Wrestling With Greco-Roman Bio. Is GMark Greek Tragedy?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Blood
Posts: 899
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:03 am

Re: Wrestling With Greco-Roman Bio. Is GMark Greek Tragedy?

Post by Blood »

Ehrman: If we were to attempt a definition, then, of the Greco-Roman biography, it might be something like this: ancient biography was a prose narrative recounting an individual’s life, often within a chronological framework, employing numerous subgenres (such as sayings, speeches, anecdotes, and conflict stories) so as to reflect important aspects of his or her character, principally for purposes of instruction (to inform about what kind of person he or she was), exhortation (to urge others to act similarly), and / or propaganda (to show his or her superiority to rivals).

Not a bad definition, but one that destroys his thesis. Greco-Roman biography does not contain 5,000 references to the Septuagint. In fact not a single extant Greco-Roman biography even makes the slightest reference to the LXX, so that automatically disqualifies the gospels.
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Wrestling With Greco-Roman Bio. Is GMark Greek Tragedy?

Post by John T »

The gospels are a little bit of everything because of the way they were developed/compiled over time.

The gospel started out as a simple but poignant oral story. The end is near, make way for the Lord, repent and be baptized.
The oral story was meant to be sent out as rapidly as possible, for the end was nigh. There was no need/time to give a written historical account of the life and times of Jesus. As time went on and the messiah did not appear, it is only natural to expect that the followers would want to put down in writing the words/sayings of Jesus (Q) and later patched in a bio.

Ehrman points out (Did Jesus Exist?) that some mythicists (Robert Price) see the gospels as interpretive paraphrases of the Old Testament, i.e. Moses and/or mythology and epic. "And so, the whole thing looks like it is made up."...."The early storytellers shaped their stories about Jesus according to the models available to them, making up details-and sometimes entire stories-or altering features here and there. But the fact they did so does not have any bearing on whether Jesus really existed."...Ehrman pg. 206.

William Lane Craig stated in a debate with Carrier that the "gospels have all the ear marks of a GrecoRoman Bio." Carrier stressed that was all nonsense, the gospel/resurrection is nothing but a myth, originating from Christians who had mass hallucinations. "We can't extract any history from the gospels."...Carrier. Craig went on to spank Carrier as a crank exegesis on that one. I agree with Craig. Once again, how much trust should you put in the writings of someone (who claims to be a historian) if they can't recognize just because some parts of a gospel appear to be in the style of myth telling, that in no way proves Jesus didn't exist.

There are plenty of folk-tales about Davy Crockett. One story, Davy is said to have ridden on the back of an alligator down the Mississippi River but even if the story isn't true, that doesn't mean Davy Crockett didn't exist.

Sincerely,
John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Wrestling With Greco-Roman Bio. Is GMark Greek Tragedy?

Post by neilgodfrey »

Ulan wrote:I cannot find it, but I think I read on Neil's blog something about a book that claims that Mark was written to be performed. All scenes are static, movement happens between scenes and the "immediately"'s may have been stage instructions.
It was probably a post addressing Whitney Shiner's Proclaiming the Gospel or chapter about creating plot episodes in Ancient Fiction and Early Christian Narrative.

http://vridar.org/2011/09/19/what-marks ... on-to-ask/

Shiner address chiasms as mnemonic aids -- like visualizing the relief sculpture in the gable of a temple building.

Or maybe we are thinking of Horsley's Performing the Gospel.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
Blood
Posts: 899
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:03 am

Re: Wrestling With Greco-Roman Bio. Is GMark Greek Tragedy?

Post by Blood »

John T wrote: Ehrman points out (Did Jesus Exist?) that some mythicists (Robert Price) see the gospels as interpretive paraphrases of the Old Testament, i.e. Moses and/or mythology and epic. "And so, the whole thing looks like it is made up."...."The early storytellers shaped their stories about Jesus according to the models available to them, making up details-and sometimes entire stories-or altering features here and there.
I'm not sure if you are aware, but the gospels as "interpretative paraphrases of the Old Testament" has been mainstream theology for hundreds of years now. It is not surprising or controversial to anyone that the loaves and fishes miracle is based on a similar incident in the Elijah cycle, etc.
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Wrestling With Greco-Roman Bio. Is GMark Greek Tragedy?

Post by neilgodfrey »

JoeWallack wrote: 1) Summary of an individual's life

GMark gives something less than a year in the life of its Jesus so there is no parallel here unless possibly Jesus had that rare aging disease which made him look like 50 when he actually was much younger (which potentially could explain a lot). GMark looks like a presentation of Jesus' mission (so to speak) rather than his life. Maybe a mission could be a "sub-genre" of GRB. It just doesn't parallel the criterion Ehrman picked here. The subsequent Gospels do try to e-x-p-a-n-d the Jesus presentation in the direction of from his mission to his life. But not to apply the criteria to individual Gospels like CBS/Ehrman have done is, as spin would say, naughty.
Agreed. GMark can not be considered a summary of anyone's life. It is not even a summary of "what Jesus did" in his year of ministry. It is a string of theological messages with the unifying theme of the theological identity of Jesus. It's a theological mystery and proclamation. Not a summary of anyone's life.
JoeWallack wrote: 2) Illustration of the subject's character

A good match here. A few significant complications here though, as usual/always especially in GMark:

1 - Jesus' character is completely changed by receiving the spirit of God at the beginning of the mission and there is an implication that it is likewise changed at the end when Jesus loses the spirit of God.

2 - The first half of the Gospel presents Jesus as a man of action. The second half presents Jesus as a man of inaction.

Again, overall a righteous match. But if there are significant complications (especially if they are rarer than Gordon Gecko's interest in Annacott Steel for the claimed genre or even otherwise unknown) they should be noted.
I don't know that we see anything of Jesus' character in Mark. All we see are theological sayings and allegorical deeds. Jesus is a representative of God or Israel or some midrashic message but there is no character. In the first part of the gospel Jesus is as much reacting to as acting on events. He's often getting away or being approached. He takes the initiative in his declaration of his identity when on trial and acts in taking his disciples to Gethsemane. I don't think the action-inaction divide holds perfectly.
JoeWallack wrote: 3) Presentation of the subject's character as model for others
  • Another good match but more pesky complications:

    1 - Jesus is presented as a role model but there is also a significant theme that Jesus is in a category by himself.

    2 - The emphasis of GMark is more about modeling behavior after disciples rather than Jesus. Additionally, most of the examples are of negative disciple behavior.
More than someone to emulate Jesus can best be seen as one who represents the current experiences and status of his followers.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Clive
Posts: 1197
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 2:20 pm

Re: Wrestling With Greco-Roman Bio. Is GMark Greek Tragedy?

Post by Clive »

not written in meter.
Sorry?

http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=135
"We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Wrestling With Greco-Roman Bio. Is GMark Greek Tragedy?

Post by John T »

Blood wrote:
John T wrote: Ehrman points out (Did Jesus Exist?) that some mythicists (Robert Price) see the gospels as interpretive paraphrases of the Old Testament, i.e. Moses and/or mythology and epic. "And so, the whole thing looks like it is made up."...."The early storytellers shaped their stories about Jesus according to the models available to them, making up details-and sometimes entire stories-or altering features here and there.
I'm not sure if you are aware, but the gospels as "interpretative paraphrases of the Old Testament" has been mainstream theology for hundreds of years now. It is not surprising or controversial to anyone that the loaves and fishes miracle is based on a similar incident in the Elijah cycle, etc.
I'm not sure if you are aware but the first Christians were mostly Jews and Moses and Elijah are exactly who they would compare and contrast Jesus too.
Likewise, the genitals would compare and contrast their mythical gods to Jesus in the same manner.

So, the gospels are written just as we would expect them to be if Jesus was real.

The mythicists are grasping at invisible straws.

Sincerely,
John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Wrestling With Greco-Roman Bio. Is GMark Greek Tragedy?

Post by Ulan »

John T wrote: Likewise, the genitals would compare and contrast their mythical gods to Jesus in the same manner.
Time to ask my genitals, I guess.
Discourse in the time of smartphones definitely takes unexpected turns.
John T wrote: So, the gospels are written just as we would expect them to be if Jesus was real.
Not really. If we for a moment run with Markan priority, it's hard to accept this as "real story". You don't even have to go far. You will already notice on the first page that everything is either directly lifted from or an answer to an OT story and, more importantly, that the author himself gives hints that he does not want to be taken literally.

Which, btw, is also nothing new to modern "mythicism" but has been known for more than a century. It's actually quite funny how tiny the step to not accepting historicity of Jesus is.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Wrestling With Greco-Roman Bio. Is GMark Greek Tragedy?

Post by Ulan »

neilgodfrey wrote:Or maybe we are thinking of Horsley's Performing the Gospel.
Thanks Neil. I think that was what stuck in my mind.
User avatar
Blood
Posts: 899
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:03 am

Re: Wrestling With Greco-Roman Bio. Is GMark Greek Tragedy?

Post by Blood »

John T wrote:
Blood wrote:
John T wrote: Ehrman points out (Did Jesus Exist?) that some mythicists (Robert Price) see the gospels as interpretive paraphrases of the Old Testament, i.e. Moses and/or mythology and epic. "And so, the whole thing looks like it is made up."...."The early storytellers shaped their stories about Jesus according to the models available to them, making up details-and sometimes entire stories-or altering features here and there.
I'm not sure if you are aware, but the gospels as "interpretative paraphrases of the Old Testament" has been mainstream theology for hundreds of years now. It is not surprising or controversial to anyone that the loaves and fishes miracle is based on a similar incident in the Elijah cycle, etc.
I'm not sure if you are aware but the first Christians were mostly Jews and Moses and Elijah are exactly who they would compare and contrast Jesus too.
Likewise, the genitals would compare and contrast their mythical gods to Jesus in the same manner.

So, the gospels are written just as we would expect them to be if Jesus was real.

The mythicists are grasping at invisible straws.

Sincerely,
John T
Freudian slip?
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp
Post Reply