UV2003

Greetings all,
I was wondering if anyone on this board has read a book called The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, by Dennis R. McDonald. The basic premise is that the Mark narrative borrows heavily from Homer's works, buth in theological content and narrative structure.

There is a review of it here:

http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/mcdonald.html

Richard Carrier has also reviewed it favorably here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...erandmark.html

There is some additional analysis of it here:

http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Jesus_and_Elpenor.html

I ordered the book and look forward to reading it. If anyone else has read it, what did you think of it?

Thanks,
UV

Toto

I read it and enjoyed it. It solves some problems with Mark (not all) and provides a fascinating view of Hellenistic education. We had a long, long discussion on it here a few years ago when we had a few more active evangelical debaters.

Note that McDonald is a practicing Christian and does not draw the conclusion from his work that Christianity is false.

UV2003

Cool, I look forward to reading it. I don't think that it would necessarily defeat Christianity if it were proven that the gospels were fictional, not if they were at least based on a real resurrection experience, but I don't know much about the historicity of that event. I only know that by standards of evidence today, I'd find it very hard to believe someone came back from the dead.

Bede

Hello UV,

One of my colleagues wrote this which covers MacDonald and the other pagan copycats.

Paganism and Christianity

MacD's central problem is his methodology allows him to show both similarities and differences are 'parallels' which makes the whole thing hopelessly loose. As you may have noticed, he hasn't set the world alight and we can rest assured that GMark is not a rewrite of Homer.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Toto

It's really missing the point to classify McDonald as a "copycat" theorist. He doesn't claim that Mark is "simply" a rewrite of Homer, and, as I noted, is a practicing Christian.

I will be interested in your take on it after you read it.

UV2003

Bede, thanks! I'll check it out...
-UV

Toto

Bede's friend is arguing not so much against McDonald as against the use of his book by Richard Carrier and other non-believers, which McDonald would probably rather avoid. However, as Carrier notes, McDonald does undercut the idea that Mark's gospel must have been based on actual events.

But read it for yourself.

Nom

UV - It's an excellent read. I picked it up four years ago after reading Carrier's glowing review and still revisit it every so often. Not all of McDonald's examples are compelling, but a great many are, and their collective weight is damning. Which reminds me, I keep meaning to pick up McD's book on the Acts of Andrew...anyone read that one? Any good?

gridleyjason

Have a look at this review that appeared on the Kata Markon List.

http://www.ibiblio.org/GMark/afr/HomerorNotHomer.htm

Jason

Vorkosigan

McDonald's book is not only good for the fresh perspective on Mark, but also for the interesting discussion of writing practices in the ancient world. I agree with the poster above: some of McDonald's parallels are forced, but some are dead on.

Bede's analysis is seriously skewed: This is a gross misunderstanding of McDonald.

Highly unlikely anyway, given the apologetic commitments of so many NT 'scholars...

Quite true, since McDonald never says it was a rewrite of Homer.

Vorkosigan