Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible

and Theology
http://btb.sagepub.com

Tragic Dimensions in Mark

Richard G. Walsh
Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology 1989; 19; 94
DOI: 10.1177/014610798901900304

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://btb.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/3/94

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Biblical Theology Bulletin Inc.

Additional services and information for Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://btb.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://btb.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations http://btb.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/19/3/94

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 23, 2009

 TRAGIC DIMENSIONS
IN MARK

RICHARD G. WALSH

Abstract

Despite the observation that the Bible’s structure and ideology are fundamentally comic, many readers have found Mark
to have affinities with tragedy. While not a "pure" tragedy, Mark does exhibit tragic dimensions. The plot’s emphases
on the passion and the "fatedness" of Jesus’ death resemble tragedy, but a hamartia and a peripety involving the protagonist

are conspicuously absent. Jesus himself is not a tragic hero because he is not sufficiently divorced from the perspective
of God/fate. Other characters-the opponents and the disciples-resemble more closely tragic figures though even their
stories lack such development. Finally, the text embodies a tragic vision as many characters choose not to accept the
comic perspective of Jesus.

he observation that the Bible’s structure
T ideology fundamentally comic has become
are
almost commonplace. Thus, David D. Raphael has said
that
[Tjhe religion of the Bible is inimical to Tragedy, first
because it is optimistic and trusts that evil is always a
necessary means to a greater good, and secondly because
it abases man before the sublimity of God (51).
Mark, however, is not clearly comic. Even Dan Via’s
sustained attempt read Mark as a transformation of
to
that genre ultimately abandons the designation. For Via,
Mark is a tragicomedy, a form mixing various tragic and
comic elements in succession (1975: 95-101). The
emphasis on the passion, highlighted by the narrative’s
abrupt end (16:8), associates Mark more with tragedy
than with comedy. For this reason, many critics have
attempted tragic readings of Mark. Is Mark a tragedy?
Or does Mark have certain similarities to tragedy?
Answers to these questions require a definition of
tragedy and a comparison of Mark to that definition.
Aristotle offers the classic definition:
Tragedy is, then, a representation of an action that is
heroic and complete and of a certain magnitude-by
means of language enriched with all kinds of ornament,
each used separately in the different parts of the play: it
represents men in action and does not use narrative, and
through pity and fear it effects relief to these and similar
emotions (6.2-4).
As Mark is neither poetry (language enriched) nor drama,
Mark is not an Aristotelian tragedy.
Popularly, a tragedy is a serious or sorrowful work with
a disastrous conclusion. Unfortunately, this definition
inaccurately describes classic tragedies, like Oedipus at
Colonus and the Eumenides, which end happily or with
some resolution. More importantly, Mark’s abrupt end
and precludes this definition’s suitability. So ambiguous is
the end, the happiness of the conclusion is uncertain.
Most readings, however, like those of the longer ending
and the other gospels, avoid the disastrous conclusion.
Thus, Mark is not a &dquo;popular&dquo; tragedy.
Mark is not a &dquo;pure&dquo; tragedy, but it has tragic dimen-
sions. One may isolate these by comparing the plot,
character, and vision of tragedy to those of Mark. In this
attempt, one may follow Aristotle who described plot
and character as the first principles of tragedy (6.19),
earlier attempts to read Mark as tragedy, and recent
literary critics who have expanded the perimeter of
tragedies by focusing on the works’ visions of life.
Tragic Elements:
Change, Flaw and Calamity
According to Aristotle, in tragedy’s plot
the change must be not to good fortune from bad but, on
the contrary, from good to bad fortune, and it must not
be due to villainy but to some great flaw in such a man
as we have described, or of one who is better rather than
worse (13.6).
Three elements are important: &dquo;the change&dquo; (Greek:
peripety); the &dquo;great flaw&dquo; (Greek: hamartia), often
translated &dquo;sin&dquo; in biblical texts but in other contexts as
&dquo;mistake&dquo;); and a calamity (mentioned at 11:9). A
promising beginning ends badly as the hero’s great flaw
causes catastrophe. This hamartia is not a moral fail-
ing. In fact, Aristotle specifies that wickedness cannot
cause the hero’s fall. Rather, the hero’s hamartia is an
attempt to construct and live by an absolute vision of
Richard G. Walsh, Ph.D. (Baylor), is Assistant Professor of
Religion at Methodist College, Fayetteville, NC 28311-1499.

94

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 23, 2009


reality. Unfortunately, the vision diverges from reality,
incurring the wrath of the gods, or more typically, fate.
The protagonist rails against this fate, achieves magn-
itude, and is crushed (Humphreys: 7). The gods or fate
react violently, against the protagonist’s hubris which
disrupts their order because it elevates the hero above
the common human lot.
In what ways then does Mark display these three
elements? Peripety seems present. The narrative begins
by designating itself &dquo;good news.&dquo; The central character
then announces the arrival of God’s kingdom. The text
ends with the worlds’ kingdoms triumphing over the pro-
tagonist’s dead body. The mysterious young man’s
announcement to a group of frightened women only
slightly dispels this sense of reversed fortunes.
However, the narrative’s preparation for this outcome
from its beginning does vanquish this &dquo;seeming&dquo; rever-
sal. Jesus appears in tandem with another prophetic
figure, John the Baptist. Their similar descriptions cause
John the Baptist’s fate to cast an ominous shadow over
Jesus’ Galilean Springtime. The narrative also introduces
quite early the religious leadership’s murderous opposi-
tion to Jesus (3:6). After Peter’s confession, Jesus three
times predicts his passion (8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34) with
increasing specificity. In fact, the scriptures have
revealed this end even before the Markan narrative
begins (9:12; 14:21, 49)!
Perhaps more importantly, the narrative ironically
declares this ignominous death the crucial event in the
kingdom’s advent (14:22-25). When Peter embraces Jesus
as messiah-king, Jesus predicts his passion. Jesus is a king
who dies rather than rules. Jesus redefines sovereignty
in terms of service pointedly contrasting ruling in the
kingdom with Gentile ruling. His death is a sovereign
service (10:42-45). The passion narrative overflows with
ironic images juxtaposing kingship and death: the trium-
phal entry, the anointing, the mocking, the placard above
the cross, and the climactic confession of the Roman
centurion. The anointing, for example, suggests kingship
as &dquo;messiah&dquo; means the anointed one. But Jesus associ-
ates the anointing with his burial, not his rule (14:8).
Thus, the narrative’s end fulfills the beginning’s promise.
The calamity is the good news. The irony makes the
peripety superficial. What happens is no surprise, though
the way in which it happens is surprising.
In a comparison of the gospels and tragedy, R. L. Cox
terms the crucifixion a &dquo;significant misfortune&dquo; (550).
Thus, his interpretation reads Jesus’ end as a calamity.
For Mark, however, the crucifixion is hardly a catas-
trophe. It is rather a &dquo;eucatastrophe&dquo; (term coined by
Tolkien: 85-86). Life comes through this death (cf. the
development of this theme in Jn 12:24-25 and James
Williams’ global reading of the &dquo;seed&dquo; imagery in Mark).
This ironic message is true only if Jesus’ death falls
within God’s benign plan. The narrative asserts this
through the predictions of Jesus and of scripture. As a
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 23, 2009
95
result, Jesus’ death has a fated quality. Though fated
deaths are common in tragedy (see Beach’s comparison
of the fated deaths of Jesus and Agamemnon: 48-51 ), this
fate is hardly tragic. Tragedy’s fate is hostile to, or un-
concerned with, humans. The Markan &dquo;fate&dquo; is tragic if
one focuses on the cry of dereliction 15:34). The narrator
does not do so. The global designation of the text as &dquo;good
news&dquo; and the identification of the perspectives of Jesus
and God lift the narrative out of the tragic world (see
below).
Even Jesus quails at the ironic notion that his death
is &dquo;good news&dquo; as the Gethsemane story and the cry of
dereliction indicate. Nevertheless, he does entrust
himself to God. He hopes to participate in God’s kingdom
(14:25). Unlike tragedy’s hero, then, he is no mere instru-
ment of societal order. The absence of Jesus and the
kingdom at the conclusion intensifies the quandary of
the reliability of the &dquo;good news.&dquo; Were Jesus and the
narrator right about God’s purpose or not? The remain-
ing characters and readers face their own Gethsemane
at narrative’s end.
Resurrection appearances would domesticate the
vexing questions. That Mark does not narrate such
appearances leaves tragic possibilities. Mark does, how-
ever, ameliorate the starkness with predictions which
foreshadow the resurrection and the synecdoche of the
young man’s announcement which offers the resurrec-
tion in discourse if not narrative (Magness: 87-125).
The third element crucial to a perfect tragic plot is a
hamartia causing the catastrophe. As examples of such
mistakes, Aristotle lists Thyestes’ failure to recognize
his sons in his stew and Oedipus’ ignorance of his paren-
tage. The reader’s knowledge of information denied the
protagonist creates pathos. At the climax, the central
character realizes the mistake. This recognition scene
often functions as a peripety, a moment of reversal
moving the narrative from complication to denouement.
The new knowledge, however, cannot prevent the
catastrophe.
Gilbert Bilezikian and Jerry Stone have pointed to the
hamartia motif as a major structural element associating
Mark with tragedy. Certainly, misunderstandings dom-
inate the Markan narrative. Further, a recognition scene
turns the narrative toward its denouement (8:27-30).
Before that point, only the demons have recognized Jesus
as the messiah. At that point, however, Peter acknowl-
edges Jesus as messiah. Thereafter, events cascade
toward Jesus’ death.
While 8:27-30 is a turning point, its character as an
accurate recognition scene is debatable leaving Mark’s
tragic status open. Nineteenth century &dquo;lives of Jesus&dquo;
often depicted Jesus as awakening to a new conscious-
ness at this point. Mark does not suggest, however, that
Jesus now perceives his mistake or that his catastrophe
arises from that error. Apart from such evidence, Jesus
is not a tragic character.
96
Thus, Stoned comparison of Jesus and Oedipus, while
intriguing, faces insuperable difficulties. Even Stone’s
caveat that on the surface Oedipus’ ignorance and Jesus’
omniscience radically differ is debatable. The character-
izations differ, but not because the Markan Jesus is all-
knowing. In fact, the Markan Jesus is generally recog-
nized as the least developed christologically of the gospel
portraits. He is unable to do some things and is ignorant
of others (6:5; 13:32). So despite Stone’s caveat, Mark
could plausibly present Jesus as coming to his end via
a mistake.
According to Stone, Jesus fails to recognize his suffer-
ing role. Though he predicted his suffering, he did not
accept his destiny. As evidence, Stone appeals to Jesus’
wavering in Gethsemane (14:36) and his cry of derelic-
tion (15:34). Stone finds his failure similar to Oedipus’
failure to recognize himself as the son of Laius and
Jocasta (59-60).
Stone’s tragic reading ignores intentionally major
aspects of Mark (as Stone freely admits). The Markan
narrative does not present Jesus’ fate as the result of a
hamartia (the exact causal connection between Jesus’
failure and his fate is never quite explicated by Stone).
For the narrator, Jesus represents the perspective of
God/fate and with the narrator reveals that perspective
to the reader. Thus, Jesus is not ignorant of knowledge
which the reader has. Jesus questions his destiny at
Gethsemane and at Calvary, but not his identity. Cox’s
comparison of the gospels to tragedy is accurate: Jesus
is responsible for his end because he acts out his sense
of his identity (551-58). Jesus dies because he sees himself
as God’s representative. This may be a hamartia, but
Mark does not so interpret it. For Mark, Jesus is a reliable,
trustworthy character, at one with the perspective
of God.
Are Gospel Characters Tragic?
Following Aristotle, tragedy’s protagonist is a person
better than average while comedy’s is one worse than
average (2.4). This distinction is primarily socio-
economic though it has some ethical overtones. The
tragic hero stands apart both by isolation and exaltation.
The sine qua non is the hero’s isolation in a &dquo;boundary&dquo;
situation (see vision section below). The hero’s elevated
status commands respect and invites emulation. The
protagonist partakes of the human lot and transcends it;
but in transcending it, the hero falls victim to it. This
combination of isolation, elevation, and mortality sets
the tragic hero apart from those of myth, romance,
comedy, and irony (N. Frye: 33-34). Temporary elevation
followed by such a human fate provides tragedy’s pathos.
Here is the best that one can be; the hero died.
From the standpoint of tragic characterization, the
Markan Jesus is ambiguous. His status is questionable
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 23, 2009
because the narrator allows two opposing perspectives
to persist.From the narrator’s perspective, Jesus towers
above the average. He represents God as the narrative
repeatedly asserts: in the title of the work (in some texts),
through the voice at the baptism, in the demons’ cries,
through the voice at the transfiguration, and in a Roman
centurion’s words at his death. Mark presents Jesus as
a figure of might and power. Jesus is king.
The omniscient, reliable narrator allows his dominant
perspective to be weakened, however, by an ironic depic-
tion of Jesus. Jesus reigns through death (14:3-9, see
above). Further, the narrator associates Jesus with the
&dquo;little people&dquo; (Rhoads: 129-34) rather than the elite. In.
fact, the religious and political leadership oppose Jesus.
This elite group provides the second perspective on Jesus.
From their standpoint, he is below the norm. He is
demonic, not heroic (3:21-35). He is not a figure to
emulate, but to despise and kill.
Thus, from neither perspective is Jesus a tragic
character. For the opponents, he is not sufficiently
elevated. Using Frye’s categories, Jesus is either a comic
or an ironic protagonist. For the narrator, Jesus is not
tragic because he is uniformly identified with the per-
spective of both the narrator and God. He is not suffi-
ciently isolated.
Tragedy’s protagonist rails against fate refusing to
accept the lot assigned by the gods. Prometheus opposes
an angry Zeus, Agamemnon sacrifices his daughter,
Clytemnestra avenges her daughter-all to their own
destruction. This tension is absent from Mark. Like
Antigone, Jesus appears the victim of the &dquo;powers that
be,&dquo; but this similarity is only apparent. Jesus is no victim
of fate. He controls events.
His sovereignty is most evident in his ability to predict
his passion. His predictions provide the blueprint for the
narrative: arrest, trial, suffering, flight, betrayal, denial,
resurrection, reunion, coming kingdom (8:31; 9:31;
10:33-34; 13; 14:18, 27-31, 62). For Mark, the fulfillment
of Jesus’ words is at least as important as the fulfillment
of scriptural predictions (13:31). At times, Mark even
comments on the fulfillments after the fact (14:72; 16:7).
Such fulfillments reinforce Jesus’ association with God
preventing the hamartia explanation of his end. Though
Jesus waivers, the Gethsemane ordeal cements his asso-
ciation with God. The incongruent cry of dereliction
(15:34) cannot alone overturn this dominant association
or the vindicating power of predicted events: resurrec-
tion, destruction of the temple, and parousia. Read alone,
however, this cry would make the narrative a tragedy.
What then of other characters? Are they elevated
enough to satisfy Aristotle’s requirement for a tragic
character? If so, do they achieve sufficient isolation
through a hamartia The opponents immediately come
to mind. As the elite, they are elevated above the norm.
They are also isolated. Failing to recognize God’s repre-
sentative, they oppose God and come to calamity

(12:1-11; chap. 13 describes prophetically the loss of their
world). The opponents thus seem classically tragic.
If the opponents were joint protagonists with Jesus,
then the work would be tragic. In that case, the story’s
main theme would be the chosen ones’ rejection of the
messiah. One can conceive such a narrative (cf. Tanne-
hill’s analysis of the Jews in Luke-Acts). It is difficult,
however, to argue that Mark is such a narrative (pace
Bilezikian). Instead, the opponents resemble the alazons
of comedy. Highly stereotyped, they function solely to
retard the action. They oppose Jesus in a futile attempt
to preserve the status quo. Ironically, by mid-narrative,
they actually begin to help Jesus toward his goal.
By contrast, the disciples share Jesus’ spotlight. Their
elevation is, however, questionable. From the lower
classes, their elevation depends upon Jesus’ and is
realizable with his only in the eschatological reversal
which the narrative proleptically celebrates. Unfortu-
nately, their fluctuation between the perspectives of
Jesus and his opponents weakens their association with
Jesus. This vacillation is the hamartia which isolates
them, the second requirement of tragic characters. When
Peter recognizes Jesus as messiah at Caesarea Philippi,
Jesus challenges this understanding. Peter confesses
Jesus’ messianic status, but does not appropriate Jesus’
understanding of the suffering king. No disciple ever
attains such insight (8:32; 9:32-37; 10:35-45). The dis-
ciples bumble fearfully at narrative’s end (after 14:50).
The disciples’ isolation, however, is no more perma-
nent than that of Jesus at the cross, for 16:7 offers the
hope of a reunion with Jesus. As an event predicted by
Jesus, the narrative offers the reunion as reliably as pos-
sible without actually narrating it. If the story concludes
with the narrative at 16:8, then the story is tragic;
however, Jesus’ prediction carries one forward in hope
beyond the plotted narrative (Petersen, 1980: 156-59,
163-66).
Recent literary critics have classified works as tragic
because of their visions rather than their formal struc-
ture. This vision depicts life and human destiny darkly.
As F. Scott Fitzgerald once said, it portrays life as &dquo;essen-
tially a cheat&dquo; and its end as a &dquo;defeat.&dquo; The tragic vision
is, according to R. B. Sewall, one’s terror facing the primal
question of existence without the support of philosophy,
religion, or whatever constructions &dquo;the human mind has
devised to persuade itself that the universe is secure&dquo;
(4-5). Tragedy reveals a hero on the &dquo;boundary,&dquo; confront-
ing the terror of life without assistance.
Obviously, works formally similar can reflect different
perspectives. Thus, for example, Exum and Whedbee
distinguish the tragedy of Saul from the comedy of
Samson:
Both are hailed as deliverers of Israel from the Philistines,
both fail at the task, and both die seeming ignominious
deaths at the hands of their oppressors in the process. How
then is one a comic figure and the other tragic (20)?
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 23, 2009
97
For Samson, this is possible because he is an instrument
of the divine plan in which we implicitly trust. In con-
trast, tragedy shows the uncompromising terror of suffer-
ing and death which Saul must face alone. Here we find
a crucial difference between the tales: divine intention
and motivation are ambiguous in Saul’s case but not in
Samson’s (31).
The Markan protagonist is a man in extremis, a man
at the &dquo;boundary.&dquo; When Jesus cries from the cross, &dquo;My
God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me,&dquo; one
approaches the tragic vision. For Mark as a whole, how-
ever, the note of triumph and the hero’s identification
with God are too strong to conclude that life ends darkly.
No sense of raging against or even submitting to a hostile
transcendence pervades the work. While the tragic vision
recognizes the sovereignty of God/fate, it questions that
sovereignty’s benevolence. That question Mark never
raises. In this regard, Mark’s vision is that of the biblical
text in general: humans before a benevolent tran-
scendence. Even those who read Mark as a tragedy, even-
tually conclude that the narrator’s perspective is not
tragic but victorious (Stone: 63). Thus, for example,
Curtis Beach states,
Of course, one great difference between Agamemnon and
Mark is that Mark does not end in tragedy. In the Easter
story it ends on a note of joy. Through the unfolding of
the drama it is continually asserted that Jesus’ martyrdom
will not be the end, that Jesus will come again in power
to usher in God’s Kingdom. Thus Mark has, running
through the tragic action, the expectation of a joyful out-
come, which does not take place within the drama itself,
but is projected into the future ~50).
Mark’s open end, with the community unrestored and
with the promise of the return to Galilee unfulfilled,
approaches the tragic world. This end is consistent with
the narrative’s ironic good news: one gains life only by
losing it (8:35).
The maintains this irony through the con-
narrator
tinuous presence of two perspectives. Scholars have iden-
tified these two viewpoints respectively as tragic and
comic, death and resurrection (Via: 99), and thinking the
things of men and of God (Petersen, 1978: 63; Rhoads:
44). Characters epitomize these two perspectives. In their
absolute form they are found respectively in the oppo-
nents and in Jesus. Other characters concretize a host
of other possiblities between these polarities. For the
narrator, characters’ lives are tragic or comic depending
upon their ability to share Jesus’ perspective. The char-
acters’ stories can be schematized:
Tragedy Comedy
Opponents Crowds Disciples Little People Jesus
God
Narrator
98

The validity of this schema depends, of course, upon the narrator’s realistic simulacrum of life, tragic and comic
accuracy of the narrator’s assertion that life comes perspectives coexist in the characters’ stories. The ability
through death. If inaccurate, then the schematization to share the comic perspective of Jesus, narrator, and
would reverse: God-that life comes through death-determines indi-
vidual life-stories (4:I1-12; Via, 1967:95-107).
Tragedy Comedy
Jesus Little People Disciples Crowds Opponents
Narrator God Works Cited
Mark’s vision is not simply tragic or comic. This nar-
Aristotle
rative world incorporates both possibilities. The same
1927 Poetics. Loeb Classical Library. Tr. W. Hamilton
event seen from different angles or by different people
Fyfe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
may be either tragic or comic. One finds oneself &dquo;in one
or the other by the turn of a thought&dquo; (C. Frye: 287).
Beach, Curtis
1959 The Gospel of Mark: Its Making and Meaning.
Correspondingly, the standpoints characters adopt create New York, NY: Harper & Bros.
their own tragedies or comedies. The Markan world, like
the Markan text itself, is a gestalt awaiting formation. Bilezikian, Gilbert
1977 The Liberated Gospel: A Comparison of the
The narrator’s propaganda for one perspective, in the face
Gospel of Mark and Greek Tragedy. Grand
of the opposing perspective, accounts for the harshness
Rapids, MI: Baker.
of 4:11-12. The narrator works toward a comic end; but
Cox, R. L.
this end exists in tension with tragedy. As the Geth- 1968 ’Tragedy and the Gospel Narratives," The Yale
semane ordeal and the cry of dereliction reveal, the
Review 57: 545-70.
comic end is a perilous hope even for the protagonist.
In this regard, Mark fits the normal biblical pattern
Exum, J. Cheryl and Whedbee, J. William
1985 "Isaac, Samson, and Saul: Reflections on the
which promises comedy in the midst of tragedy. Such Comic and Tragic Visions," Semeia 32, 5-40.
patterning requires a deus ex machina to fashion comedy Frye, Christopher
from tragedy (Gottwald: 85-86). 1964 "Comedy," in N. A. Scott, Jr., ed., The New
In sum, Mark is not .a tragedy. To refer to Raphael
Orpheus: Essays toward a Christian Poetic. New
again, Mark is tragic only if one ignores the report of the York, NY: Sheed & Ward.
resurrection, the identification of Jesus with God, and Frye, Northrop
the redemptive aspects of the passion (51, 53-54). 1957 Anatomy of Criticism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
Features of its narrative, however, do exhibit tragic University Press.
dimensions.
Gottwald, Norman K.
In terms of the work’s plot, the emphases on the and in the Latter
1985 "Tragedy Comedy Prophets,"
passion and the &dquo;fatedness&dquo; of Jesus’ death resemble Semeia 32, 83-96.
tragedy. On the other hand, the protagonist lacks a Humphreys, W. Lee
hamartia and a reversal of understanding. Peripety in the 1985 The Tragic Vision and the Hebrew Tradition.
sense of a change in the expected is also absent as the
Philadelphia,PA: Fortress Press.
narrative prepares from the beginning for Jesus’ death. Lee
Magness, J.
With respect to the characters, several patterns unfold. Sense and Absence: Structure and
1986 Suspension in
Jesus is not tragic because he is not divorced from the the Ending of Mark’s Gospel. Atlanta, GA:
perspective of God/fate. If he struggled against fate Scholars Press.
titantically, the work would be tragic. As the work Petersen, Norman R.
stands, however, Jesus is never sufficiently isolated to 1978 Literary Criticism for New Testament Critics.
be a tragic hero. It is the other characters-the opponents Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.
and the disciples-who come closest to tragic character- 1980 "When is the End not the End? Literary Reflec-
ization. Rejecting their messiah, the opponents lose the tions on the Ending of Mark’s Narrative,"
status quo they attempt to maintain by rejecting Jesus. Interpretation 34: 151-166.
If the opponents were the protagonists, the work would Raphael, David D.
be a tragedy. If the disciples’ story ended at 16:8 without 1960 The Paradox of Tragedy. Bloomington, IN:
hope, then the work would be tragic. Mark does not play Indiana University Press.
out such characterizations, however. The opponents are Rhoads, David and Michie, Donald
mere alazons; and the disciples, if one accepts Jesus’ 1982 Mark as Story. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.
prediction, ultimately share his victory. Sewall, R. B.
The narrative contains both a tragic and a comic vision 1952 The Vision of Tragedy. New Haven, CT: Yale
in its assertation that life comes through death. In the University Press.

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 23, 2009

 99

Stone, Jerry H. Via, Dan O., Jr.

1984 "The Gospel of Mark and Oedipus the King: Two 1967 The Parables: Their Literary and Existential
Tragic Visions," Soundings 67: 55-69. Dimension. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.
Tannehill, Robert C. 1975 Kerygma and Comedy in the New Testament.
1985 "Israel in Luke-Acts: A Tragic Story," Journal of Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.
Biblical Literature 104: 69-85. Williams, James G.
Tolkien, J. R. R. 1985 Gospel Against Parable: Mark’s Language of
1966 "On Fairy-Stories," in The Tolkien Reader. New Mystery. Sheffield, UK: Almond Press.
York, NY: Ballantine Books.

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 23, 2009