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
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

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

Post by neilgodfrey »

An important book for understanding tragedy in relation to history in particular in the literature known to the author of the first gospel is The tragedy in history : Herodotus and the Deutoronomistic history by Nielsen.

On genre of Mark one also needs to study Vines' The problem of Markan genre.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

An Introduction to the New Testament

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
Image

An Introduction to the New Testament, Second Edition
Charles B. Puskas C. Michael Robbins June 16, 2011


At Location 4189 Puskas (P) starts his commentary on the genre of GMark. For the most part P lists the same parallels between GMark and Greek Tragedy that I have already listed here. General reasons given by P to think GMark is or at least is significantly Greek Tragedy are:
  • 1) Religion was a popular subject matter for Greek Tragedy (GT).

    2) Tragedy was a popular literary genre in the Roman era.

    3) GMark follows most of the basic elements of GT as outlined in Aristotle's classic Poetics

Joseph

The Amazin Kristkin!
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: An Introduction to the New Testament

Post by JoeWallack »

JoeWallack wrote: Sat Jan 19, 2019 3:22 pm JW:
Image

An Introduction to the New Testament, Second Edition
Charles B. Puskas C. Michael Robbins June 16, 2011


At Location 4189 Puskas (P) starts his commentary on the genre of GMark. For the most part P lists the same parallels between GMark and Greek Tragedy that I have already listed here. General reasons given by P to think GMark is or at least is significantly Greek Tragedy are:
  • 1) Religion was a popular subject matter for Greek Tragedy (GT).

    2) Tragedy was a popular literary genre in the Roman era.

    3) GMark follows most of the basic elements of GT as outlined in Aristotle's classic Poetics

Joseph

The Amazin Kristking!
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Wallack Takedown of Burridge. Two Points!

Post by JoeWallack »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK3Rveztcjk

JW:
An excerpt frpm Puskas (yes, "Puskas") related article:

Genres of the Gospels and Acts Charles Puskas
In Aristotle's plot-structure scheme, the transition between complication and denouement is called the crisis or turning point. It brings about the change in the course of action. To summarize what has taken place before the beginning of the play there is a "prologue" or opening scene. An "epilogue" also closes the play and is generally brief. Complication-denouement plot structure, prologue, and epilogue are evident in most Greek and Roman plays.
Like most Greek plays, Mark's Gospel begins with a prologue (1:1-13). This convention of providing an introduction and background for the contemporary audience is found in most tragedies (e.g., Hippolytus, Ajax). The entrance of the protagonist, Jesus, is announced by John the Baptist who soon leaves the scene (1:2-9). The statements of the messianic identity of Jesus (1:1,11), the prophetic expectation (1:2-3), and the conflict with evil (1:13), set the tone and inform the audience of the subject matter.
In the complication (1:14-8:26), Jesus is unable to proclaim his messiahship because his contemporaries are unable to recognize the nature of his vocation. Instead, he discloses it only to those who have "eyes to see and ears to hear." Jesus proclaims God's reign and performs various miracles. But those around him fail to perceive the significance of his words and deeds. Their conceptions of a political messiah or great miracle worker have blinded their understanding.
The dramatic tension created by the complication of the unrecognized messiah is partially relaxed when the disciples begin to recognize the messianic identity of Jesus (8:27-30). This pericope of Peter's confession at Caesarea Philippi serves as the crisis, or turning point, of the narrative.
As a result of Peter's confession, the plot moves to its resolution or denouement (8:31-15:47). The ministry of Jesus now has a central focus: the accomplishment of his messianic task. The denouement unfolds along two lines: (1) Jesus prepares the disciples for his death, and (2) the opponents succeed in putting him to death. Jesus instructs his disciples on the necessity of his suffering and death, but they fail to understand and desert him when he is arrested. After Jesus has effectively challenged the Jewish leaders, they succeed in their scheme to kill him. Even though the death of Jesus was a tragic act, it was also the accomplished goal of his messianic mission. It was a goal to which he, as a tragic hero, nobly submitted.

Joseph

DRAMATIST, n. One who adapts plays from the French.

Is Palestinian Terrorism Good For Israel?
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

It's Not Good To be The King

Post by JoeWallack »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgNcAG5q_jM

JW:
Continuing with Poetics and looking for parallels to "Mark":
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(Aristotle) has already explained that the most important element of GT(Greek Tragedy) is plot. Now he explains the most important components of plot:

[1] 8
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 (Teaching & Healing) 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:
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]
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]
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

DESTINY, n. A tyrant's authority for crime and fool's excuse for failure.

ErrancyWiki
Post Reply