Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

gmark - Re: Mark and Homer

gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Kata Markon

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "L. J. Swain" <larry.swain AT wmich.edu>
  • To: Kata Markon <gmark AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Mark and Homer
  • Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 23:35:02 -0500



JFAlward AT aol.com wrote:

> (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.

Essentially. But not only would they have been recognized in scholarship,
they
would have been recognized by early Christians and used accordingly. But, if
this first objection is valid, yes it would prove my premise false. So let's
test it rather than bouncing emails back and forth. Let's take a case of
known
dependence between the two and see how many parallels there are between them.
I'll even allow you to choose the episode.


> 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."

This would be an argument against the position I outlined, but would not
prove it
a false premise. To a degree this type of argument is slippery. These
parallels
are so well hidden that not even someone like Justin Martyr or Ambrose were
able
to detect them, but someone with less familiarity with Homer is able to.
Further, if Mark is able to hide these parallels so well that even his
original
auditors were not able to see the parallels, one would expect then a greater
level of editorial creativity in other areas of the text, such as his level of
Greek. But this is what we don't find.

> <snip>
> 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.

True enough on one level. But you're also not recognizing that the parallels
don't exist, it isn't simply a matter of there being differences. And you're
further thinking that there must be literary antecedents for the elements in
the
story. Where did Mark get the idea for the beheading and silver platter? a)
he
made it up--after all if he is writing fiction, why not? And since
Agammenon's
head isn't served up on a platter, this isn't really a likely source either.
b)
folklore-I believe Rikk mentioned this aspect of the tale earlier c)
aetiological-how John died. f) historicity--Josephus doesn't mention it, and
this
is curious if it is historical, but it must be shown that the story cannot be
historical as it stands. And the elements of the Josephus report are
certainly
contained in the Markan account.g)



> ==========
> 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.

But the triangle in Mark is John, Herod, and Herodias, which isn't really a
triangle at all. That is, in the background John challenges Herod. In the
foreground Herodias who doesn't like John manipulates Herod. Once again, the
putative parallel is removed, the actors are different, the relationships are
different, the circumstances are different, the method is different. The only
elements that are similar are a beheading and dishes, and even the latter is a
different use of the dishes. This just doesn't seem to me to be explanatory.

Larry Swain





  • Mark and Homer, Dennis Ronald MacDonald, 02/01/2001
    • <Possible follow-up(s)>
    • Re: Mark and Homer, L. J. Swain, 02/02/2001
    • Re: Mark and Homer, JFAlward, 02/02/2001

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page