phew.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, 3 February 2001 2:43
pm
Subject: [gmark] Re: Mark and Homer
> ===========
> 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.
Larry Swain:
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.
======== Joe:
Please
feel free to choose whatever example you wish; I'll be comfortable with
whatever you have. ======== Larry:
> 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.
====== Joe:
As I indicated in
more than one place in a post I just sent to Rikk, I don't believe that
the "Mark" who inserted the parallels was competent. His parallels
are hidden not because he was clever; they're hidden because they so
poorly constructed in most cases. More about this is found in the other
post. =======
> <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. ========== Joe:
I don't
understand. Which parallels do I not recognize don't exist?
=========== Larry:
And you're
further thinking that there must be literary antecedents for the
elements in the story. ======== Joe:
No, I'm
not. The beheading of John at the behest of Herodias might have been
an urban legend; they only take about five days to spread in most regions
of this country. ======== Larry:
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. =========
Joe:
The platter wasn't silver. He could have made up the
story, as you say, if urban legend growth hadn't saved him the trouble and
created the story for him. Agamemnon's head in the traditional
telling probably landed on a plate. You need to find another story
not in Homer in which all of the eleven elements are found. Until
that's done, the most likely explanation for Mark having John beheaded at
the request of Herodias is that Mark copied Homer. ======= Larry:
> 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. ======
Joe:
Virtually everything is different in ancient mimesis. You should
take a very close look at Chapter One, and Chapter 22 of MacDonald's book.
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:
phil AT mpc.org.au To unsubscribe send a blank email to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
|