Kata Markon

["Larry J. Swain" <larry.swain AT wmich.edu>]

Subject: 
            Re: [gmark] Mark and Homer
       Date: 
            Tue, 30 Jan 2001 23:11:02 -0500
      From: 
            "L. J. Swain" <l9swain AT wmich.edu>
        To: 
            Kata Markon <gmark AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
 References: 
            1




Dennis MacDonald wrote:
Mr. Swain, your hyperbole is not helpful: more parallels in Mark to Homer
than in
Vergil. This not only is contrary to what I claim, it is not an argument
against
my hypothesis at all.

I'm sorry that you seem to have taken umbrage.  It was not intended to be
hyperbole at all, rather if we take a scene such as the trip to the
Underworld
and compare them, there is a great deal of diversity as well as similarity
in the
accounts, more diversity in fact.  Yet, Virgil scholarship is pretty
certain that
Homer influenced Virgil as Virgil influenced Dante.  The point does
address your
hypothesis, if not as directly as you might expect.  For if in Text A
which is
known to be influenced by Text B there is LESS parallel than between Text
Z and
Text B wherein Text Z is not known to be influenced by Text B, then the
conclusion of dependence should be able to be easily demonstrated, or
there is a
problem with the thesis as stated.  So call it an exploratory argument.

Dr. MacDonald continues:
On another point, when dealing with literary imitation the issue never is
the
number of differences between
one document and its putative model. The issue is how to explain
similarities. If
the similarities are sufficient to link two works together into a
hermeneutical
dialogue, then the differences become interesting as possible transforms
of the
model. I find the differences between Mark and Homer to be precisely what
I would
expect in an imitation. Here the analogy to Vergil is helpful: there are
thousands of differences between the Aeneid and the Homeric epics and
certainly
not all of them are hermeneuctically
interesting.


I am not arguing the general point, I'm arguing that at least in the John
the
Baptist story the parallels don't exist.  Further, similarties must be of
sufficient strength to demonstrate that there is a relationship and not
simply
the common elements of a good story. Further, the "differences" in the
case of
Mark to my mind not only make for a vastly different story, they are a
different
story.  I'll demonstrate below.

Dr. MacDonald continues:
Concerning the death of John the Baptist and the death of Agamemnon: I
don't
think these parallels by themselves are the most compelling.Indeed, at one
point
I thought about putting the chapter as an appendix or even dropping
altogether.
But part of my argumentation is cumulative, and some of the parallels, in
view,
are overwhelmingly compelling. If in such
cases Mark did imitate Homeric epic, there is reason to suspect it
elsewhere.

That it is regrettable that these are the ones suggested as a test case
and being
discussed on the list.  Perhaps you would like to choose a different
example for
discussion.  I would be interested to discuss the ones that you find
compelling.

Dr. MacDonald further stated:
Let me comment on Mark and education. I wish I could direct you to an
article by
Ron
Hock on Homer in education that demonstrates how thoroughly ancient Greek
and
Latin education was suffused with Homer. It will be published this
spring in a volume I edited entitled Mimesis and Intertextuality in
Antiquity
and Christianity. Students did not encounter Homeric epic only in advanced
studies: they encountered the epics immediately.

Before digging in, let me say that I thank you for the reference and
hopefully
you will be good to point out to us when it is available.  Now for the
meat:  I
have to apologize if my previous statement was misunderstood.  My point
was NOT
about Homer and his role in education.  In this discussion you may take
that as a
given, I have no argument here.  My argument in this regard rests here: 
Was Mark
an educated man?  How can we tell?  We certainly can not tell from his
Greek
(although Carl, I wouldn't mind your comments here on Mark's Greek in
contrast to
his sources' Greek, how did Ed convince you?).  Nor are there certain
allusions
to other classical authors.  What other basis, aside from your argument do
we
have?  Surely it cannot be claimed that simply because he had the ability
to
write and read that therefore he had access to the education of a private
school
and all that "education" meant for the ancient world.  Reading and Writing
were
viewed as skills, technai, and not as the first step in an educational
process
ending in running the government, which is not to downplay the role of
scribes in
that government, but rather to recognize that seldom do we find a mere
scribe
dashing off vereses in imitation of Horace or making marginal notes from
his
reading in Aristotle.  Some scribes undoubtedly were well read and availed
themselves of texts, others weren't in that position.  So what evidence to
we
have that Mark is more than a Christian scribe and that he is well read? 
His
Greek style is certainly indicative of the opposite.  There are no other
allusions to other literature of which I'm aware in the Markan text.  This
leaves
me with the feeling then, that Mark is NOT one who partook of the
education of
the class of people Ps. Heraclitus is speaking of.  Perhaps you have
contrary
evidence, in which case I will gladly receive correction;.


Finally, at least in the story of Mark 6, I find your list of allusions
unconvincing.  Let me take the first two.  Your first one states that in
both
stories their is a King involved in a love triangle with a male relative. 
But
this is not the case in Mark.  The narrator in Mark goes out of his way to
mention that Herod MARRIED Herodias, Phillip who is only mentioned by the
way is
NOT an actor in the Marcan drama.  Thus, there is NO love triangle here,
and the
issue is one over the observance of the Torah.  Further, the actors in
Homer are
the King, the Queen, the Lover.  The actors in Mark are The Prophet, the
King,
and the Queen.  About the only parallel there is that you have 3 actors. 
This
seems to me not just a difference expected in imitation, but enough to
show that
the "similarity" here doesn't exist.

Your second suggestion is that "a man is a threat to the affair".  In part
this
rests on reading the term GAMEW in Mark as "affair" rather than marriage,
a long
stretch in my lexicon.    But let's unpack this a bit.  In Homer,
Agammemnon is
ignorant of the "affair" and is lead unwittingly to the feast.  In Mark,
there is
no affair, and John (and everyone else) knows of the relationship, but it
is
John, at the head of a crowd of followers, who question the "rightness" of
the
marriage.  Thus, in the first instance we have the HUSBAND who threatens
the
affair (which actually in my view is to misunderstand the Homeric story)
and in
Mark we have John calling the king to righteousness.  Agammemnon is
passive, John
is active.  I see no similarity on this score other than to say that we
have men
involved in a story.

And we could continue through the remaining similarities.  It seems to me
that
these are no "mere" differences expected in a case of imitation, but
rather that
the similarities at least in this one case do not stand up to examination.
 But I
would be interested in exploring other cases you find more compelling than
this
one.

Respectfully,

Larry Swain