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: "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: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 15:55:54 -0800


Joe,

I'm not sure I'm suggesting that you need to address all alternative
explanations. When I did some work on the Exodus pattern in Mark, I first
tried to show that the dominant view on this issue (an appeal to the first
Exodus) didn't really work that well and, having cleared that ground, went
on to propose another approach. I'm only suggesting that if you could argue
in some substantive way that Mark's e.g. Herod-JB story (dramatized though
it is; but then isn't that how most ancient historiography works anyway?) is
too improbable/too stylized to be ancient historiography, it might help
clear the way for your alternative explanation of the improbable features.
It seems to me that Larry's critique of your parallels indirectly raised
this issue by questioning whether a number of Mark's features were as
improbable as you suggest or couldn't be explained on other grounds (I think
that Larry is in fact implicitly using Occam's razor but with all the data
not the just the similarities). I'm not sure I saw your response to his
criticisms.

I note too that you didn't respond to my suggestion that you rank your
parallels (one of the critiques of McDonald; see Rabel). Lumping everything
together as though they are all equally significant (perhaps you didn't
intend as much) probably doesn't help much.

Likewise, my observation that the Fathers seem happy to cite Homer pro and
con and that they do so with considerable frequency (Paul, by Luke's
account, does something similar with pagan poets on Mars Hill). If these
Homeric parallels were so obvious, and Mark was "transvaluing" Homer, then
surely this would be a wonderful opportunity to demonstrate the superiority
of Jesus. But they clearly do not do this. Why in the world not? I'm not
sure that McDonald's explanation re inerrancy/scripture, if I understand it
correctly, is particularly relevant since I can't see how noting parallels
would necessarily lead them to think any less of Mark. I'm not sure I can
see how it would raise questions of historicity since I suppose given their
worldview that they would be more likely simply to see this as the divine
ordering of things. Any comments?

I guess it boils down to two issues for me: are the putative parallels
really parallels, and why the silence of an informed audience.

Perhaps there might be another way forward. I.e. can we propose a test for
how Mark alludes to or invokes interpretative grids? What about the
following (pardon the blatant self-promotion)? I (and a number of others)
have argued the Mark is strongly influenced by Isaiah's hope of a new exodus
(e.g. my ISAIAH'S NEW EXODUS AND MARK). From the reviews (and spin-off
PhDs) it seems that others are agreed that something like this is happening.
If we are right, then perhaps we have some kind of concrete datum as to what
Mark does when he is invoking a story. He leaves lots of obvious clues, not
least his mixed citation of his prologue but also his citations of and
allusions to numerous Isaianic texts and motifs throughout. If this is how
Mark operates, then I would expect to see similarly obvious clues
(citations/ linguistic/ conceptual allusions). Even if we grant all your
parallels, It does strike me as odd that Mark not once appeals explicitly to
Homer or even quotes a snatch or so of his work.

If there is a Homeric influence here, it seems, at least on the surface of
things, to be very secondary indeed. Maybe that's why many of his earliest
readers missed it (and then utterly; not one lone voice breaks the silence;
that the Fathers miss some of his OT allusions is not surprising since it is
not their story; Homer however was their book). In other words perhaps this
has become something of a storm in a teacup. But I guess what I find
curious is why we would want to walk past the obvious for what seems to me
highly allusive at best. This raises the question of the dominant
story/symbolic world in which Mark operates and the genre/s he is using. On
the first point, I don't doubt that his story-telling has been influenced by
his education. But influence is not the same as dependence and on the
latter score I think he's pretty clear about what narrative world provides
the fundamental framework for his understanding of Jesus. On the genre/s
question, list members would probably not be surprised to learn that I would
find McDonald's view that Mark invents stories wholesale unconvincing. But
I can understand why, if for McDonald Mark is writing a literary fiction, he
finds a cleverly discussed Homer at or near the bottom of much of this.


Rikk

on 30/1/01 12:55 pm, JFAlward AT aol.com at JFAlward AT aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 1/30/01 10:54:40 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> rwatts AT interchange.ubc.ca writes:
>
> 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.
>>>
> ==========
> I absolutely agree with your last point; I'm repeating myself too much.
> However, I must respectfully disagree with you on the former one. I don't
> believe it's the duty of the proponents of a theory to search for others and
> show they're inferior; if that were the rule, and MacDonald searched for
> other theories and successfully rebutted them, his opponents could always
> claim that he didn't look hard enough.
>
> It's difficult to rebut someone who's arguing in the abstract; it would be
> easier to reply if something concrete were presented by MacDonald's (and my)
> critics. If anyone can provide another scenario which explains Mark's
> strange story better than MacDonald, I'm sure everyone would like to see it.
> Until that happens, I'm strongly inclined to believe that Mark's story of
> John the Baptist's beheading was patterned in part after Homer's
> (traditional) story of Klytemnestra chopping Agamemnon's head off.
>
> http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/john_baptist.html
>
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Joe
> ==============
> Joseph F. Alward, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Physics
> University of the Pacific
> Stockton California 95211
> e-mail: JFAlward AT aol.com
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to gmark as: rwatts AT interchange.ubc.ca
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to $subst('Email.Unsub')





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page