Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

gmark - Re: The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark

gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Kata Markon

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "L. J. Swain" <l9swain AT wmich.edu>
  • To: Kata Markon <gmark AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark
  • Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 01:04:09 -0500




JFAlward AT aol.com wrote:

> Joe Alward responds:
>
> You should look for the "ingredients" with which the stories are
> constructed.
> For example, look at the article, "The Baptist's Head," at
>
> http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/john_baptist.html
>
> One finds the following ingredients in the Homeric and Markan stories
> of a
> murder:
>

There are also key differences:

>
> 1. King and his male relative are part of love triangle.

This parallel, general as it is, is fine.

>
> 2. A man is a threat to the affair.

But this generalization glosses some very KEY elements in the story and
makes them appear non-existant. In Mark, John is a third party, acting
in the role of the prophet not unlike Nathan approaching David for his
sin with Bathsheba. In Homer, it is Agamemnon who is about to make the
discovery. In Mark, the third party KNOWS of the affair, in Homer, the
third party is the HUSBAND. I think there are several differences here,
just on this one point: third party vs. involved party, the Old
Testement parallels versus Homeric epic, the nature of the relationship
between woman involved and the party killed.

>
> 3. Man who is a threat is murdered.

Again, there are some key differences here. Agamemnon is more than a
threat to the affair, he actually is HER HUSBAND, and his murder is as
much about Clytemnestra's hatred of what Agamemnon did to his own
daughter as it is about wresting the kingdom from him. John the Baptist
in Mark's story is not in this kind of relationship with Herodias at
all, and there is very little gain.

> 4. Murder occurs during a feast.

Again on the surface, it is similar, but there are again differences.
Agamemnon was invited to a feast, John the Baptist wasn't, in fact he
didn't even attend the feast, and the "murder" happens off stage,
whereas Agamemnon's murder is CENTER stage.

>
> 5. Attendance by influential persons is mentioned.

In Homer, the "influential persons" are named and are characters in a
larger "mythography"; in Mark they are not named, but only generally
described.

> 6. Victim is beheaded.

A common method of execution, although as you point out, in Homer she
doesn't kill behead him, this is a later development. HOWEVER, this
very later development disproves your point. For in the tradition that
later develops it is Clytemnestra who personally beheads her HUSBAND, in
Mark as you know, Herod sends a soldier to be executioner in response to
the DAUGHTER.

>
> 7. Mistress plays active role in beheading.

But much different roles. As indicated above, Clytemnestra in your
later tradition wields the axe herself, and in response for the
sacrifice of her daughter. In Mark, Herodias is a behind the scenes
puller of strings, very different characterizations.

> 8. Victim's head falls among dishes.

Not true. In Mark John's head is presented on a platter to the DAUGHTER
who carries it to Herodias. In the later Clytemnestra story, it falls
in the dishes. Again, very different in detail.

>
> 9. A "daughter" plays a role in the beheading.

But very different ones. If you mean Agamemnon's daughter, she was
sacrificed when he set out for Troy which act becomes Clytemnestra's
motivation later. If you mean Cassandra, she too is murdered. On the
other hand in Mark, the daughter is a dancer and does the mother's
bidding which results in the John's demise. Again, very different in
detail.

>
> 10. Author has a person specifically referred to as a "daughter" play
> active
> role in violence only once in entire text.

See above.

>
> 11. Author uses murder to signal danger faced by hero.

Again, very different in detail. In Homer, it isn't an important
warning for either hero or audience. The audience is already aware of
the danger to Odysseus in the story, and Homer has been warned also by
other shades in Book 11 who were not murdered. This is also true in
Mark where the danger to Jesus has already been stated. Further the
story in Mark is told paranthetically almost, between the sending out of
the disciples and their return, and in response to Herod hearing of
Jesus' miracles and casting out of demons, thus the reason narratively
that the story is told in Mark is vastly different than that told in the
Odyssey.


>
> What is the likelihood that Mark did not borrow these elements from
> Homer?
> Where else in literature could all eleven of these be found?

On the surface, these might seem so. But on further examination the
stories are so different in their details and in their narrative
function as to be unrecognizable as from the same source. In the list
above I have given at least 11 key differences that are in teh stories
themselves, not generalized into something so very general as to fit any
of a number stories. Further you're assuming a literary basis for the
story rather than an aetiological or even historical one.

>
> =========
> Joe Alward:
>
> The "imbalance" exists in the predispositions of the church fathers.
> I'll
> quote from page 170 of MacDonald's book:
>
> "By the first half of the second century, the apostolic names Matthew
> and
> John attached themselves to their respective gospels and thus
> institutionalized the view that they were composed by eyewitnesses.
> Mark, so
> it was thought, recorded the memoirs of the apostle Peter....To this
> way of
> thinking, the very suspicion that an evangelist imitated pagan poetry
> would
> be theological lese-majeste. Furthermore, Christians who have
> believed in
> Biblical inerrancy have sought to square the text of the gospels with
> historical events, rendering nearly irrelevant any quest for literary
> antecedents."
>

Not entirely true. Justin Martyr knew his Plato quite well, and
further, Paul is said to have cited poetry on Mars Hill. These are just
two examples off the top of my head. Further, there were Christians,
Justin Martyr included, who "baptized" the surrounding culture and
attempted to use it in defending and spreading the faith, and even made
use of the Jewish claim and association of Moses as the inspiration for
Socrates and Plato. So, it is far too simplistic to claim that second
century Christians would have never allowed there to be a literary
connection or similarity to Homer, in fact some second century
Christians would have not only welcomed it, but used Homer as
prefiguring Christ who fulfilled Homer too. QED. I'm afraid the more I
read on the issue, the more I'm convinced that McDonald's experiment in
looking for other literary antecedents is a valid search, but I'm
convinced that this is NOT a case which proves his point.

Larry Swain





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page