Kata Markon

["Dennis Ronald MacDonald" <dmacdon AT cst.edu>]

Whew! Just a week ago I was lonely for company in this conversation, and
now I'm overwhelmed by it. I simply don't have time to respond to everyone
who has weighed in on this topic, and I have chosen not to respond to
every missive individually, though I most likely will do so in the future.
In this message I want to address some of the more significant issues.
1. This is no criticism: I suspect that many of the people in the debate
have not read my book. Many of the issues raised here are addressed there.
More important, my argument is cumulative, even gestaltlich. We have been
talking about two examples, and two that, even to me, are not conclusive
in isolation from the larger argument. Someone asked for a better example.
I would propose Mark 15-16 and the parallels with the death of Hector and
the rescue of his corpse by Priam.
2. If Mark did not learn to write Greek in school, where did he learn to
do so? I'm not arguing that Mark's Greek is stellar; au contraire. On the
other hand, his composition is brilliant. He would not have to wait until
advanced rhetorical studies to be introduced to Homeric paraphrases.
3. Yes, I am fully aware of Morgan's book on Literary Education. I also am
aware of her helpful distinctions about which scrolls of the epics are
best attested in our sources. I think these observations need to be
tempered by other observations. For example, Iliad books 1 and 2 are
indeed the most common books for paraphrase according to surviving school
texts. Curiously enough, these passages are nearly absent in literary
imitations of Homer, including Apollonius, Vergil, and Lucian. On the
other hand, books 9, 10, and 11 of the Odyssey, and books 6, 22, and 24 of
the Iliad fall in the mid-range of paraphrased texts in the papyri, but
they clearly were favorite targets for imitation in literature: Circe,
Polyphemus, Nekyia, Hector's farewell to Andromache, Hector's death,
Priam's Lytra. Go figure. I don't know why--I have some hunches--but this
surely is the case.
4. I never have denied the influence of Jewish scriptures, especially the
LXX, on Mark. Furthermore, I would not be surprised that the depedence is
more profound than we know. But it is surely not the case that Jewish
texts alone can account for all of the content. Furthermore, one
characteristic of ancient mimesis was eclecticism, the use of several
models in composing the same story. In fact, there are rhetorical
discussions of the matter.
5. I am tempted to say that the reason Mark was more explicit about his
use of the OT is that these texts were not as well known to his audience
as Homer was!
6. Why did Mark do it? At first I thought it was merely that he saw a
successful narrative when he saw it. He wrote a book about a suffering
hero whose death presaged the fall of a city. What two characters would be
better models than suffering Odysseus and dying Hector? The more I worked
with these comparisons, however, the more I became convinced that Mark
wanted his readers to view Jesus as superior to Odysseus (Jesus, for
example, can walk on water; and turn demons into swine, like Circe) and
Hector (Jesus, after all, rises from the dead). Surely Mark thinks Jesus
is superior to Moses and David, why not Odysseus and Hector?
7. I could not agree with Joe Alward more when he notes that in such
discussions the most successful refutation is an alternative  model that
better explains the same features attributed to the proposed model.
Furthermore, one criterion for deciding the matter should be Occam's
Razor: the simpler, the more elegant the explanation the more compelling
it is.
8. I am frustrated that the criteria I advance in my book have not
received discussion: Availablity of the model; analogous imitations,
density and similar order of parallels, distinctive traits, and
interpretability.
9. If Mark did imitate Homer, what criteria would we use to determine it?
The same question pertains to his putative imitation of the OT or other
texts: what criteria should one use?
10. I don't want to quibble about details of my arguments on particular
texts, such as whether Herod, Philip, Herodias are a love triangle. Larry
Swain suggests it was not because Herod married Herodias. I bet Phiip
thought it was a love triangle. Their marriage surely was considered a
scandal, according to Josephus. I also don't wish to get overly involved
in speculations over written sources Mark may have used. That is not
because I deny the existence of such sources prima facie, but because what
we have is a finished text, a text that betrays remarkable similarities
with Homeric epic that must be accounted for in some way. If Mark did use
sources, OK, but does the existence of such a source explain the data? I
have my doubts.
11. Finally, I don't wish to be overly defensive. I very much appreciate
this attention to my work, and I am learning much from it. In fact, it
helps me in crafting the book I'm working on now "Does the New Testament
Imitate Homer?" in which I are for Homeric imitation in Acts 12 and 20. By
the way, I've also published an article in New Testament Studies on Paul's
shipwreck as an imitation of Odyesseus's and argue, inter alia, that the
imitation provides an economical explanation of the We-passages. I will,
however, be defensive about the profound influence on Homeric epic on Mark
and Luke-Acts. Surely I have not written the final word on the matter, but
I am not just being clever or seeing what I want to see.
My apologies to anyone whose comments I failed to address. If you wish me
to comment further on details, or if I left out something significant,
please let me know.
Dennis MacDonald