gridleyjason

++++

Since that was the issue in question, I fail to see how asking for evidence that sustains the claim is "quibbling". I'm surprised you don't see this.


Be that as it may, here's the review.

Jason

+++++++
Author: Dowd, Sharyn Source: Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 63, no. 1 (Jan 2001): p. 155-156 ISSN: 0008-7912
Number: 79017781 Copyright: Copyright Catholic
Biblical Association of America Jan 2001


DENNIS P. MACDONALD, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark
(New Haven/ London: Yale University Press, 2000). Pp. x + 262. $30.

The thesis of this book is that "the author of the earliest
gospel ... used the Odyssey as his primary literary inspiration but
also imitated Books 22 and 24 of the Iliad for narrating Jesus' death
and burial," and "that Mark wanted his readers to detect his
transvaluation of Homer" (p. 3). "The earliest Evangelist was not
writing a historical biography, . . . but a novel, a prose anti-epic of
sorts" (p. 7). By "transvaluation" MacDonald means that the Marcan
Jesus is portrayed as similar to, but "more virtuous and powerful than
Odysseus and Hector" (p. 3). Thus, "nearly every episode with parallels
in the epics displays such theological rivalry" (p. 6).

The two questions necessary for the evaluation of a claim about
any mode of intertextuality are: What is the evidence? and By what
criteria is the evidence to be evaluated? MacD. lays out the criteria
in the first chapter, introducing the evidence in later chapters. Some
chapters are topical or thematic: both Odysseus and Jesus are
carpenters and both "suffer many things"; both are surrounded by
disobedient or uncomprehending companions; both Jesus and Hector die
violent deaths, are taunted and gloated over, and have women who care
about them watching from a distance.

Other chapters are devoted to the analysis of specific stories
from Mark that MacD. considers transvaluations of their alleged
predecessors in Homer. The story of Odysseus and the cyclops is the
hypotext for Mark's story of Jesus and the Gerasene demoniac. Eurycleia
washed Odysseus's feet, anointed him, and recognized him; and the woman
in Mark 14 anointed Jesus' head and "apparently recognized ... the
necessity of his death" (p. 117).

That some of MacD.'s arguments are less plausible than others
is due in part to the slipperiness of his criteria for evaluating
parallels. Ordinarily, the inherent circularity in the process of
developing criteria to prove a case one has already intuited can be
mitigated by using methods commonly agreed upon in one's discipline.
MacD.'s case is not helped by the fact that, although he alludes to
four scholars in his discussion of method, he does not attempt to show
to what extent his criteria are shared by others working in ancient
intertextuality.

Some of the criteria are obvious: "accessibility," "order," and
"distinctiveness." But some are too vague to be useful, such as
"interpretability"--the ability of the parallel to make sense of a
problem in Mark or of a detail that is otherwise problematic or
apparently gratuitous. It is often here that transvaluation comes into
play, so that MacD. can write: "This sixth criterion, however, looks
for differences between texts as evidence of emulation" (p. 9). In
practice, this means that if a passage in Mark has some features in
common with a Homeric predecessor, then the differences may also be
brought in as evidence for dependence. But the unanswered question is,
"What counts as evidence against dependence?"

When discussing his criterion of "density," or "volume of
contacts between two texts," MacD. assures the reader that similarities
must be "weighty," not "trivial" (p. 8). But later chapters show that
"triviality" and "weight" are determined by the interpreter. Another
problem arises with MacD.'s criterion of "analogy," that is, the more
frequently a Homeric passage is imitated in antiquity, the more likely
it is that Mark also imitated it. However, this would seem to cut the
other way. Frequent imitation increases the likelihood that Mark picked
up the similar motifs from one of the imitators rather than from the
original.

It is in respect to such mediated influence that MacD.'s book
makes its most helpful contributions. Although the thesis of the book
is not in the end persuasive, MacD. draws attention to a few places in
Mark that may well reflect an appeal to the general cultural knowledge
of Mark's Hellenistic audience. For example, since "in the art of the
Roman Imperial period, the Dioscuri commonly appeared on the right and
left of an enthroned deity" (p. 27), it is likely that the author of
Mark alludes to these sons of Zeus the thunderer in his portrayal of
James and John (3:17; 10:35-40; cf. 15:27). But the most persuasive
piece of evidence supporting this comes not from Homer but from an
appropriation of the twins by the art of a later period; moreover, it
tells us nothing about the genre of Mark.

MacDonald's study is a useful source of evidence for an
occasional allusion that may have been employed by the Evangelist to
communicate with his Hellenistic audience. It will not, however, be
influential on the ongoing debate about gospel genre.

Toto

Thanks for posting the review, Jason. Sorry to charge you with the dire stigma of being a Christian, if you are not

Jason:OK, so please exercise more Buddhist compassion or Stoic reserve, or whatever philosophy you follow. Information about Dowd indicates that she has been an active member of the clergy and now teaches at a University that we read is trying to get back to its Baptist roots.

Baylor's Baptist roots

But this is really off topic here. This thread is about McDonald, not Baylor.

Dowd's review is not so negative as Layman would have us believe, but also less persuasive. It seems within the usual parameters of scholarly back and forth, finding some value in the book, nitpicking other parts.

I was unimpressed with this:

This seems to be a rejection of the entire idea of interpretation, as if we are confined to an overly literal reading of the text. If you take this attitude, of course you are not going to find much value in McDonald's book. But you're going to miss the whole point.

gregor

Bit of a mea culpa on the student story, while not technically expelled, his scholarship was revoked and he had to withdraw from seminary. From the Houston Chronicle:


"WACO - A former student at Baylor University's George W. Truett Theological Seminary says losing his scholarship because he is gay is unfair.

Bass, 24, of Rowlett, was not expelled but left after the fall semester because he could not afford tuition.

Paul Powell, the seminary's dean, declined to discuss Bass' case but said homosexual behavior is forbidden in the Bible and thus inconsistent with Truett's mission.

"If a person, according to Scripture, which is our standard, is not a part of the kingdom of God, how can they be in training for a minister?" Powell asked.

. . .

In the Baylor student handbook, the school mentions "homosexual acts" along with incest and adultery and fornication under the sexual misconduct policy. "

Berenger Sauniere

To sum up, Homer and Mark nodded.