gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Kata Markon
List archive
- From: "Rikki E. Watts" <rwatts AT interchange.ubc.ca>
- To: Kata Markon <gmark AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
- Subject: Re: The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark
- Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:53:58 -0800
Title: Re: [gmark] Re: The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark Joe,
I think part of the problem here is that where you see eleven common (and significant) elements, Larry and I see hardly any that cannot be explained on other and to us more reasonable and less intentional grounds. In other words, if I can use Lonergan’s epistemological grid, MacDonald (and you) are to be congratulated on being attentive. I echo Larry’s appreciation of your interes in literary antecedents. MacDonald, in seeking to understand this data, has also come up with a fascinating proposal: Homeric dependence. But we remain unconvinced. First, Larry and I have questions about what seems to be a selective attentiveness in that you consider only those data that are congenial to your theory, tend to regard all the parallels as equally significant, and dismiss the differences. Perhaps to be more convincing you might consider a more nuanced approach to weighing parallels (somewhat similar to the procedure used by NT scholars when seeking to analyze NT dependence on the OT: e.g. echoes, allusions, citations, etc.). At the second step, when one takes into account all the data (e.g. when the parallels are ranked, some appear non-starters, others vague, stretched, or simply common elements that are natural to any such story) it appears that there are other possible explanations which you don’t seem to want to consider. Finally, in terms of judgment, surely any truly coherent theory must also explain why the other possible explanations do not work as well as the one you are proposing. If you were able to articulate other possible scenarios (explanations) and show why the Homeric model has the most comprehensive explanatory power, then you’d have a much stronger case. If you’ll forgive me for saying so, I’m not sure that simply reiterating that there are eleven parallels gets us much further down the track.
Rikk
================
In the case of the parallels noted in "The Beheading of John the Baptist",
http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/john_baptist.html, eleven significant plot
elements are lifted out of a story that takes Homer only about 300 words to
tell, and used by Mark to tell a similar tale in about as many words. If
someone can find some other tale of comparably short length that is just as
packed with elements in common with the Markan story, I'll believe all of
this was just coincidental.
Regards,
Joe Alward
-
Re: The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark
, (continued)
- Re: The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, Rikki E. Watts, 01/26/2001
- Re: The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, JFAlward, 01/26/2001
- Re: The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, Rikki E. Watts, 01/28/2001
- Re: The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, JFAlward, 01/28/2001
- Re: The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, L. J. Swain, 01/29/2001
- Re: The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, Rikki E. Watts, 01/29/2001
- Re: The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, JFAlward, 01/29/2001
- Re: The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, L. J. Swain, 01/30/2001
- Re: The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, JFAlward, 01/30/2001
- Re: The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, Dennis MacDonald, 01/30/2001
- Re: The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, Rikki E. Watts, 01/30/2001
- Re: The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, JFAlward, 01/30/2001
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.