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: "L. J. Swain" <larry.swain AT wmich.edu>
  • To: Kata Markon <gmark AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark
  • Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 01:22:41 -0500


I have refrained from the discussion due to time, but I'm characterized here
as
saying what I have not said or argued.

Dennis MacDonald wrote:

> 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.

I'm not at all certain who introduced this element into the discussion, I can
only aver that it was not I. I had thought that it was Joe responding to a
characterization of Joe's argument by Rikk, but since Joe has now come online
agreeing with your statements, perhaps my memory is mistaken. However, my
part
of this discussion, and attempts to engage you personally, have been on the
issue
of your stated assumption that "Mark could write, therefore he knew Homer" and
whether in all cases you have sufficiently made your case and therefore can
claim
that your argument rests in the crushing amount of parallel. I don't
necessarily
disagree with you in some instances, but in others I think you are stretching.

> 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.

I'm familiar with your work on Andrew and found it mostly convincing, and I
would
be very interested in reading your article on Tobit and the
Telemachia...there at
first glance are indeed parallels. Where will it appear? And overall I'm
convinced by your discussions of Luke-Acts which I've read. But all of this
together STILL does not demonstrate that Mark was as indebted to Homer as you
claim in your book, and that is the point.

> 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.

I think you might mean "literacy" level? I disagree here, obviously. I'll
respond in more detail later in the week, but much depends both on the place
and
the nature of Mark's training.

> Whether he used them in composition, of course, is another matter.

Granted.

>
> 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.

But they had a ready made theology at hand which had served so well in dealing
with Judaism, and which Paul, Justin, and Irenaeus do in fact use with
classical
literature: prefigurement and fulfillment; why didn't they develop a theology
that Homer prefigured Jesus (just as Moses was the inspiration for Socrates
according to some writings from the Intertestamental period. I'll develop
this
more later when I can cite actual text, but the fact that it is there
demonstrates that at least in some sectors there was less embarrassment than
in
others.

> 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.

True enough on one level, but on the other hand, the Metamorphoses were never
believed to have one's eternal state at stake, much less death for reading
Ovid
in contrast to reading the NT texts. Further, while there isn't direct
commentary
on the indebtedness, there is commentary on the process of translation and
appropriation of Greek texts into a Latin context on the parts of Cicero,
Quintillian, and Horace, and discussion of the process of making these Greek
texts LATIN and demonstrating Latin's superiority as a vehicle for epic,
rhetoric, poetry etc. This is precisely the type of discussion we do NOT
find in
Christian circles: re: appropriation of Greek literature for Christian ends,
not
until Tertullian anyway.

> 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
>

I take a bit of umbrage at this comment, and I think folks who have made
comments
in support of your position, such as Ted Weeden, should as well. I receive
some
6 Classical journals and not one of them has reviewed your book so far, and
the
one classical vehicle that I know that has reviewed the book concluded that
you
saw more than we there (BMCR) and I've also checked out MLA, ATLAReligion,
NortherLights, and TOCS-IN for other reviews of the book, only to come up
empty.
Further, one classicist on the list (forgive me, Carl, for invoking you)
didn't
exactly endorse the it either. That leaves me wondering just which journals
have
reviewed the book favorably, and thus provide grounds for the above statement.
Further, the question I have been asking you, at least in terms of your
discussion of the John the Baptist beheading is simply are the parallels
really
there....if they aren't, then you don't really have the therapeutic evidence
necessary.

Regards,

Larry Swain





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page