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: JFAlward AT aol.com
  • To: gmark AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark
  • Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 21:18:56 EST



Rikk:

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.
=================
Joe:

I believe you're suggesting that I think of other candidate explanations for
Mark's Herod John Baptist story, then show that they're more complex than
MacDonald's. If that's not what you're proposing, I apologize for
misunderstanding you. If anyone would like to point to an alternative theory
which explains why Mark put John's head on a dinner plate that aggressively
competes with MacDonald's, I will be quick to join you in disbelief. I've
already used every web search engine in sight to look for explanations of
that story, and have come up with nothing.
=========
Rikk:

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.
===========
Joe:

Such a ranking would invariably be artificial and subjective, I think.
===========
Rikk:

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?
============
Joe Alward:

MacDonald's inerrancy argument stands up, I think. I believe that when the
church fathers found that their evangelizing among the Hebrews wasn't
producing as many converts as they liked, they turned to the Gentiles, who
had a long tradition of belief in the gods of mythology. The last thing the
fathers needed was for them to suspect that their candidate for son of God
was based on mythology, too. He, then, would be just one more god among
many. So, even if the church father's faith was unshakable (and I doubt that
it was), and could still accept Mark as largely myth, they would keep silent
as a stone about Homer if they had any sense: Their livelihood and power
depended on Jesus being thought of as the son of God, not a new and better
Odysseus.
===========
<Snip some of Rikk's comments. I don't have time to respond now.>.

Rikk:

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.
==============
Joe:

I absolute agree that the Homeric connection is extremely tenuous in every
single example MacDonald provides; in some cases, I believe contact with
Homer is virtually nonexistent. By Monday I hope to have up on the web a
revised version of my "Loaves and Fishes" article. The current one at
http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/john_baptist.html does a fairly good job, I
imagine, of refuting most of MacDonald's claims of parallels between Mark and
Homer in the two miraculous feeding stories; the new article will show almost
conclusively--I think--that MacDonald must have imagined that the epic
influenced Mark, or else it will show that I'm the only one imagining things.
Now, If I could also show that Dennis was wrong in the Herod John Baptist
story, I certainly would try to do it; at present, though, I can't think of a
way to do it.

I apologize for not responding to all of your comments, but I've run out of
time.

Thanks for the interesting post.


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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page