Jesus: Messianic Pretender as Arisotlean Tragic Hero

[lmbarre]

Sure, we can analyze them as literature, but any insights that might yield would be superfluous–more of a matter of personal interest or pastime than theological importance–in the sense that it would not alter the fundamental and indispensable message they convey. Such analysis is a luxury–not a necessity–and the fact remains that they were never intended as artistic endeavors, but as historical accounts: “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.” - Luke 1:1-2

Then here is a superflous insight.

With the original PN isolated, we may then ask the form-critical question regarding its literary genre. My contention is that it is a tragedy, and more specifically, an Aristotelian tragedy. Evidence for this genre designation is drawn first of all from Aristotle’s Poetics:

classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/poetics.mb.txt

Here again I do need to go into some quite detailed arguments to show that original PN does indeed conform to Aristotle’s ideal tragedy. They may be summarized as parallel in terms of plot, characterization of the tragic hero, motifs and diction. Here is a summary of the literary features of a Aristotelian tragedy:

An Aristotelian tragic hero must have four characteristics:

• Nobleness (of a noble birth) or wisdom (by virtue of birth).
• Hamartia (translated as tragic flaw, somewhat related to hubris, but denoting excess in behavior or mistakes).
• A reversal of fortune (peripetia) brought about because of the hero’s tragic error.
• The discovery or recognition that the reversal was brought about by the hero’s own actions (anagnorisis).

As I have said, I can go into much greater detail to show that the PN is to be generically classified as an (Aristotelian) tragedy. Your denial that this is not so needs to engage what arguments I have just advanced.

Note also that Aristotle’s tragic hero was developed in the history of the genre. Here is a list of certain refinements and additions to Aristotle’s original definition of the tragic hero:

Other common traits:

Hero must suffer more than he deserves.
Hero must be doomed from the start, but bear no responsibility for possessing his flaw.
Hero must be noble in nature, but imperfect so that the audience can see themselves in him.
Hero must have discovered his fate by his own actions, not by things happening to him.
Hero must see and understand his doom, as well as the fact that his fate was discovered by his own actions.
Hero’s story should arouse fear and empathy.
Hero must be physically or spiritually wounded by his experiences, often resulting in his death.
Ideally, the hero should be a king or leader of men, so that his people experience his fall with him.
The hero must be intelligent so he may learn from his mistakes.

Conclusion: The genre of the original PN is a tragedy as defined by Aristotle in his Poetics and as later expounded in other tragedies descending from an Aristotelian origin.

I submit that I have offered detailed arguments regarding the literary-critical isolation of an original PN and correctly identified its genre as (Aristotelian) tragedy.

 

[lmbarre]

With this definition, I have a basis to argue that the PN is based upon an eye-witness account. I go further to argue that the eye-witness was a historical centurion who served as the source of factual information. Let me be quick to say that I am not here “cherry-picking” the centurion as the probable witness that the author of PN used to compose his tragedy. That we may rationally determine that the centurion’s account is the basis of the PN should not be dismissed because it is often the case that we cannot usually make such a specific determination of a literary source. Let me also clear the air that I am not compelled by any ideology which “needs” to have an eye-witness report regarding the historical Jesus. I very much argue to this remarkable and unprecedented conclusion and I am fully aware of its radical claim. It seem most grandiose that I should claim that I have concluded the quest for the essential historical Jesus! I cannot put enough exclamation points behind this allegation.

That the PN is based upon an eye-witness account is argued upon two bases:

• the probable conclusion that eloi eloi lama sabachtani is an authentic saying of Jesus.
• that the genre of a Aristotelian tragedy aims at above all “imitation” or what we call “realism.”

While the traditional criteria for isolating authentic sayings of Jesus has been critiqued in scholarly literature, I would argue that the following criteria are, with noted qualification, yet valid:

• dissimilarity
• embarrassment
• orality

I have argued to the conclusion that the above saying is authentic here:

freewebs.com/lmbarre/jesusastragichero.htm

That the genre of Aristotlelian tragedy that aims to be “realistic” is stated in the “Poetics.” Indeed, this is a major characteristic of his ideal tragedy–“imitation.” What it imitates is the actual phenomenon of a tragic dimension of human existence. This is the basis of his argument that it should inspire not only pity but also “fear.” That fear is to be inspired among the audience is based the real threat that they may experience a possible tragic situation. The “catharsis” consists of the enlightenment that a seemingly senseless tragedy has a most profound and most positive significance. In effect, it is a “prophetic” debunking of Existential Sartrean Absurdity" Regarded as such, it is indeed both an epiphany and a most profound catharsis. It answers the pressing question as to why it is that such extremely good people should experience such profound suffering. According to my interpretation of the PN, the conclusion that Fate (and therefore God) demonstrated to Jesus himself that he could not be the Messiah and drove him to a moment of exquisite insanity as expressed in his final loud cry with his very last breath. According to the keryma of the author of the PN, an imitation of tragic experienced is portrayed as an archetypical experience of tragedy where imitation become reality in the historical person and actual tragic fate of one Jesus of Nazareth.

The report of this event ultimately goes to making a statement about a pantheistic or pan-en-theistic God that transcends Jewish, messianic apocalypticism. That god is too small and the tragedy warns against this theological reductionism. Even more, this non-idolatrous deity is portrayed as extremely merciful. For the experience shows that God, in his mercy, did not allow Jesus to live with is most profound and painful realization that he was not the Messiah for more than a moemt. That realization was with him for but the shortest period possible, in the moment of a last breath. Indeed, the relative short duration of Jesus’ crucifixion scores the same point. Here we have a God of fate that suffers with his tragic hero and relieves himself of empathetic divine suffering, who authored a suffering but most quickly relieved the hero of anagnorisis. “God had mercy on the man who doubted what he was sure of.”

Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of Yahweh been revealed?

Isaiah 53:1

 

[annem]

Dear Imbarre, sorry, but I don’t think you’ve done much research.

Jesus as Aristolean tragic hero? That’s an oldie but hardly a goodie. Starting with the old History of Religions school and their claims that Jesus was actually Prometheus. Or Horus. Or Mithras. Etc., etc. It’s like a vampire that never dies, no matter how many stakes are driven through its heart.

Here are some of the reasons the arguments of the History of Religions school were refuted:

1. Jesus was not a character in a play. He was not a vegetation pagan god. He was s real human being and came in real, historical time, as attested to over and over. Completely unlike the gods and heroes.
2. The idea that Second Temple Jews were basted in Greek literature, or various pagan religions, is hardly tenable. Come on. Especially in a dusty little village in the outside of beyond. What they were drenched in, what they memorized, was the Old Testament. Which is why Jesus and the authors of the gospels and Paul kept quoting it. Notice how often Jesus mentioned Greek literature, by the way? That would be: never.
3. Read about any of the recent archaeological finds in the last fifty years in Galilee? Let me just give you a brief overview. No pork bones found in any village in Galilee. There is a great deal of evidence proving that Second Temple Jews were passionate and unyielding about their religion. This is a span of time from the Maccabees to the destruction of the temple. from one bloody uprising of the passionately religious to the next passionately religious war. All historical evidence points to rising fervor for their religion and…why, none at all, for Greek plays or pagan gods.

May God grant you light and a merry Christmas, Annem

 

[lmbarre]

Why?

Perhaps not. In any case, I assign this fantastic motif to Mark’s redaction. Aristotle sees the use of them as somewhat cheap and to be avoided and goes against his teaching that the best tragedy be realistic, or “imitation” as he calls it.

 

[annem]

Imbarre"

It is widely recognized in scholars of both Testaments the many works have undergone editorial expansion. Not only the gospels but also Paul’s authentic letters.

This is wrong. Have you perhaps picked up a copy of one of Bart ‘Errors’ Ehrman books? Let me give you a list of decent scholars. And no, by the way, Raymond Brown is not among my list of decent scholars. He would be among my list of tragically flawed scholars. Maybe even on a Greek heroic level.

I You seem to simply ignore the argument that indeed Jesus is portrayed as a classic Tragic Hero.

No, Jesus is not portrayed as a classic hero, tragic or otherwise. Unlike tragic heroes, he had no flaw.

w

With the original PN isolated, we may then ask the form-critical question regarding its literary genre. My contention is that it is a tragedy, and more specifically, an Aristotelian tragedy. Evidence for this genre designation is drawn first of all from Aristotle’s Poetics:

Clearly you are stuck in about 1970 regarding information about biblical scholarship. Pick up a copy of "What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography by Richard A. Burridge in which he places all four gospels firmly in ancient bios as far as literary form. That book has had huge impact on scholarship recently.

May God grant you light a truly blessed Christmas, Annem

 

[lmbarre]

Quote:
It is widely recognized in scholars of both Testaments the many works have undergone editorial expansion. Not only the gospels but also Paul’s authentic letters.

This is wrong. Have you perhaps picked up a copy of one of Bart ‘Errors’ Ehrman books? Let me give you a list of decent scholars. And no, by the way, Raymond Brown is not among my list of decent scholars. He would be among my list of tragically flawed scholars. Maybe even on a Greek heroic level.

Please give me a list of decent scholars and tell why you think they are decent.

Quote:
I You seem to simply ignore the argument that indeed Jesus is portrayed as a classic Tragic Hero.
No, Jesus is not portrayed as a classic hero, tragic or otherwise. Unlike tragic heroes, he had no flaw.

You do not understand my argument. argue that his flaw was that he thought he was the Messiah ushering the messanic age. This is inicated by his allusion to Dan 7:13-14. When he knew he was about to die, the prayed why his god had forsaken him and not produced the messianic age. His flaw was his subscription to Jewish apocalytic messianism which his death demonstrated to be wrong. His hamartia was that he believed he was a mythological figure in the eyes of the author of the Passion Narrative.

w
Quote:
With the original PN isolated, we may then ask the form-critical question regarding its literary genre. My contention is that it is a tragedy, and more specifically, an Aristotelian tragedy. Evidence for this genre designation is drawn first of all from Aristotle’s Poetics:

Clearly you are stuck in about 1970 regarding information about biblical scholarship. Pick up a copy of "What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography by Richard A. Burridge in which he places all four gospels firmly in ancient bios as far as literary form. That book has had huge impact on scholarship recently.

The validity of compostion criticism is not dependent upon scholarly trends. Are you claiming that every example of biblical literature is the product of one hand? You are stuck in no age of biblical scholarship if you think that.

May God grant you light a truly blessed Christmas, Annem

You cite no primary evidence, avoid that that I have, and patronize me and pronounce from some posture of authority who are the decent scholars

Here are my arguments that the original passion narrative is generically to be classified as an Aristotlian tragedy. If you disagree, then please meet my arguments.

With the original PN isolated, we may then ask the form-critical question regarding its literary genre. My contention is that it is a tragedy, and more specifically, an Aristotelian tragedy. Evidence for this genre designation is drawn first of all from Aristotle’s Poetics:

classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/poetics.mb.txt

Here again I do need to go into some quite detailed arguments to show that original PN does indeed conform to Aristotle’s ideal tragedy. They may be summarized as parallel in terms of plot, characterization of the tragic hero, motifs and diction. Here is a summary of the literary features of a Aristotelian tragedy:

An Aristotelian tragic hero must have four characteristics:

• Nobleness (of a noble birth) or wisdom (by virtue of birth).
• Hamartia (translated as tragic flaw, somewhat related to hubris, but denoting excess in behavior or mistakes).
• A reversal of fortune (peripetia) brought about because of the hero’s tragic error.
• The discovery or recognition that the reversal was brought about by the hero’s own actions (anagnorisis).

As I have said, I can go into much greater detail to show that the PN is to be generically classified as an (Aristotelian) tragedy. Your denial that this is not so needs to engage what arguments I have just advanced.

Note also that Aristotle’s tragic hero was developed in the history of the genre. Here is a list of certain refinements and additions to Aristotle’s original definition of the tragic hero:

Other common traits:

Hero must suffer more than he deserves.
Hero must be doomed from the start, but bear no responsibility for possessing his flaw.
Hero must be noble in nature, but imperfect so that the audience can see themselves in him.
Hero must have discovered his fate by his own actions, not by things happening to him.
Hero must see and understand his doom, as well as the fact that his fate was discovered by his own actions.
Hero’s story should arouse fear and empathy.
Hero must be physically or spiritually wounded by his experiences, often resulting in his death.
Ideally, the hero should be a king or leader of men, so that his people experience his fall with him.
The hero must be intelligent so he may learn from his mistakes.

Conclusion: The genre of the original PN is a tragedy as defined by Aristotle in his Poetics and as later expounded in other tragedies descending from an Aristotelian origin.

I submit that I have offered detailed arguments regarding the literary-critical isolation of an original PN and correctly identified its genre as (Aristotelian) tragedy.

 

[annem]

Imbarre

I very much argue to this remarkable and unprecedented conclusion and I am fully aware of its radical claim. It seem most grandiose that I should claim that I have concluded the quest for the essential historical Jesus! I cannot put enough exclamation points behind this allegation.

Grandiose? Remarkable? Unprecedented conclusion? About once a month I read a book that claims the same things about some new discovery about Jesus. Ever read the book that claimed Jesus was a mushroom? It was a bestseller. No, I am not making this up.

And sorry, but yours is not a ‘radical’ claim at all. It’s not new. At all. Really. Look up the old History of Religions school. Die religionsgeschichtliche Schule is how it is usually written, since most of the scholars were German.

Here;s are good books on the subject: "The Jesus Legend by Eddy and Boyd or "the Gospel and the Greeks by Nash.;

May God grant you light a nd a blessed Christmas Annem

 

[lmbarre]

Please stop preaching and address my arguments.

 

[annem]

Imbarre

 May God grant you light a truly blessed Christmas, Annem

Are you patronizing me again?

Ack, how could that even occur to you?? No, no no. I am truly wishing and praying, as I write the words, for God to aid you, for him to grant you light. Why on earth would you think I am patronizing or something? Please, it’s not true. I pray God grant you light and happiness and a truly blessed and merry Christmas. Reallly.

Sorry if I sounded flip at any point. I actually rarely post anything on this forum, usually I am off on another place entirely and having long exhausting arguments with atheists. And considering that most of them are angry and full of …language I won’t use, I may have developed a flip style which I don;'t mean.
’
I believe in God with all my heart and soul and pray to him that he will grant you the same graces. And if I EVER sound sarcastic, flip,. rude, patronizing…anything at all, let me know RIGHT AWAY and I will offer you an apology, as I most certainly do now to you… Because I might be being humorous and thoughtless but I hope I never ever would intentionally hurt someone.

God bless you, Annem

 

[annem]

Imbarre

Please stop preaching and address my arguments.

Sorry if I didn’t seem to address your arguments.

Maybe i haven’t been clear. You are arguing about the literary form of the gospels when that issue is no longer much in play. Burridge’s book, in which he claims all four are types of ancient bios, has been accepted by a large number of scholars as an answer to the problem.

As far as the newest direction for biblicasl scholarship in the last decade or so, look into oral transmission. In 1983 Werner Kebler published “The Oral and the Written Gospel”. The main influence of this book was in the first essay in the book “The Pre-Canonical Synoptic Transmission”. Given the influence of the essay, I am sure you can find a copy of the book in any nearby u7niversity library.

Now, to deal with your argument just on its merits. Just off the top of my head:

It’s simply not tenable. Jesus was not a hero in a play. He was a real human being who came in real human time.

In about 50 Paul wrote about his resurrection from the dead. Frankly, in the entire history of the world, a resurrection from the dead strikes me as the least tragic thing ever. Stunning triumph, maybe, tragedy, hardly. Please explain how a resurrection from the dead is somehow equal to a tragic figure.

Yes, the Jews at the time did have Daniel’s prophecy about a mysterious messiah who would come in about five hundred years. And lo and behold, Jesus came. At exactly the right time. Tragedy…not so much.
This is getting too long. I’ll write more in a minute,

God bless you utterly and may you be flooded with light and joy, Annem

 

[annem]

Imbarre

his flaw was that he thought he was the Messiah ushering the messanic age.

This is one of the older arguments, but it crashes on the shoals of the resurrection. Jesus was the Messiah. And by the time Paul wrote he practically wrote Christ as Jesus’ last name so firmly implanted was the idea that Jesus was the Messiah.

The other thing Paul believed about Jesus was that he was God. Paul rewrote the Shema in Corinthians to include both God the father and Jesus Christ. This would be the worst form of blasphemy for a Second Temple Jew. Unless Jesus was indeed God. God;s coming to this world was a triumph. Not a tragedy. This was the best, the happiest, the most glorious information in the world according to Paul. Jesus had come and saved us.

Pretty hard to call Jesus a failure when he did fulfill all the requirements of prophecy, did rise from the dead, and did found a church that went on to become the largest religion in the world. Christianity didn’t merely change the world; that, even atheist communists could do. They could change the world for the worse. ’
’
Christianity changed the world for the better.

Are you claiming that every example of biblical literature is the product of one hand?

Catholics are not literal Protestant fundamentalists. And by the way, Luke/Acts is agreed by the vast, vast majority of scholars to be the product of one man.

May God truly bless you with joy and laughter and light this Christmas, Annem

 

[lmbarre]

Sir, I still do not find you addressing my form-critical arguments. Here one needs to cite primary, textual evidence, not a scholar. Do you understand form-criticism? There is also the exegetical method of composition criticism. The first question to ask of a text under consideration is whether it is unified or composite. Here is my evidence that there are several instances that indicate the probabilty that redactional additions are in evidence.

• Literary criticism, or more specifically, composition criticism, is a valid and necessary method of historical exegesis. There is no doubt that ancient literature in general, and biblical literature in general, are often not unified compositions. To the contrary, both Old and Testament literature exhibits many examples where redactional modifications have been made to many texts, on the level of textual variants up to redactional conflations and expansions, be they major, as in the composition of the Pentateuch, or minor, as in the generation of certain textual variants. And such redactional manipulation is in evidence for example in the Josephus text that mentions the Christ where it is probable that certain interpolations were introduced. I should think that I hardly need to argue this point. I have eight examples of alleged textual insertions.

center]Markan expansions of pMark

1. The insertion of the story of John the Baptizer’s death:

6:7 And He summoned the twelve and began to send them out in pairs, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits ; 8 and He instructed them that they should take nothing for their journey, except a mere staff -no bread, no bag, no money in their belt - 9 but to wear sandals ; and He added, “Do not put on two tunics.” 10 And He said to them, "Wherever you enter a house, stay there until you leave town. 11 “Any place that does not receive you or listen to you, as you go out from there, shake the dust off the soles of your feet for a testimony against them.” 12 They went out and preached that men should repent. 13 And they were casting out many demons and were anointing with oil many sick people and healing them.

*14 And King Herod heard of it, for His name had become well known ; and people were saying, “John the Baptist has risen from the dead, and that is why these miraculous powers are at work in Him.” 15 But others were saying, “He is Elijah.” And others were saying, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” 16 But when Herod heard of it, he kept saying, “John, whom I beheaded, has risen !” 17 For Herod himself had sent and had John arrested and bound in prison on account of Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip, because he had married her. 18 For John had been saying to Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.” 19 Herodias had a grudge against him and wanted to put him to death and could not do so; 20 for Herod was afraid of John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and he kept him safe. And when he heard him, he was very perplexed ; but he used to enjoy listening to him. 21 A strategic day came when Herod on his birthday gave a banquet for his lords and military commanders and the leading men of Galilee ; 22 and when the daughter of Herodias herself came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his dinner guests ; and the king said to the girl, “Ask me for whatever you want and I will give it to you.” 23 And he swore to her, “Whatever you ask of me, I will give it to you; up to half of my kingdom.” 24 And she went out and said to her mother, “What shall I ask for?” And she said, “The head of John the Baptist.” 25 Immediately she came in a hurry to the king and asked, saying, “I want you to give me at once the head of John the Baptist on a platter.” 26 And although the king was very sorry, yet because of his oaths and because of his dinner guests, he was unwilling to refuse her. 27 Immediately the king sent an executioner and commanded him to bring back his head. And he went and had him beheaded in the prison, 28 and brought his head on a platter, and gave it to the girl ; and the girl gave it to her mother. 29 When his disciples heard about this, they came and took away his body and laid it in a tomb. *

30 The apostles gathered together with Jesus ; and they reported to Him all that they had done and taught.

 

[lmbarre]

1. Jesus’ family comes to get him because he seems unbalanced:

3:20 And He came home, and the crowd gathered again, to such an extent that they could not even eat a meal. 21 When His own people heard of this, they went out to take custody of Him; for they were saying, “He has lost His senses.”

22 The scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, “He is possessed by Beelzebul,” and “He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons.” 23 And He called them to Himself and began speaking to them in parables, "How can Satan cast out Satan ? 24 "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 "If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 "If Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but he is finished ! 27 "But no one can enter the strong man’s house and plunder his property unless he first binds the strong man, and then he will plunder his house. 28 "Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter ; 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin "- 30 because they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.”

31 Then His mother and His brothers arrived, and standing outside they sent word to Him and called Him. 32 A crowd was sitting around Him, and they said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You.” 33 Answering them, He said, “Who are My mother and My brothers ?” 34 Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers! 35 “For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother.”

 

[lmbarre]

1. Jesus’ assertion about an unknown exorcist:

9:33 They came to Capernaum ; and when He was in the house, He began to question them, “What were you discussing on the way ?” 34 But they kept silent, for on the way they had discussed with one another which of them was the greatest. 35 Sitting down, He called the twelve and said to them, “If anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all.” 36 Taking a child, He set him before them, and taking him in His arms, He said to them, 37 “Whoever receives one child like this in My name receives Me; and whoever receives Me does not receive Me, but Him who sent Me.”

38 John said to Him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us.” 39 But Jesus said, "Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me. 40 "For he who is not against us is for us. 41 "For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because of your name as followers of Christ, truly I say to you, he will not lose his reward.

42 "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea.

1. Fasting

2:18 John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting ; and they came and said to Him, “Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast ?” 19 And Jesus said to them
,
"While the bridegroom is with them, the attendants of the bridegroom cannot fast, can they? So long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. 20 "But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day.

21 "No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment ; otherwise the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear results. 22 “No one puts new wine into old wineskins ; otherwise the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost and the skins as well; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins.”

 

[lmbarre]

1. Anointing

14:1 Now the Passover and Unleavened Bread were two days away ; and the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to seize Him by stealth and kill Him; 2 for they were saying, “Not during the festival, otherwise there might be a riot of the people.”

3 While He was in Bethany at the home of Simon the leper, and reclining at the table, there came a woman with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume of pure nard ; and she broke the vial and poured it over His head. 4 But some were indignantly remarking to one another, "Why has this perfume been wasted ? 5 “For this perfume might have been sold for over three hundred denarii, and the money given to the poor.” And they were scolding her. 6 But Jesus said, "Let her alone ; why do you bother her? She has done a good deed to Me. 7 "For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them; but you do not always have Me. 8 "She has done what she could ; she has anointed My body beforehand for the burial. 9 “Truly I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be spoken of in memory of her.”

14:10 Then Judas Iscariot, who was one of the twelve, went off to the chief priests in order to betray Him to them. 11 They were glad when they heard this, and promised to give him money. And he began seeking how to betray Him at an opportune time.

 

[lmbarre]

1. Peter’s Denials (a)

14:53 They led Jesus away to the high priest ; and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes gathered together.

• 14:54 Peter had followed Him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest ; and he was sitting with the officers and warming himself at the fire.*

14:55 Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, and they were not finding any. 56 For many were giving false testimony against Him, but their testimony was not consistent. 57 Some stood up and began to give false testimony against Him, saying, 58 "We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.’ " 59 Not even in this respect was their testimony consistent. 60 The high priest stood up and came forward and questioned Jesus, saying, “Do You not answer ? What is it that these men are testifying against You?” 61 But He kept silent and did not answer. Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 And Jesus said, “I am ; and you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN.” 63 Tearing his clothes, the high priest said, "What further need do we have of witnesses ? 64 “You have heard the blasphemy ; how does it seem to you?” And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death. 65 Some began to spit at Him, and to blindfold Him, and to beat Him with their fists, and to say to Him, “Prophesy !” And the officers received Him with slaps in the face.

1. Peter’s Denials (b), Jesus before Pilate, Pilate’s release of Barrabbas

66 As Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant-girls of the high priest came, 67 and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him and said, “You also were with Jesus the Nazarene.” 68 But he denied it, saying, “I neither know nor understand what you are talking about.” And he went out onto the porch. and a rooster crowed.#2871 69 The servant-girl saw him, and began once more to say to the bystanders, “This is one of them!” 70 But again he denied it. And after a little while the bystanders were again saying to Peter, “Surely you are one of them, for you are a Galilean too.” 71 But he began to curse and swear, “I do not know this man you are talking about!” 72 Immediately a rooster crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had made the remark to him, “Before a rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times.” And he began to weep.
*
15:1 Early in the morning the chief priests with the elders and scribes and the whole Council, immediately held a consultation ; and binding Jesus, they led Him away and delivered Him to Pilate. 2 Pilate questioned Him, “Are You the King of the Jews ?” And He answered him, “It is as you say.” 3 The chief priests began to accuse Him harshly. 4 Then Pilate questioned Him again, saying, “Do You not answer ? See how many charges they bring against You!” 5 But Jesus made no further answer.

6 Now at the feast he used to release for them any one prisoner whom they requested. 7 The man named Barabbas had been imprisoned with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the insurrection. 8 The crowd went up and began asking him to do as he had been accustomed to do for them. 9 Pilate answered them, saying, “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews ?” 10 For he was aware that the chief priests had handed Him over because of envy. 11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to ask him to release Barabbas for them instead. 12 Answering again, Pilate said to them, “Then what shall I do with Him whom you call the King of the Jews ?” 13 They shouted back, “Crucify Him!” 14 But Pilate said to them, “Why, what evil has He done ?” But they shouted all the more, “Crucify Him!” 15 Wishing to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas for them, and after having Jesus scourged, he handed Him over to be crucified.*

16 The soldiers took Him away into the palace (that is, the Praetorium ), and they called together the whole Roman cohort. 17 They dressed Him up in purple, and after twisting a crown of thorns, they put it on Him; 18 and they began to acclaim Him, “Hail, King of the Jews !” 19 They kept beating His head with a reed, and spitting on Him, and kneeling and bowing before Him. 20 After they had mocked Him, they took the purple robe off Him and put His own garments on Him. And they led Him out to crucify Him. 21 They pressed into service a passer-by coming from the country, Simon of Cyrene (the father of Alexander and Rufus ), to bear His cross.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Overlooked in all of this technical banter is the most fundamental point of all: Jesus was a real person, not a literary construct.

 

[annem]

Imbarre! Hi, and thanks so much for responding. I am really swamped this afternoon, but I promise to spend an hour this evening writing a reply to all the things you’ve listed. ’

I am so glad you wrote back, and thanks again for your detailed replies.

In the meantime, praying that God will grant you light and joy and miracles, Annem

 

[1AugustSon7]

Hello Imbarre. Thank you for your contribution here and welcome to the forum! It’s at least an interesting debate to be sure.

For me, though, this whole argument suffers from certain facts (at least I think they are facts) and considerations.

The first consideration is that Christians would have understood any gentile similitudes or likeness to Christ or the Gospel as, in part, an innate yearning for the Christ on the part of the gentiles: for Christians, the Jews had a more refined or developed idea of the Christ thanks to God’s progressive Revelation of Him through His Prophets, though also to be hinted at in the Law (i.e., by Moses); whereas, for the gentiles, it always remained foggy, and the best they could do was develop that innate yearning or longing along philosophical lines or through philosophical investigation, which was always precarious at best and beset with difficulties and open to perpetual criticism or objections. Consequently the expectation remained dubious; whereas, with the Jews, that expectation was profound and powerful - it translated into a political reality and force, and poitics doesn’t utilize fuzzy and precarious hopes or wishes but seizes on things more concrete. This was unique for the Jews: we don’t see a Messianic fervour in pagan histories too often, let alone those fervours translating into serious political realities.

Now the largest problem I see with this theory is that inevitably in the first years of preaching to the gentiles someone would have made this exact same objection, argument, concern or claim (and even perhaps a more advanced version of it) against the Gospel if it were seen as being in the slightest bit applicable - I mean, not only would the learned among the (especially Greek) pagans have been more familiar with Aristotle’s teaching or theories than their equivalent contemporaries today, but even the general population would have been, via the fruit or product of that learning/those theories -their practical realization- in theatrical plays and in literature, which they were awashed in from childhood. However, contemporary Greeks did not confuse Christ with Achilles or Hercules or any other tragic hero or classic character.

The problem, then, is that the Greek pagans didn’t confuse the Gospel with a classic hero-tragedy -and this raises the important question as to why or how come- with which they were all too familiar or, even if they did, their arguments to that effect soon fell from grace and were not recycled as a classic rebuttal or objection to Christianity. I mean, you are not, Imbarre, entering into a long (almost 2,000 year) tradition of making this otherwise apparently plausible or serious claim/objection/criticism.

My point is: why didn’t your learned contemporaries at the time of the original proclamation of the Gospel, and then later moreover in its authoritative written composition, point out what would have been all too -and more readily- obvious to them than it is to us?

This theory suffers, then - in my humble opinion - because it is almost 2,000 years too late, and begs too many questions or raises more than it can answer. A more interesting line of investigation -again in my opinion- would be why the Greek and Latin pagans didn’t think the Christians were just devotees of some possibly invented or, otherwise, would-be tragic hero.

 

[ColdComfort]

I read your link and thanks for posting it. I’ve read most of responses but not all. Questions:

1. Does the fact that Mark, or any other text, has what appear to be breaks in the narrative or some other lack of compositional unity lead to the conclusion that it has been subject to redaction? Related to this is…
2. As another poster has mentioned Mark bears the mark of orality in it which would account for repetition of words, breaks, mispellings and so on that would account for the features of the text that you point to support your reconstruction of proto- mark. Isn’t this a more resonable explanation, or at least a less speculative one, esp. since it is backed by ancient evidence of St. Mark writing down St. Peter’s preaching or conversation?
3. What is the significance of relating your reconstruction of PMark to the forms of Greek tragedy? What conclusions are we expected to draw from this?
4. Is the argument that canonical Mark is an expansion beyond v.15, instead of 16:8, based on linguistic usage, or any other factor, or is it just the presence of the two woman in the narrative?