Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

gmark - Re: Mark and Homer

gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Kata Markon

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: JFAlward AT aol.com
  • To: gmark AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: Mark and Homer
  • Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 14:45:31 EST


(I place the name of the author in front of a colon at beginning of his
remarks. J.A.)
============

Larry Swain:

Virgil scholarship is pretty certain that Homer influenced Virgil as Virgil
influenced Dante... 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.
===========
Joe Alward:

Larry seems to be arguing that since there are fewer connections of Virgil to
Homer than there are of Mark to Homer, one would expect scholarship long ago
to have recognized Mark's dependence because it was long ago recognized in
Virgil. I hope I've properly translated your argument, Larry; if not please
accept my apology. The premise of Larry's argument seems to be false.
First, I don't see evidence that there ARE fewer connections to Homer in
Virgil. Second, any connections which have gone undiscovered for two
millennia are, by definition, obscure ones. Even if Larry were to show that
MacDonald listed more parallels between Mark and Homer than exist between
Virgil and Homer, their well-disguised nature would explain why the
dependence is not "easily demonstrated."

I want to mention at this point my deep concern about MacDonald's claim that
Mark wanted and expected his readers to notice his "flags" waving toward
Homer; I agree that Mark may have hoped that his use of Homer was
sufficiently well done that people would recognize the connection, but, if
that was Mark's hope, he surely would be disappointed. He did an absolutely
terrible job. With each passing day I find myself leaning more toward the
view that Mark was very uneducated, didn't have Homer at hand--or if he did,
he didn't bother to read it, and embedded into his Jesus stories
half-remembered and poorly understood elements from Homer oral tradition. In
the case of his story about John the Baptist's beheading, Mark remembered
several elements from Homer which were actually in the original epic, and
some which had been created through tradition in its many retellings over the
centuries; a good example of this is the traditional view that Klytemnestra
beheaded Agamemnon. Klytemnestra didn't behead Agamemnon, but people thought
she did, so Mark nevertheless created a story in which a woman who was party
to an illicit (or, thought to be illicit) relationship plays a pivotal role
in the murder of her husband. The story Mark remembered had Agamemnon's head
landing on someone's dinner platter, so he thought that would be a juicy
element to introduce into his tale about Herod ordering John beheaded;
Josephus didn't say that John was beheaded, and he certainly never said
anything about a head on a platter, so where did Mark get this idea, if not
from Homer? I could go on like this to explain what might have been on
Mark's mind when he included other elements from Homer in his story, but I've
made my point, I hope: Mark might have been no more that a sophomore-level
student completing writing assignments that called for him to create stories
about the messiah people were talking about by rewriting stories he
remembered from Homer. He was a very poor student, wrote in lousy Greek, and
didn't remember all that much from Homer, which he may never have read in the
first place. There's no wonder that there are so many dissimilarities of the
type Larry Swain mentions; it's exactly what you'd expect from an incompetent
young highschooler.
==========
Larry:

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, Philip 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.
============
Joe:

At the time of Mark, Josephus was recording the relationship--the
"marriage"--between Herod and Herodias'. Josephus also noted that John
deemed it to be illicit. Based on this information, in Mark's mind there was
a "triangle" involving Herod, Herodias, and Herodias's husband--Herod's
brother--Philip. Mark ineptly connected this to what he remembered from
Homer: A wife who was carrying on illicitly with another man beheaded (in
the traditional telling) another man. Mark transformed this into his tale of
Herodias carrying on illicitly (in the traditional view) with Herod, and then
Herodias ordering the beheading of another man. There are huge differences
between the two tales, of course, but Mark either didn't know that, or didn't
care; he just had to make sure his assignment was in by Friday noon.

Regards,


Joe
==============

Joseph F. Alward, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Physics
University of the Pacific
Stockton CA 95211
email: JFAlward AT aol.com




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page