mark into a dramatic poem any more than you will have demonstrated that it is a limerick.

Ben.

Ben C. Smith wrote:[
I think you mean to say here that Mark imports elements of Aristotelian tragedy.



Ben.

Agreed.

We know these authors were trained in Aristotelian rhetoric, and the influence of Hellenistic epics I thought was common knowledge.

It's sufficient to define a new concept of Messiah, in Mark, to have this claim false:

As admirable as it might be to be to think of oneself as the Messiah, his death demonstrated that the claim was false as he himself was so pathetically forced to realize.

But you are correct that the Gospel genre is tragedy, since only a tragedy can better represent a basic contradiction between a god that comes down on Judea and the death of that god.

I remember by memory the words of a 'new age' Gnostic guru, that were more or less these: when the divine Revealer arrives, what for us is ''white'' for him is ''black'', and what for us is ''day'' for him is ''night'', and what for us is ''light'', for him is ''dark'', and what for us is ''paradise'' for him is ''hell'', and so on. An implicit tragic dualism is inevitably the result, even more so if the Revealer's hidden goal is paradoxically the death.

I think that the raising of these antitheses, as mere side effects of a pre-existent god descending on earth, would be necessary to describe the arrival of a god on Judaea and would be therefore sufficient to choose the tragedy as genre of the first Gospel.

Don't ignore that the cult precedes the legend.

Giuseppe wrote: Don't ignore that the cult precedes the legend.

Unsubstantiated busura

Hellenistic Judaism preceded the legend, anything else is factual imagination.

Ben,

You are right. pMark is unlike an Aristotlean tragedy in that it is narrative in form. Thus, I would have to refine my thesis to say that we have a narrative form that contains essential elements of an "Aristotlean" Tragedy. Perhaps we should simply label pMark simply as a "Tragedy," and understand that it is Aristotlean Tragedy in content, rendered in narrative form.

Is it?

LM

Ben,

You are clear that I am talking about pMark and that it ended in 15:39, correct?

I think I have argued that essential elements in terms of characterization and plot as characteristic of Greek tragedy are found in pMark: nobility of the protagonist, his harmatia, his suffering, peripetia (plot reversal), anagorisis (self-discovery) and recognition. Such traits are not peripheral but rather essential to pMark's presentation of Jesus.

LM

In a discourse on Mark in the Bible, we have some good insights addressing a pre-existent Messiah but that does not mean the Gnostics were it's origin. Many people think there is no real merit in a forensic or even cursory examination of the origins of almost every people, culture and belief they think they are part of - and KNOW! Who got them to close their minds and why does it continue? Could the origin of such myopia and continuing propaganda have something to do with the advent of Empires and misogyny? It certainly has much to do with ignorance which many seekers of gnosis (means wisdom - not salvation - those Gnostics selling Salvation are Roman Empire agents) tell us is the main cause of all problems - or is the true Original Sin. I thank g-d that the Gnostics saved some (few) of the books once maintaining insights to prior cultures which threatened so many despots. All the attacks on Alexandria's great repository of knowledge, are just a small part of a far larger program employing bounties, proscriptions and adherence to the new paradigm - still existing..

The Judaeo/Christian/Islamic cultus has much to apologize for - that is certain. Can any of them (other than good scholars in their midst) start a true ecumenicism and fair treatment of their own sheeple?

The Rules of Wife-Beating

Such a joyous creed these cults perform! Hammurabi, Augustine, and many more would be proud. When will our society insist on legal action? Can we teach women how and why to beat men?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...Eam5FX58#at=15

drbarre wrote:You are clear that I am talking about pMark and that it ended in 15:39, correct?

Yes, that was clear. Thanks.

I currently hold no special opinion on the presence or number of tragic elements in Mark, or on whether those tragic elements might derive from a conscious (or unconscious) imitation of Greek Tragedy. I do, however, have opinions on the literary genre of Mark, opinions which I have summarized here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1724. I specifically allowed that my view of genre "still leaves some room for Homer and for other pagan influences, if they should seem likely; it still leaves room for the direct opposition to Augustus and Rome (compare Mark 1.1, the beginning of the gospel, with the Priene inscription)." I would of course include the potential for Greek Tragic influences right along with that for Homeric and imperial influences.

Ben.

I am not talking about Mark but rather pMark.