stephan huller

But these are BASIC QUESTIONS which should be asked before putting forward arguments like this. Why don't people ask about the context of feet washing in antiquity. The fact that we know Jesus was said to have washed the feet of his disciples shows that this was fairly common in antiquity. The only question left is whether women did the same for men. The symbolism was clearly to show that the unnamed woman assumed became a slave or servant to Jesus. This is the metaphor that Mark was going for not an allusion to Homer. Writers rarely develop two interpretations for the same symbol.

steve_bnk

Some Jews were obsecessed with ritual cleansing were they not?

stephan huller

I don't see what any of this has to do with anything. As a writer you can't make reference to a common occurrence and expect your readers to see it as having any symbolic significance. White man can't jump is the name of a movie (from what I remember) because this white man (Woody Harrelson) could actually play basketball. The point is that the woman washing Jesus's feet is unlikely to be an allusion to Homer because it isn't exceptional in itself. Maybe that Jesus would allow himself to be touched by a prostitute. Maybe by a woman. But then we are already miles away from anything in Homer. There is a different reason why this is significant.

mountainman

In summarising the two scenes quickly for Toto, Mark's woman is unknown and anonymous, while Homer's is not. Too bad I made a minor errror. Quibble quibble. Eurycleia is the first person to recognize Odysseus after he returns home from the Trojan War. Mark's woman is supposedly the first person to recognisde that Jesus the Grey is actually Jesus the White, and very soon he will have to battle the Balrog in the pit of Moriah, before the resurrection special.

The claim is that Mark has used Homer to fabricate his fictional Jesus scene, and that claim looks like it has some legs. Everyone had heard of Homer, but who had ever heard of Mark (besides the historical researcher Big E. of course)?


Donning the "Christian Glasses"


Perhaps I need to put on my christian glasses. Wait a sec ... OK. Ahhhhhh! Now I see the true glorious nature of Mark. Mark is one of the apostles who wrote the first Gospel in order to prove Eusebius was wrong about Matthew writing first. Of course, now I have my bible in front of me, and my christian glasses covering my eyes, Homer is receding into the mists of reverie. Everything is clear to me now. Praise the Lord Odysseus Bilbo Jesus Baggns! He could return at any minute. Be on your best behaviour. Look busy.

LegionOnomaMoi

So is the above meant to distract from or address the problems with your post?

Let's see how many are true.

1) Woman meets a "stranger" - not true in Mark. Only in the Odyssey is there a "stranger" whom Eurycleia finally recognizes after she washes his feet.
2) The stranger is recognized - again not true in Mark.
3) Some liquid is spilled. -a generalization to hide the fact that in Mark, oil is poured on Jesus' head, while in the Odyssey, Eurycleia washes Odysseus' feet.
4) The woman anoints the hero- not true in the Odyssey. He's never "anointed."
5) The talk/scene immediately shifts to the hero's enemies. - not true in the Odyssey. What follows is an extended narrative of Autolycus, the birth of Odysseus, and the boar wound.

The only parallel then is "some liquid is spilled."

Wow. It's like a carbon copy.

Sure, as long as you ignore the fact that of the parallels you mention, only one is marginally true.

mountainman

So the woman knew Jesus from the night before?



So the woman in Mark just had a good time, and did not recognise Jesus as the One True Gandalf God inside the Hubble Limit? That would spoil the apologetic storyline if she did not. Did she waste all that money for the very expensive ointment for a compete NOBODY, the entire subject of Mark?


Nice story by Homer eh?



According to this source ...... "Then the woman goes to get fresh water to replace the spilled water. She washes and anoints Odysseus."



From the above source .... "Eurycleia assures him that she is loyal and if he can do in the suitors, she will tell him which maids were loyal and which were not.".



Do you happen to know what liquid is spilled in copious quantities in "The Greater Questions of Mary"?

Jesus apparently had alot of semen.



Count again if you are able.

HINT ... after 1 is 2, after 2 is 3, etc etc etc

Toto

This thread would be easier to follow if Pete would drop all the sarcastic and completely overdone references that we have heard too much of before.

Just two points:

=Washing feet is common even today in societies where people walk in sandals on dusty roads. It is as common as offering a cup of tea to visitors.

=Part of MacDonald's point is that Homer is transvalued and reversed, so washing the feet could be turned into anointing the head, or vice versa. MacDonald's case is based on a pattern of these reversals. Parts of his case are stronger than others, but the book is worth reading in its entirety. Trying to extract a few points tends to give a false impression of the basis of the argument.

I think a classicist like LegionOnomaMoi in particular would get a lot of out the actual book, rather than the misleading snippets here.

LegionOnomaMoi

I've read The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark and I own (and have read) Christianizing Homer. I find Burridge's thesis (which I also don't entirely agree with) far more convincing. It's not that MacDonald's work is (IMO) totally wrong and there are certain points he makes I agree with (which is true when it comes to Loveday, Stanton, Frickenschmidt, Vines, etc.). The problem is that the Iliad and the Odyssey are vast works, filled with themes, scences, etc. It's too easy to find parallels to just about anything, and ignore what doesn't fit. For example, the the Odyssey is absolutely centered around the nostos theme (the return). I had a professor who would occasionally publish in classical tradition journals (i.e., journals on the influence of classical literature, culture, etc. on (mainly) later western culture. From blatantly deliberate use of the central theme of the Odyssey (e.g., Ulysses) to more subtle (perhaps questionable) use, there is no shortage of sources which use nostos as a core, defining theme around which the narrative is structured. Yet it is completely absent in Mark. The same is true of the Iliad, which is (as the opening lines explain) about the wrath of Achilles and his contest/struggle with Agamemnon.

Once you move beyond these core themes, demonstrating dependence (conscious or no) of an author on these works requires a lot more than parallels. Both epics are incredibly long, diverse in content, filled with differing motifs, and they not only describe a vast number of scenes which take place within the story itself, but also borrow from or refer to many other myths and stories which are not a part of the central narrative but are (often lengthy) asides.

In other words, it's the equivalent of having an entire library from which to make parallels.

The Iliad has about 15,000 lines, and the Odyssey about 13,000. The entire New Testament has about 20,000. Mark, even with the longer ending, is less than 700 lines long. In other words, if Mark wanted to rely entirely on either epic, he'd have a difficult time doing so in 700 lines. It's much easier, however, to peruse through the nearly 30,000 lines of diverse content within the Homeric epics and find all the parallels you could want.

The other issue is whether or not MacDonald is correct in asserting how widespread knowledge of the Homeric epics was. There's no doubt that it remained well known beyond the period in which the gospels were written. It is not so easily argued, however, that Mark was familiar with these, especially to the extent needed.

The location of Mark, its intended audience, and the socio-cultural background of its author are not easily addressed questions. However, the idea that Mark was from Rome (initially widely accepted in accordance with church tradition) is no longer the favored view (if one exists). Galilee, Syria, and Antioch are among the most favored.

To argue that a roman or other pagan author who knew greek probably knew homer is one thing. But where the Romans and Greeks had Homer, hellenistic Jews had the septuagint and other Jewish writings. Mark's knowledge not just of judaism, or greek jewish texts, but of aramaic, support a different kind of literary education. It's one thing to argue that someone like Philo or later christian authors would have known Homer. There's no doubt many did. But to argue that someone like the author of Mark, whose Greek dialect, style, flow, and lexical usage differ radically from homer, whose knowledge of aramaic raises the possibility that Greek was a second language, and whose knowledge of Jewish greek texts provides a better explanation of his capacity to write in greek (and better explains his style and lexical choices even apart from his direct usage of the LXX) than knowledge of homer, render problematic the assumption that the knowledge of greek came with a knowledge of homer.

LegionOnomaMoi

Within the narrative of Mark, obviously she knew of him and was able to recognize him. Otherwise, the narrative makes no sense, whether as part of deliberately crafted myth, a true account, a purely fictional account meant to be read as a sort of proto-historical fiction, a fictional account thought to refer to a historical event by the author and whoever related it to him, or some mix. The idea that the author meant for readers to understand that this women was in the habit of pouring expensive oils on the heads of strangers is ridiculous.

However, I'm sure you recognize that. But admitting you haven't a clue what you are talking about, or even a rather simple admission that your comparison was either outright wrong or flawed on every single point, would be to much. So instead you resort to the Tolkein references.


You stated (emphasis added): In the Odyssey, Eurycleia doesn't initially know who Odysseus is, and then recognizes him. In Mark, she knows who he is, but there is no indication any where that anybody there knows who she is, and there certainly isn't a scene where "the stranger is recognized."


In Mark, the woman has a alabastron murou nardou (a jar of plant oil), and she kataxeen autou tes kephales (pours it over his head).


As for the Odyssey, apparently you didn't bother to actually read the scenes you are comparing:




Eurycleia has a lebes or kettle, which she fills first with hudar...psuchron or cold water and then with warm (thermos). And although she was about to tou podas exapenizen (scrub/thoughly wash his feet), he turns away so that she won't recognize him. That happens in lines 19.389-390. ~100 lines later, Eurycleia (recognizing him) trips and steps/falls into the kettle by accident (en de lebeti pese kneme) and thus spills the water on the ground (to d' chthonos exechuth' hudar). Now, if this is the spilling you refer to here: then it has no parallel AT ALL in Mark. There is no spilling and then anointing in Mark. There is a single action (katacheen). She pours out oil onto Jesus' head.

However, in the Odyssey, we have two actions. First the spill you refer to, and then she nipsen te kai eleipsen...elaio (both washes and rubs olive oil on his skin).

If this is the "anointing" you are talking about, then it's quite different from the spilling.

So in Mark, a woman who knows Jesus but is never identified (and there is never any indication that he or anyone else knows her) pours nard oil (a fragrant plant oil) on his head. The woman doesn't meet a stranger, the stranger is not recognized, and no liquid is spilled.

As for the anointing, again we have the problem we had before. Eurycleia washes him, and then rubs olive oil on his skin (a customary act which followed bathing). In Mark, there is no washing, she uses a completely different oil (used for completely different purposes) and pours it out on his head.

Which is why you should actually read the accounts you are comparing. Eurycleia finishes rubbing oil on Odysseus in line 19.505. After that, Penelope addresses Odysseus, talking about a dream she had which is a sign/portent. Her address to him goes from 19.506-554. We're already 50 lines past the washing and rubbing of oil. That's almost as long as Mark 19, and we've yet to come to Eurycleia's assurance you refer to.

stephan huller

What's an intelligent, well-read person doing in this forum? I want more Tolkein references. I want more arguments developed from complete ignorance. I want more people deciding on what a text 'really means' who have never actually read the material they are referencing. I say we get this guy banned from the forum. He's not playing by the rules.