Kata Markon

[Steve Black <sblack AT axionet.com>]

Title: [gmark] Re: Mark 4:12

> I have developed six criteria for
> detecting literary antecedents,
> especially for mimesis. I was in fact influenced in part by
> discussions of
> Paul's use of the Hebrew Bible, but even more so by theorists of
> Latin
> poetry. They are:
> 1. Accessibility of the putative model, 2. evidence of analogous
> imitations
> or influence, 3. density or volume of the
> parallels, 4. similar order of
> presentation, 5, traits distinctive to the model and imitation, and
> 6.
> benefits of viewing the proposed imitation as such. e.g., does the
> text
> improve on its model. I develop these criteria especially in the
> Homeric
> Epics and the Gospel of Mark, but a new book to be published by
> Yale
> University Press develops and applies the criteria in more detail:
> Does the
> New Testament Imitate Homer? Dennis
> MacDonald

Dennis, I would add to this list at least one other item. That would be a comparison of the given author use of other identified sources. In other words - in regards to Mark - We (or at least I) am not yet sure about Homeric influence upon Mark's gospel, but I am sure about the influence of the OT. Of course even here there has been connections suggested that are far from being conclusive (I'm thinking, for example, of some of Joe Alward's suggestions). BUT - there are at least some contexts where the use of the OT is beyond doubt - as in direct quotes (Mk 1:2-3, etc). Here we are made fully aware the Mark is thinking and using the OT. So here at least Joe can make the uncontestable argument that Mark *was thinking* about the OT as he wrote (and from there he can argue further connections). We have no such clear quotes from Homer, so it remains, at least to me, not as conclusive an influence as the OT. Secondly, we can see the manner, or better perhaps, the reason why Mark uses the OT. Here is where I have more difficulty with Joe's hypothesis, because he posits no reason other than the fact that Mark wanted to tie Jesus together with the OT. (I hope I haven't too grotesquely  caricatured Joe's position...). Mark uses the OT to great effect, with great density of significance. It seems to me that (at least in the uncontested uses) he never "just uses" themes from the OT, but does so with a degree of sophistication.

Dennis, it seems to me that your list of criteria for detecting literary antecedents might have been constructed from observations from "unproven" literary connections. It would be interesting to look at examples where we *know* that one author borrowed "directly" thematically or otherwise from another author. If, for example, we were convinced that Luke borrowed from Mark (as the 2ST suggests) that might offer a good example providing "controls". The reason we think Luke may have used Mark, and why John's use of Mark is less sure, is that the *same exact word usage* is found in both Luke and Mark, whereas in John, some similar stories are put into very different words. If this is included as a type of "control" or example of criteria for detecting literary antecedents , I think Homeric influence might not be as direct as I believe you are suggesting.

I still have some concerns about "3. density or volume of the parallels," - It seems to me that many small examples do not add up to "large evidence". I am still a believer in coincidence; too many things are asserted in the name of a "now surely that's not just a coincidence" type of "logic". There are times where I believe that it *is* just a coincidence!

-- 

Steve Black
Vancouver School of Theology
Vancouver, BC

---

Once in a while you can get shown the light

in the strangest of places in you look at it right...

-Robert Hunter From SCARLET BEGONIAS