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:
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/poetics.mb.txt
Here again I 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 addition 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.
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:
http://www.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 severely the tragedy warns against 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 the Lord been revealed?
Isaiah 53:1
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/poetics.mb.txt
Here again I 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 addition 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.
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:
http://www.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 severely the tragedy warns against 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 the Lord been revealed?
Isaiah 53:1
