What are your thoughts on the idea that mark used homer?
The expert on this is Dennis MacDonald and I think he makes some compelling points. It's hard to think that writers in the Roman period could ever really escape Homer. From what I understand from scholars who have worked on education in the Roman world, he was pretty much the go-to for school exercises at the very least. Even if a writer didn't want to allude to Homer, most people would probably detect the influence (there are arguments that one can make about North American writers today being indebted to authors like Twain or Hemingway, etc). As for Mark specifically, debt to Homer makes a lot more sense to me than Wrede 's theory about the "messianic secret"...
I'm not so sure. Odysseus was consistent in his efforts to hide his identity but Jesus slips up repeatedly. Wrede's thesis explained that inconsistency but the inconsistency is hard to understand if the secrecy was in imitation of Odysseus.
I would first recommend Erich Auerbach's "Odysseus' Scar" (pdf). It sharpens an understanding of the distinctions between the Homeric epics and biblical literature, which imho MacDonald overlooks or underappreciates.
From what I understand from scholars who have worked on education in the Roman world, he was pretty much the go-to for school exercises at the very least. Even if a writer didn't want to allude to Homer, most people would probably detect the influence (there are arguments that one can make about North American writers today being indebted to authors like Twain or Hemingway, etc).
The Odyssey is a story where only one of many (the wise and brave hero) survives the journey and finds his earthly happiness back home with his family after many years of war and danger. In Mark's gospel the hero dies after the journey to give his life as a ransom for many. We may assume that Mark was aware that he was writing an Anti-Odyssey (and imho not only in that respect).
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 12:18 amI would first recommend Erich Auerbach's "Odysseus' Scar" (pdf). It sharpens an understanding of the distinctions between the Homeric epics and biblical literature, which imho MacDonald overlooks or underappreciates.
Just as an off-topic aside for a moment, I love this passage from that linked chapter:
It is clear that a large part of the life of David as given in the Bible contains history and not legend. In Absalom's rebellion, for example, or in the scenes from David's last days, the contradictions and crossing of motives both in individuals and in the general action have become so concrete that it is impossible to doubt the historicity of the information conveyed. (p. 20)
I would first recommend Erich Auerbach's "Odysseus' Scar" (pdf). It sharpens an understanding of the distinctions between the Homeric epics and biblical literature, which imho MacDonald overlooks or underappreciates.
From what I understand from scholars who have worked on education in the Roman world, he was pretty much the go-to for school exercises at the very least. Even if a writer didn't want to allude to Homer, most people would probably detect the influence (there are arguments that one can make about North American writers today being indebted to authors like Twain or Hemingway, etc).
The Odyssey is a story where only one of many (the wise and brave hero) survives the journey and finds his earthly happiness back home with his family after many years of war and danger. In Mark's gospel the hero dies after the journey to give his life as a ransom for many. We may assume that Mark was aware that he was writing an Anti-Odyssey (and imho not only in that respect).
The Odyssey, large parts of which I read in Greek, is just the typical story of Greek inevitability: one can try to battle that which is foretold, many many times, but all of it will merely serve to fulfil precisely that which is foretold
There's nothing more to it than that, albeit extremely epic of course
Mk is just late piecemeal and the Homeric stuff is also present in other synoptics; therefore, regardless of the incessant propaganda of Markophile maniacs like Kreuzerin, Mk is far from being the one to intrioduce Odyssic stuff into the gospel story.
neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 11:51 pm
I'm not so sure. Odysseus was consistent in his efforts to hide his identity but Jesus slips up repeatedly. Wrede's thesis explained that inconsistency but the inconsistency is hard to understand if the secrecy was in imitation of Odysseus.
Originally second-god kept his identity secret in order to be killed while wearing human flesh so that he could then secretly rescue the redeemable dead.
Paul never calls second-god the christ/messiah of the Jews. Contra this viewpoint Novenson argues that Paul does use messiah language, see:
If gMark is a redaction of the Marcionite text, then any references to second-god being the christ/messiah of the Jews is explicable as being contra Marcion.
