Kata Markon

["Doug Geyer" <dgeyer AT aol.com>]

My own response to Dr MacDonald's work has been to investigate Homer,
Mark, and to read more.  This cannot but be a good thing, and I hope that
this response is common.  In my case, I had the time to compose a paper
about but a single, small portion Dr MacDonald's efforts, present it at a
Chicago meeting, and then have Dr  Gibson post it on this web site, as an
article.  I believe that in order to understand Mark better we have no
choice but to navigate Greek and Latin Epic witnesses about oceans,
storms, deaths, entrances to the underworld, and other matters.  I also
believe we need to navigate the Near Eastern precursors of this
literature, as well as the Hellenistic revivification of those precursors
(e.g., Hellenistic precidents to Josephus’ Antiquities).  At the same
time, we have a variety of geographical writers who use some of the same
epic/mythological materials.  In my opinion, there is so much material to
examine – and not just school book materials or occasional examples of
rhetoric or rhetorical instruction – that we are not yet at a place to
begin to determine what myths from what sources most likely caused
specific outcomes in the Markan composition, if they did.

On the use of Homer, list participants may be aware of Dr Kotanksy's
efforts in this regard, as published in the Festschrift for Hans Dieter
Betz.  There is also a 1994 monograph by Dr Kettenbach, Einfuhrung in die
Schiffarhrtsmetaphoric der Bible, with a good deal on Odysseus, Jonah, and
Mark.  Both use very different methods.  In my own work, I have discovered
that Homer must be read to help determine what is happening in Mark, at
least in some passages.  I hope to publish my work this Fall in the ATLA
Monograph Series.  I do not think that Mark was aware of Homeric epic
only, but aware of a whole variety of traditions.  I believe that Mark
alludes to many of these traditions.

Whatever differences I have with Dr MacDonald may perhaps be based on that
word, “allude.”  I like it, because I can get a lot of mileage out of it
without taking on the burden of proving that the specific rhetoric of
imitation or emulation fashioned some feature of the Gospel of Mark.  But
one could always ask, What is the difference between an author “alluding”
to other traditions and an author composing a poor-to-moderate imitation
of those traditions?  Maybe not much.  But one big difference is that the
whole argument about Homer being THE text behind or under or next to or
beside (or whatever) Mark can be dropped, because there were many such
“texts” in many similar “positions” around Mark.  Knowing as many of them
as possible may help us understand what Mark has wrought.  All of them
deserve to be examined.

I hope that our possible use of Homer, or any other material, will not get
bogged down in discussions about what kind of rhetorical technique was
used to produce Mark.  For my own tastes, proof must clear, and not
circumstantial, for a species of rhetoric to be exactly identified in an
ancient text.