Malachi151

I just got this book:

The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (or via: amazon.co.uk)

and I must say that I am blown away.

As far as I am concerned this is THE smoking gun of the Jesus Myth. Its as close as there will ever be to a smoking gun anyway. If you have no read this book, definately get it.

The book gives not only significant analysis, but also direct comparisons between Mark and Homeric works, that can ONLY be direct copies of Homeric works by Mark.

Here is one short example, but there are even better ones that are longer:

Odyssey:
Odysseus' crew boarded and sat down.
On a floating island Odysseus told stories
to Aeolus.
After a month he took his leave, boarded and sailed with twelve ships.
Odysseus slept.
The greedy crew opened the sack of
winds and created a storm: "All the
winds rushed out."
The crew groaned.
Odysseus awoke and gave up hope.
Odysseus complained of his crew's folly.
Aeolus was master of the winds.

Mark 4:35-41
Jesus boarded and sat down to teach,
On a floating boat Jesus told stories to
the crowds.
When it was late, he took his leave,
and sailed. "Other boats were with him."
Jesus slept at the stern.
A storm arose: "And there wa a great gale
of wind."
The disciples were helpless and afraid.
Jesus awoke and stilled the storm.
Jesus rebuked his disciples for lack of faith.
Jesus was master of the winds and sea.

Again, this isn't even the best example!

This book is simply amazing, and as far as I can see it completely changes all scholarship of the New Testament.

Iasion

Yes,
I thought this book was a useful and informative contribution to NT scholarship.

But,
few agree, it seems :-(

Iasion

Malachi151

What do you mean by "few agree"? Who? I don't know much about the reaction to this book yet. How has it been "explained away"?

S.C.Carlson

An article critical of MacDonald's thesis has been published in the December 2005 issue of the Journal of Biblical Literature. My blog post has the following summation of the article:

Last but not least, Karl Olav Sandnes “Imitatio Homeri? An Appraisal of Dennis R. MacDonald’s ‘Mimesis Criticism’” (715-732), is a welcome corrective to MacDonald’s case that Mark was imitiating or emulating Homer. Sandes concludes:

Quote:

[E]mulation was broadcast in ways that alerted the reader. The authors moved between advertised intertextuality and subtle emulation. MacDonald isolates subtle emulation from its advertising context. Subtle and concealed emulation without basis in a broadcast intertextuality cannot make up for slippery comparisons. ... But he fails to demonstrate authorial intention while he, in fact, neglects the OT intertextuality that is broadcast in the this literature.

In other words, Sandnes points out that, if one is to investigate the role of mimesis or emulation in the NT and especially in Mark, one should be looking at the OT, not Homer.

Stephen

Malachi151

Well, that's a bunch of nonsense. First of all, such a claim is nonsense in the first place, but more importantly, the number and quality of parelles that he gives is beyond refutiation.

Even if you don't agree with the primary thesis that the author of Mark was intentionally giving clues to the fact that the work was based on Homeris epics, which is immaterial IMO, the fact is that a major portion of Mark is essentialy a quote from the Illiad and Odyssey.

As much as they try to dismiss, you can't dismiss the direct comparisons.

RUmike

The argument is nonsense because it's nonsense...ahhh.

S.C.Carlson

The comparisons are not that direct, and MacDonald has to paraphrase them to make them more impressive than they are. The Old Testament parallels are closer (see Vork's commentary, e.g.), and Mark even tells us how important the OT is. The OT, not Homer, is the place to look for this kind of thing. MacDonald is barking up the wrong tree.

Stephen

Malachi151

Its nonsense because Christianity was clearly influenced by Greek culture and was clearly a movement among both Jews and "Gentiles" and there would certianly been an effort to draw non-Jews into the faith by using familiar allusions.

Malachi151

I'm reading the origional texts of the Iliad and Odyssey now, and I will admit that the similaries are more tenious than what it seemed in the book, but nevertheless there are certianly correlations. In many ways Mark simply looks to be much more compact and simplifed as compared to the Homeric works.

Iasion

Greetings,

Well,
when it came out, it raised some interest and discussion.

But,
few scholars supported it, his argument was criticised as weak, and the book sank from view.

Now,
it rarely rates a mention.

I thought his thesis had SOME merit, but arguments based on lists and similarities do not seem to be well regarded.


Iasion