Kata Markon

["Rikki E. Watts" <rwatts AT interchange.ubc.ca>]

I'm still weighing MacDonald, though I need to go back and read him more
carefully.  Interesting to be sure; though I'm not entirely convinced of a
number of the parallels.  More of a problem though: "Granted, the work is in
German, but he begins with direct quotes from Shakespeare, his prologue is
full of allusions to Shakespeare, and the only author he ever quotes from,
and frequently, is Shakespeare.  And yet you tell me that his paradigm is
really Goethe, whom he never once quotes or even mentions?"

Does anyone know of any church fathers who commented on Homeric parallels in
Mark?  That they know their Homer is beyond question.  He is mentioned
explicitly nearly 230 times in the AN, e.g. Justin quotes him in ch.1 of his
Trypho, speaks highly of him as the prince of Greek poets in opening his
Hortatory address to the Greeks and then goes on to quote him often and at
length.  Others frequently interact with Homer, sometimes criticizing,
sometimes appealing to him in support of their positions.  However, despite
this extensive awareness none of the AN fathers that I can see ever note any
kind of parallel between Mark and Homer.   Nor as far as I can see do any of
the early "commentators" on Mark make any reference to Homeric parallels.

If there is something there, perhaps what McDonald sees is either Mark
consciously shaping (rather than inventing ex nihilo) his stories so that
they echo Homeric tradition in order to make them more accessible to his
readers (but then he does it so poorly that none of his intended audience
actually make the connection), or it is largely unconscious and a reflection
of how he learnt his alphabet.  On the other hand, it just might all be a
co-incidental appearance of not uncommon literary topoi which might explain
why none of Mark's contemporaries remark on the putative parallels.  Is this
perhaps a case of a 21st cent scholar jumping at shadows where the genuine
secondary and third cent. local contemporary product saw none or if they did
thought them unremarkable.. and so didn't (remark)?

Rikk Watts

(On the patristic evidence re Mark's provenance, granted that they are
varied and sometimes contradictory, I think "useless" is a bit strong, :-)
).

> From: "George W. Young" <gwyoung AT morgan.ucs.mun.ca>
> Reply-To: "Kata Markon" <gmark AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 10:12:17 -0230
> To: "Kata Markon" <gmark AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> Subject: [gmark] Re: Greek text question
> 
> 
>>> If this is the case, including that Mark is written in a Creole dialect
> of
>>> koine Greek (includes many Latinisms and Jewish words, phrases and the
> like)
>>> and is prose not verse.
>> Can you tell me more about this?
> 
> The question over 'style' is sometimes addressed, indirectly, in discussions
> about provenance.  That Mark is written in Koine Greek is obvious, but his
> inclusion of many Latinisms and Aramaic words, phrases (usually accompanied
> by translations in the text) , quotes from the LXX...this baffles scholars
> when it comes to issues of origin.  But this is what I mean by "Creole" -
> the texture of Mark's narrative is of a mixed and broken quality (similar to
> the ancient Menippean satires, except for verse).  Of course, the patristic
> traditions behind Mark's provenance are useless in this matter, as they are
> many, varied, and contradictory.  In matters of style, however, the earliest
> Christian witness on Mark (papias) is that Mark's gospel was considered
> problematic (i.e., episodes were either out of order, missing, or
> falsified).  Hippolytus, quoting Marcion, states that Mark's narrative hand
> was 'crooked' or 'twisted'  - a metaphorical comment, perhaps, on Mark's
> writing style and/or  ideology/theology.
> 
>>> If one uses "storytelling ability" as the benchmark, then Mark is
>>> perhaps comparable to the Homeric epics, given both the gravity of its
>>> subject matter, and in particular, the way it was told / narrated
>>> (beginning, middle, and *ending*).
>> I'm actually pursuing this avenue at the moment.  Has there been much work
> done
>> on Mark's links with the Homeric Epics?  I've read MacDonald, but what
> else is
>> of use?
> 
> MacDonald's book is, I think, a pioneering work in this regard.  He
> published an earlier article entitled "Secrecy and Recognitions in the
> Odyssey and Mark" in _Ancient Fiction and Early Jewish Christian Narrative
> (SBL Symposium Series, 1998)_.  "Style" is, of course, a very broad term.
> If you are simply looking for stylistic details relating to 'grammar' and
> the like, I belive C.F.D. Moule has a book entitles _A Grammar of New
> Testament Greek_ wherein he devotes an entire chapter (ch. 2) on "The Style
> of Mark."  This is helpful but soon becomes boring.  This is why I suggested
> that "style" also include storytelling ability - How is the story told?
> With what sort of 'style'?
> 
> Hope this helps,
> 
> 
> George W. Young, PhD
> Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies
> Queen's College
> St. John's, NF
> A1B 3R6
> Tel.  709/753/0116
> Fax. 709/753/1214
> email: gwyoung AT morgan.ucs.mun.ca
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to gmark as: rwatts AT interchange.ubc.ca
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to $subst('Email.Unsub')
>