Ben C Smith

I could not agree more. The problem is not the search for parallels. The problem is overlooking parallels that are right at hand in favor of parallels that are temporally, geographically, and culturally far more distant.

Ben.

Jayrok

How would you review The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark? Not to go off topic, but I was wondering if you already had a review written somewhere.

It seems to me that MacDonald's point isn't that the author of Mark fabricated his tale completely from Homer, but rather he used the Greek influenced writing style to enhance his tale. I believe Mark's story line came from the OT with parallels to Elijah, Elisha, et al... But he patterned some of the details of his story after those Homeric epics (i.e. Hero as main character, Hero asleep in the boat during storm, etc.). Where an event may not parallel with an OT character, he supplemented with Homer's Hero.

I didn't get that he saw Jesus as a copy-cat saviour from a pagan mystery religion.

Did you not like it because you felt MacDonald's theory was that Jesus was a copy-cat, or because the parallels with Homer, that MacDonald claims, are simply not there?

Malachi151

I think that this is a problem with mindset. I think that many JMers have the attitude that they want to disparage or embarrass the Christian story, and they think that the way to do this is to draw "pagan" parallels. The problem is that this isn't scholarship.

Some people seem to think that if the basis for the story is Jewish, then it doesn't really twist the knife enough or something, but to me that just senseless.

You have to follow the facts and the facts lead to the story of Jesus being a very Jewish story, in the tradition of other Hellenistic Jewish stories.

Ben C Smith

This might be an example of what I was saying. If we have to find a precedent for sleeping through a storm at sea, why Odysseus? Why not Jonah, right there in the OT scriptures that all the evangelists quote so much? The message would be (if the parallel is valid): Behold, one greater than Jonah is here.

Ben.

Malachi151

I think that most of the reviews of the book by Christian critics have been pretty accurate. First of all, the Homeric works were written some 500+ years before GMark. Secondly, MacDonald states that the author of GMark was INTENTIONALLY drawing Homeric parallels in order to key his audience in on the Homeric nature of the work. As others have said, if this is the case apparently he didn't do a good job because MacDonald is the first person to figure this out. Thirdly, I think I can come up with better explanations for the scenes he discusses based on OT parallels, parallels to other Jewish stories, or no parallels but on original points being made by the author.

His book, like most of these other "pagan parallel" ideas, stretches past breaking. If you read his paraphrases of the Homeric passages, then you go back to the actual work, you find that he has REALLY strained to create his paraphrases. It all looks good when you read his paraphrases, but when you go to the originals, you see that his paraphrases are very tried.

Plus the fact that GMark isn't even a fluent narrative as though its based on a consistent story line, its more like separate disconnected scenes, which fits much better with picking and choosing from disparate OT passages than from following the Iliad, etc. through.

Jayrok

Thanks for that explanation, and I see your point, as well as your point Ben.

The first thing that occured to me with MacDonald's book is why didn't anyone else catch on and comment on the Homeric influence? Is MacDonald the first to "notice" them?

I'd like to ask Richard Carrier about his thoughts on that.

gstafleu

Err, ahem, I was actually arguing the opposite: comparisons with "pagan" myths are useful, provided they are done in the right way. For example:Now I haven't read the book that compares Mark to Homer. But if there are similarities they are only significant if they fit in a larger frame. It is known that many mythologies share a set of common themes. If we can show that Homer and Mark share such a theme then that is significant. What is not significant is a similarity that we only find between Mark and Homer, but not in other mythologies. It could be significant, but only if you can show the etiology of the similarity.

So:
No, wrong. There are significant similarities between the Jewish and Christian mythologies and other mythologies (I would drop the word "pagan" here, mythology is a good descriptor for the genre). These commonalities should not be ignored, nor should they be raised to a status of sole importance: they should be treated properly.

If that is true is a discussion for another day. There are a couple of things to say apart from that. First, this doesn't answer the question of where the mythology in the OT came from. For example, the Hebrews didn't dream up the Adam/Eve/Tree/Serpent idea themselves. Given that this theme is still important in Christianity, its (pre-Hebrew) origins are important too. Second, it is dubious to assume that Abrahamic mythology, as the sole exception among 200,000 years of mythologies, developed in isolation from the surrounding cultures. Obviously Christian mythology derives from Jewish mythology. But that doesn't mean it was impervious to all the other mythologies percolating in and around the Roman empire.

You have clearly been doing a lot of useful reading of late. But I would strongly suggest that you expand your horizons a bit. Start with The Masks of God by Joseph Campbell: four very interesting volumes. Put some of the same energy you have allocated to studying the Christian mythology towards studying other mythologies. You may be surprised by what you'll learn.

Gerard Stafleu

Clivedurdle

On the Carrier points above, there is a clear common denominator - the Celts - who we are only now beginning to understand properly.

I know it sounds psychoanalytic and mumbo jumbo and a new term - ikean - but maybe there are clear reasons behind these patterns and concepts. I would attempt tidying these ideas up, not rejecting them.

Clivedurdle

Is there an issue about which matters are background matters - pagan, alchemic, mythical and which foreground immediate matters - Judaism.

Malachi151

Well, of course there are ULTIMATELY some non-Jewish influences on Jewish culture, especially the pre-Torah influences out of which the stories of the Torah derived, but what I get tired of are all the Mithras and Dionysus, dying and rising gods claims.

It's not that there may not be any connection between Dionysus and some concepts in Hellenistic Judaism, but I don't see Dionysus as the source of the passion and resurrection Jesus.

There are plenty of stories in the Old Testament and other Jewish writings, which are based largely on the personal experiences of the Jews, that fully account for the passion and resurrection of Jesus.

I do think that the concept of afterlife in Hellenistic Judaism, which became prevalent in the region across sects, was ultimately impacted outside influenced from the Greeks and Egyptians, but this is an influence that works its way into Hellenistic Judaism over hundreds of years and impacted more sects than just Christians.

The idea of afterlife in the NT canon doesn't come on a direct route from the Greeks, it only comes indirectly after already much integration with Judaism.

It just seem that so many people want to make it a case of taking Judaism and slapping a bunch of pagan ideas on top of it directly from the Greeks and Romans, etc. I just don't see it that way at all.

I think there was a lot more pagan influence AFTER the adoption of the religion by the Romans, and this shows up in imagery and dogma and tradition, but not so much in the scriptures themselves.