1

I. Introduction This paper will look at how the text of Homers Odyssey can be useful for studies on the New Testament gospels. This will be done by looking at the work of Dennis R. Macdonald, who argues that Marks gospel is a imitation and transvaluation of Homers Odyssey where Jesus is presented as a hero greater than that of Odysseus. This paper will begin with a summary of Macdonalds method, then a sample text to illustrate Macdonalds method will be given, that of Mark 11:15-19. Following this problems in Macdonalds thesis will be indicated, this includes problems with his method, his reading of Mark 11, and with the implications of his work if it is true. II. Macdonalds Method Macdonald first makes a distinction between hypertext and hypotext, the hypertext being the text that is transvaluated from the original text, the hypotext. The hypertext . . .becomes transvaluative when it not only articulates values different from those of its targeted hypotext but also substitutes its values for those in its antecedent.1 Macdonald reads Mark as a Homeric hypertext, in which Mark transvaluates Homers Odyssey and Illiad by making Jesus more heroic and virtuous than Odyssesus and Hector.2 A springboard for Macdonald is the wide-spread influence of the Homeric writings in the ancient world. He notes that students often began learning the Greek alphabet by locating them in the epic poems and moving onto other writings when they had mastered the Odyssey and the Illiad.3 Macdonald also draws attention to the way in which students in ancient schools learned
1 Dennis R. Macdonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2000), 2. ! 2 3

Ibid., 3. Ibid., 4.

to write, through the method of mimesis, or, imitatio. Homers epics, in particular the Odyssey, were often the favorite practice texts, whether for poetry or for prose.4 Ronald F. Hock affirms this statement of Homers widespread influence, writing Indeed, for the rest of their lives, those who had been educated, , were expected to have Homer on their lips for capturing and articulating the essence of a moment or the character of a person, even when half asleep.5 Such Homeric imitations included that of genre, characterizations, type-scenes, poetic conventions, distinctive motifs.6 Such imitations, however, are not limited to Greek literature, Macdonald also contends that the influence of Homer can be found in Jewish writings, in particular Tobit as well as parts of Josephus.7 However, rhetorical imitations in ancient writings often have the habit of disguising their imitations from the hypotext, this was often done by changing the vocabulary, adjusting a sentences order, length, and structure, improving content, or by creating series of formal transformations.8 There is also another form of ancient imitation, that of aemulatio, or rivalry. These imitations are also careful in disguising the influence of their hypotext, but they seek to go beyond mere imitation, they go beyond the hypertext to make the imitation superior to the hypotext. This is what Macdonald argues to be the case with Mark. He writes The earliest evangelist disguised his dependence by writing in prose, altering Homeric vocabulary,

Macdonald, Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, 4-5.

5 Ronald F. Hock, Homer in Greco-Roman Education, in Mimesis and Intertextuality (ed. Dennis R. Macdonald; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2001), 77. 6

Macdonald, Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, 5.

7 Ibid., 5. Some have also noted a connection between Homer and the Old Testament. See Cyrus H. Gordon, Homer and Bible: Origin and Character of East Mediterranean Literature (Ventnor, N.J.: Ventnor Publishers, 1967. See also Erich Auerbach, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1953), 3-23. 8

Ibid., 5.

rearranging episodes, and borrowing as well from Jewish scriptures. . . . But Mark was no slave to his models; rather, he thoroughly, cleverly, and strategically emulated these stories to depict Jesus as more compassionate, powerful, and noble, and inured to suffering than Odysseus.9 The genre of the Gospel of Mark is, therefore, not a historical biography but instead a prose antiepic. Macdonald is aware of the problems in detecting imitations of Homer in a text like the Gospel of Mark which disguises Homers influence. Opposing who he identifies as philological fundamentalists who demand exact parallels and dismiss anything else as a topos (a conventional form of speech or writing) and that of literary universalists who argue that meaning occurs in the reading of the text, making the authors intention is irrelevant, Macdonald develops six criteria for detecting allusions in texts: accessibility, analogy, density, order, distinctiveness, and interpretability. 10 The criteria of accessibility determines the likeliness that an author had access to a hypotext. As mentioned before, Homer was one of the most widespread texts of the ancient world, so it indubitably fulfills this criterion. The criterion of analogy looks at other cases of imitation in the ancient world and draws inferences to relevant texts in disputing the existence of an imitation. If certain Homeric parallels are drawn on often in other ancient texts, then the chance that Mark is alluding to Homer in this way increases. The criterion of density draws attention to the size of a parallel, given that there could be numerous parallels but all of them being insignificant in size, making a parallel difficult to authenticate. The criterion, order, is related to density in that is concerned with the sequences with which the parallels occur. Order
9 10

Macdonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, 6. Ibid., 7-8.

authenticates parallels by comparing how often similarities occur in the same sequence. Interpretability is the final criterion which asks if a hypotext can help make sense of a hypertext. It is used in the case of transvaluation, or aemulatio to help recognize why the author chose a particular hypotext and used it for their purposes. III. Sample Text: Mark 11:15-19 Macdonald draws a connection between Mark 11:15-19, the story of the cleansing of the temple, and the twenty-second chatper of Homers Odyssey. In the story, Odysseus has returned home to his wife Penelope only to find his home invaded by suitors with the intention of usurping Odysseus wealth. The temple cleansing story in Mark shows Jesus railing against the injustices of the temple and those who dwell within it. According to Macdonald, many see this story as authentic, an unlikely fabrication of the early church, and this story may even be a clue to the death of Jesus.11 Macdonald concedes that this story could go back to the historical Jesus, however he thinks the story has been loaded with Homeric parallels. He notes the Homeric allusion in the line He quickly pushed the table from him, striking it with his foot.12 Much Homer where Odysseus enters into his house, Mark has Jesus enter into the temple, or his house, and overthrows the tables and rushes into a violent fit, knocking the table contents to the floor. Mark quotes Isaiah 56:7 which says that ... for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples. which is read in light of Jeremiah 7:11 which says that Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your sight? Macdonald links this Old Testament quotation to Homer in that Mark is trying to equate the temple to Jesus home, much

11 12

Macdonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, 34.

Homer, The Odyssey (trans. and ed. Albert Cook. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1967), p. 297, ch. 22, no. 19.

like that of Odysseus. Macdonald writes that Mark went out of his way to justify Jesus action, as Homer had justified Odysseuss: his enemies had devastated his home.13 Macdonald focuses even more on the phrases in Homers Odyssey and so you wore my house away. and ...and a sallow fear got a grip on them.14 He compares these to Marks phrases My house, you have made it into a den of robbers., and they were afraid of him. (Mark 11:17-18) The hero of both story condemns those who profaned the house and the enemies of the hero are afraid and wanted to find a way to kill the hero, though for different reasons.15 Macdonald also locates this sort of Homeric parallel with other incidents in the Gospel of Mark that involve the temple and the Jewish authorities. Such examples include the parable of the wicked tenants (12:1-12), the story of the widows offering (12:41-44), as well as the characters of Judas and Barabbas.16 IV. Assessment of Macdonald Macdonalds argument is compelling, and if he is correct, then scholars must rethink the composition and genre of the gospels.The truth of this thesis would mean . . . gospel scholars must not only rethink their form-critical model for the pre-gospel period but must also rethink their largely Jewish context for interpreting Marks gospel story.17 But is his theory free of problems? A critical voice of Macdonalds method and conclusions is Karl Olav Sandnes. Sandnes locates the largest area of concern in Macdonalds claim that Mark not only imitated Homer, but

13 14 15 16
17

Macdonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, 35. Homer, The Odyssey, p. 298, ch. 22, no. 36; 42. Macdonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, 35. Ibid., 36-41.

Ronald F. Hock, review of Dennis R. Macdonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, Review of Biblical Literature 4 (2002): 364.

transvaluated Homer. The problem created with this argument is that the criteria for locating these transvaluations is slippery. Sandnes writes that Mark not only imitated his models; he emulated them as well. This allows some of the analogies to be elusive and subtle. But this also forms the Achilles' heel of MacDonald's interpretation. The concept of subtle emulation makes the project slippery. For if emulation is a characteristic of the analogies, how can we then be sure that the author intended this analogy, as claimed by MacDonald?18 More specifically, Macdonalds criteria of interpretability is open to criticism because it does not provide a criteria for what would count against it. Sharyn Dowd writes that 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?19 With respects to the criterion of density, Dowd argues that this criterion is problematic because such cases are wholly determined by the interpreter, making this criterion circular.20 Dowd disagrees with Macdonalds principle of analogy, which says draws inferences of imitation based on other imitations of certain Homeric passages in the ancient world, she thinks that frequent imitation would suggest that Mark would have picked up the imitation from one of the imitators than from the original. 21 In the sample text, Macdonalds evaluation of Homers influence on the cleansing of the temple story in Mark 11 also has its shortcomings as well as exaggerations. The Homeric motif

Karl Olav Sandenes, Imitatio Homeri? An Appraisal of Dennis R. Macdonalds Mimesis Criticism, JBL 124 (2005):718.
19 Sharyn Dowd, review of Dennis R. Macdonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, CBQ 63 (2001): 156. ! 20 21

18

Ibid., 156. Ibid., 156.

of journeying home that Macdonald tries to attribute to Mark is not as prevalent as he claims it is, nor is the theme of my house.22 Sandnes thinks a better case can be made for Luke.23 Also, Macdonald ignores the story of the fig tree is Mark which is believed my many scholars to have a relationship to the story of the cleansing of the temple suggesting the destruction of the temple and this would break down the parallel to Homer. 24 Another aspect that is incongruent with the story of the suitors dwelling in Odysseus home is that the metaphor implied in the Old Testament reference is critiquing people for dwelling in the temple while at the same time remaining in the immoral life habits.25 One can also ask why Mark is so willing to borrow references from the Old Testament, whether identified or unidentified,26 while Mark seems to disguise the Homeric motifs? A larger criticism of Macdonald by Sandnes which only be mentioned briefly is that the role of imitation and emulation of the ancient world is far more modest than Macdonald claims.27 These arguments have critiqued Macdonalds methodology and his results. However, one can challenge the implications of his work for the study of the historical Jesus. For example, for concede the fact that Mark is transvaluating Odysseus with Jesus is there a necessary connection that there are not traces of the historical Jesus in the Gospel of Mark? Could it be that Mark is using Homer as a way to nudge his readers while still using a historical core of the historical Jesus? Paul Rhodes Eddy and Gregory A. Boyd comment on this neglected aspect of

22 23 ! 24 25 26

Sandnes, Imitatio Homeri?, 719-720. Ibid., 720. Ibid., 720. Ibid., 720.

Michael J. Gilmour, The Significance of Parallels between 2 Peter and Other Early Christian Literature (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002), 49.
27

Sandnes, Imitatio Homeri?, 722-725.

Macdonalds thesis writing One could plausibly argue that Mark saw in certain aspects of Jesuss life incidents and episodes that paralleled or echoed Homeric themes and allowed the parallels to shape the telling of the Jesus story. . . . although Macdonald admits that there may be historical elements in Marka point that would at least serve to complexify, if not undermine, his theoryhe provides no serious identification and consideration of these elements.28 V. Conclusion Dennis R. Macdonald has presented a new understanding which is fresh to gospel studies. If he is correct the literary form of the gospels must be re-thought and this would have wide implications, inside and outside of New Testament scholarship. Macdonald has provided six criteria for locating instances of imitation in texts, all of which contribute to each other being strengthened by the others. Looking at Mark 11, Macdonald tries to locate a connection to the story of the cleansing of the temple to that Odysseus returning home with references to overturned tables and to the theme of my house. Next, criticisms were levelled on three main issues. First, the attempt to locate parallels between two texts has a fine line to being a form of circular reasoning while also being unfalsifiable. The criteria can become so slippery that anything can be looked upon as in their favor. Macdonald is correct in noting the wide influence of Homer in the ancient world, but perhaps his thesis could be more modest. Perhaps people were unconsciously effected by Homer in speech, much in the same way that people often adopted phrases and mannerisms while being ignorant of their origins. Or it may be possible that Mark is relying on sources that are imitating Homer, resulting in an imitation of an imitation. Second, Macdonalds reading of the cleansing of the temple has also been criticized in that the

28 Paul Rhodes Eddy and Gregory A. Boyd, The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2007), 342.

theme of my house is not as present in Mark as it is in Lukes gospel. Also, he neglects the story of the fig tree which many scholars believe has a relationship to the story of the cleansing of the temple. Finally, it can be seen that even if Mark did imitate Homer, that does not reduce the historical Jesus to total fiction. The historical Jesus will have to be rethought in light of Homeric influence, if it exists, but there is no necessary connection that says that because Mark parallels Homer, the historical Jesus is moot. In conclusion, Macdonald has brought forth a fascinating proposal which must be discussed further. His proposal for Mark may not be entirely convincing, but it may be more fruitful for the gospel of Luke and other works of early Christian literature.