Customer Reviews

The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Greco-Roman students were taught to compose texts through a process called mimesis. This involved copying and transforming Greek classics such as the Illiad and the Odyssey into new stories. There are many examples of this, from plays to epic poems to novels and shorter works. The Gospel of Mark was written in Greek. It is therefore, natural to ask, was Mark composed through mimesis?

It turns out that it was. Nearly every event in Mark is a sequential reflection of either the Illiad or the Odyssey, but with a twist. The author of Mark has retold Greek stories in order to demonstrate the superiority of Jesus to the Greek heroes. Thus, wherever a Greek hero failed Jesus succeeds. MacDonald also demonstrates that a similar process can be found in the Book of Acts and the non-biblical Acts of Andrew.

Mark was not writing history, he was writing propaganda. Moreover, he apparently did this with no intention to deceive. He left clues in his work designed to point readers to the source of his themes. Have you ever wondered why Jesus cursed a fig tree for failing to bear fruit, even though it was out of season? Have you ever pondered who the young man was who ran away naked when Jesus was arrested? The answer to both mysteries is that they were flags indicating to the reader that the author was drawing his plot devices from the epic.

If we were to count all of the examples MacDonald gives to demonstrate that the author of Mark used Homeric epics as literary models, they'd number around 100. Explaining all of these instances away is, as the author demonstrates, hardly possible.

What I found particularly fascinating about this book is the way Homeric literary models explain characteristics of Mark that were otherwise enigmatic. For example, why did Jesus intend to pass his disciples by when he was walking on the water? For that matter, how did Jesus see his discples on the boat at night when he was on top of a mountain? Why did the Roman centurion call Jesus the son of God? MacDonald answers these questions and more.

I originally wondered why this book costs so much. After reading it, it appears to me that there are at least two reasons. First, MacDonald's contributions are revolutionary. His research is no doubt extensive. In other words, this book is valuable. Second, perhaps charging $40+ limits the amount of people reading the book exclusively for the purpose of debunking it. I'm sure MacDonald is aware people will criticize his conclusions, but the price helps makes sure those people who are legitimately interested in New Testament scholarship--not just apologetics--will read it.

So if you're one of those people interested in New Testament scholarship, I don't think your view of Mark will be the same after reading this book. Don't miss it.

This is a great book.
Mr.MacDonald has compared the Gospel of Mark with Homer's The Odyssey,and it really looks like he's made a connection. One reviewer calls the parallels "vague," but I didn't see it that way. There are many similarities. In fact, there are so many similarities, not just in what the characters do and say, but in the exact order they take place. Sometimes the narratives switch from 3rd to 1st person in the exact same spot! If all these are simply coincidences, there sure are alot of them. The author, Dennis MacDonald, has previously written about other books that use the ancient practice of "textual mimesis" (copying from one text to another), and the Book of Mark seems to have done the same. This idea may be difficult for people who want to believe that the Scriptures are recorded history, but this book casts serious doubts about that. I had never heard of textual mimesis before, but it seems to make alot of sense, and was apparently commonplace in the ancient world.
Either MacDonald is completely mistaken, or he has really done his homework. You should read this book and make up your own mind.

and so does MacDonald. This book will either change your perception of the gospel story or further bolster your faith in it. Those who can will read it and weigh it for the content and not for what it does to the Christian myth.

A note to those unfamiliar with Mr. J.P. Holding... he attacks anything that doesn't fit his preconceived ideas of Christianity and his "review" here is classic "Robert Turkel" (his real name).

The idea that "Mark" used content from the Odyssey and the Iliad to help him create his gospel is a relatively new (several years) idea but clearly, there is no doubt of it. One great example of mimesis (although not specifically Homeric) is when MacDonald exposes the source behind Jesus renaming James and John to the "Sons of Thunder". In Antiquity, the mythical twins, Castor and Polydeuces, were referred to as the sons of Zeus or boys of Zeus and we all remember that Zeus was a god of thunder. These twins were often depicted on coins, art, etc. as being on the left and right of a deity and they always were seen as a team and mostly referred to as "Castor and Polydeuces" in that order. What did James and John ask Jesus in Mark?

Mark 36 And He said to them, "What do you want Me to do for you?" 37 They said to Him, "Grant that we may sit, one on Your right and one on Your left, in Your glory."

Also, in Mark, James and John are referred to as "James and John" always in that order except for once. Of course, without reading the book and more detailed analysis, one could dismiss this as mere coincidence. Read this book! It is not coincidence.

This idea is going to change Biblical scholarship and explode the myth that the gospels are historically reliable.

MacDonald's book on Mark and Homer recalls (to my mind) Darwin's "Origin of Species." How so? Well, just as Darwin used inductive reasoning based on observation to suggest family resemblences and lineages among species, MacDonald does the same with Mark and Homer. In other words, MacDonald suggests that Homer functions as a kind of literary South America to Mark's literary Galapogos. MacDonald is saying, in essence, that some of the "birds" (stories) on Mark's literary island evolved from some of Homer's "birds" (stories). MacDonald then takes the reader carefully through his evidence, noting family resemblences, and he does this thoroughly. It is an extremely impressive achievement. After reading MacDonald's book, I read the first ten chapters of the "Odyssey" to see if I could imagine Mark really drawing on Homer in generating at least some of his stories about Jesus. I read Robert Fagles highly praised translation. I imagined myself as Mark living in a Greek city, meditating on news of the recent destruction of Jerusalem, and opening the Odyssey for solace or distraction. To my delight and surprise, I could see Jesus in the opening description of Odysseus and could imagine an author making connections and contrasts between the two characters. Odysseus is described in the opening of the Odyssey this way: ". . . many pains he suffered, heartsick on the open sea, fighting to save his life and bring his comrades home." And he is opposed by "blind fools" who might have escaped destruction if they had listened to him. Homer's poetic quality suggests (at least to me) a resonance with the Christian aspiration, and the author of Mark may have had a similar experience, provoking his imagination, and ultimately his pen. It certainly struck me, for example, that Penelope's suitors resemble the way Jesus' opponents talk. And Circe's dialogue with Odysseus recalls the Gadarene demoniac's dialogue with Jesus. Also, Auolus' bag of winds unleashing a storm could certainly have been Mark's inspiration for his own story about Jesus and his discples in a storm. Lastly, I noticed at least two places (in the first ten chapters of the Odyssey) where gods walk on water. There is certainly something going on between Mark and Homer, and MacDonald has done an admirable job teasing out relationships.

I was delighted to read the material in this book because it
solved 1/3 of the puzzle of Christian origins. I view these
parts as:

1. what were they trying to do
2. how were they doing it
3. why were they doing it

This book explains how Mark accomplished his task of creating
a detailed myth of Jesus. The book, "The Jesus Mysteries"
explains what they were trying to do. The book, "The greatest
story ever sold" only explains part of "why". If you read in
The Jesus Mysteries about how the Mystery religions work, you
see quotes from Celsus and Philo, and others explaining the
joy they derived from the Mystery cults to which they belonged.
This joy is shared by modern Christians (followers of the Jesus
Mystery) -- and they too want to share their happiness.

Once the early bishops (originally overseers of the church
buildings) figured out how much money they could make from
their trusted positions within the churches, the selling part
of the "why" of Christianity took over. That and the fact that
the emperor Constantine (who only converted on his deathbed)
needed the people to unite behind him so as to better defend the
empire from foreign invaders, explain the rest of the "why".

If you still believe that there is a historical Jesus, read
Robert Eisenman's "James the brother of Jesus". This book takes
all the ancient literature into account and shows how
inconsistent and mutually contradictory it all is -- especially
showing how the old testament was deliberately misquoted by
new testament authors to give false creedence to the myth they
were creating. It also shows how non-canonical works parallel and extend the canonicals.

Also, read "How Jesus Became God" for a discussion of how the
catholic "holy trinity" idea got voted (!) into the religion!

The main premise of this well written book is that the author of Mark had used the Iliad and the Odyssus as a type of template for the Gospel of Mark.

In the first chapter Mr. MacDonald sets up the criteria he uses to support his ideas. These are accessibility, analogy, density, order, distinctiveness, and interpretability. Using these criteria, Mr. MacDonald than goes on to compare the Homeric Epics with the Marcian Gospel. He does this with great respect for both works.

I greatly enjoyed the parallels that he drew but was personally not always sure I understood when he was using which criteria until I read the last chapter. I wondered, at times, if a scholar with the insights and abilities of a Mr. MacDonald could compare any great work with the lengthy Homeric Epics and find equally compelling parallels. I also wondered if we were just seeing the same themes in both works being repeated in Jungian fashion. Despite these doubts I did feel that Mr. MacDonald had indeed uncovered some fascinating parallells.

I particularly enjoyed the chapter on foolish companions. Like Odysseus, Jesus's companions continued to behave foolishly and display doubts. How many miracles does it take before the disciples understand what is happening? Why do the disciples wonder how Jesus can feed four thousand after having fed the five thousand and performing numerous other miracles? This book gives a new explanation for the disciples' odd behaviors. I am now convinced that there was, at the very least, some subconscious use of the Homeric Epics by the author of Mark.

I have certainly developed a new appreciation for the Gospel of Mark. This alone made the book worth reading. The connections to the Homeric Epics made the book all the more fascinating for me.

I've not actually read the book--I've heard the lecture. I and several students in a small Northwest part-time seminary program listened as Dr. MacDonald spun the seminal ideas for this work prior to its' going to press. Many students felt Dr. MacDonald was speaking pure herasy, as "stupified" seems to think. Others, myself included, were amazed and intrigued at the comparisons between Homer and Mark's texts and the notion that Mark used a common literary method to express what has been referred to as the greatest story ever told. Many in our program, the Northwest House of Theological Studies, were concerned that accepting a Homeric origin for the Markan story (the gospel used by Matthew and Luke in writing their gospels) meant accepting a secular and not "holy" origin. Not so. If anything, the notion that Mark, a person undoubtedly educated in authorship via the Greek method--via reading and emulating Homer, made the Jesus message of salvation emerge from within common literary style is more miraculous. It is more intriguing than accepting a supernatural explanation. I applaud the notions in this book and highly recommend it--though not for the faint of theological heart. Be prepared to have your notions of Biblical origin and inerrancy expanded to the corners of your known universe. Hurrah for Homer!

It would be impossible for someone to read this book and not be amazed. The amount of similarities can't be brushed away as chance. After reading this book and others, including the Bible, I have to admit that I feel as if I've wasted 20 years of my life pursuing and teaching (former youth minister) a myth...

The practice of mimesis, the reworking of ancient Greek literature, was a popular pedagogical method in the Greco-Roman world. When the Roman writer Livy composed the Aeneid, he not only created a sequel to Homer's Iliad, establishing the mythic lineage of Rome, but also wove Homeric themes and plot devices into his epic Latin poem. Not as obvious to the untrained reader, Mark's gospel is much subtler, yet richer in it's reworking of Homer's twin epics, the Iliad & the Odyssey. MacDonald does a thorough job, examining the ancient Greek texts, side by side with whole passages from Mark's gospel. The obvious parallels are stunning to say the least!

MacDonald's book can get very tedious towards the end where he recaps much of what was covered previously, however, the pure genius of his research warrants the repetition. My only other encounter with a similar concept regarding the gospels was the Stoic Seneca's reputed authorship of a drama-passion play of Jesus, possibly performed in Rome and possibly witnessed by the authors of the Synoptic gospels, Mark, Luke and Matthew. The theory of Senecan authorship of a Jesus play is very compelling, especially when you consider the similarities between Stoic and Christian morality. More fascinating is the analysis of the passion of Christ, as recorded in the Gospels, as specifically written for an ancient Roman stage production; Once again, it all becomes undeniably obvious that the passion of the Christ, is a mythical reworking of earlier Pagan sources. [..]

[...]

I highly recommend Dennis R. MacDonald's book and would also urge that readers would explore the Senecan theory as well. I recommended MacDonald's book to a Fundamentalist Bozo I once knew, but the title, along with the high level of literacy required to understand it, scared him off - I ended up mailing him a Noah's Ark coloring book for Christmas which got lost in the mail. Drats!