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: "Dennis MacDonald" <dmacdon AT cst.edu>
  • To: 'Kata Markon' <gmark AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark
  • Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 09:06:03 -0800




I would like to speak to this on going debate between Joe, Rikk, and Larry.
When working with literary imitation one does not count verses. This is
quite ridiculous, actually. The issue is rather the generative potential of
a literary model. This business about 6% and 170 verses seeks to quantify
and then dismiss similarities that go to the core of the narrative:
characterization, plot design (e.g. secrecy and recognition, predictions of
one's own death, uses of irony, etc. If one must quantify, one should do so
by the number of episodes that display possible allusions to the epic. In
this case, well over half of the narrative has Homeric parallels.
I do not argue and never have argued that Mark's indebtedness to Homer was
unique. Quite the contrary, Homeric imitation was rampant in the first and
second centuries: as in the novels. Furthermore, I have written several
articles on Homeric imitation in Luke-Acts, have a major article coming
next month on Tobit and the Telemachia (Odyssey 1-4), and have written a
book on the Acts of Andrew as a rewriting of classical mythology and the
death of Socrates.
The literary level of Mark, in my view, is not the major issue. If he knew
how to write Greek, and if his narrative shows literary skill (which it
most certainly does) we should assume he had been exposed to the epics.
Whether he used them in composition, of course, is another matter.
Did anyone in antiquity catch on to Mark's Homeric sensus plenior. I think
it likely that Luke and the author of the Acts of Andrew got glimpses of
it. This would explain why they employ the same strategies. Furthermore, I
think the apologists suggest why our sources are silent on the subject:
parallels between Christ and Greek heroes become increasingly embarrassing.
By the way, there can be little doubt that Lucian and Apuleius, for
example, imitated Homer, but I dare you to find a scrap of ancient literary
comment on their indebtedness. The same silence is nearly true of commen
taries on the Aeneid and the Metamorphoses of Ovid, obviously Homeric
hypertexts.
I find it not surprising but lamentable that the most enthusiastic
reception of my book has come from scholars who do classics, and
comparative literature and not from New Testament scholars. I attribute it
to paradigm shift phobia, for which I know no adequate therapy but the
evidence itself.
Dennis MacDonald





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page