The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark

by Dennis Ronald MacDonald

In this book, MacDonald argues that the author of Mark consciously emulated Homeric epic. He begins by describing the common Greco-Roman custom of teaching prose composition through mimesis (Greek) or imitatio (Latin) and by pointing out several examples of their practice in pagan, Jewish and later Christian texts. He then proceeds to make the controversial case that large portions of Mark draw either directly on the texts or indirectly on the topoi of Homer. The argument is compelling and meticulously constructed. Both of our readers agree that this is important, groundbreaking work that will revolutionize the study of the gospels.

Genres: Religion, History, Nonfiction, Christianity, Mythology, Philosophy, Literary Criticism

272 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2000

Reviews

[Josh Kemp · Rating 2 out of 5]

He gets a five for being an elite provocateur and a one for specious methodology and ultimately unconvincingly claims. For those keeping track at home, this averages to a three. He loses another star because he still affirms the Two-Source Theory😂


In all seriousness, the first part of my Masters thesis will engage this work as I explore Mark AMONG (as in, not literarily dependent upon) Greek epic and drama. With my Classics background I’m the perfect audience for this, but I found myself jotting down opposing points for claims in almost every chapter. More thoughts soon.

[Dave · Rating 4 out of 5]

All of the gospels were written in Greek. MacDonald makes a strong case that since in the 1st Cent. Greek scholars were taught to write by imitating great Greek literature that it is quite possible, even likely, that Mark’s gospel bears the marks of all these literary influences. MacDonald then sets out to show/prove, pretty conclusively, the allusions and parallels in Mark to Odysseus, Telemachus and the Odyssey & the Iliad. MacDonald identifies several hundred verses in Mark that can be related to Greek Lit.

Most scholars agree that Mark was written first and then Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily from Mark, often word for word. So it becomes interesting to see what they left out or altered and how often it is things Mark probably took from Greek Lit.

Fascinating to me.

[Ed Schmauder · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating theory that the first gospel (Mark) was written in such a way to evoke The Odyssey. Dozens of examples showing the two texts side by side, showing commonality in (1) word choice, (2) order of plot elements, and (3) overarching themes.

One example: Mark, unlike Matthew and Luke, portrays the disciples as fools who manage to sabotage Jesus at every turn. These disciples can each be related to Odysseus’s traveling companions (for example, John and James, the “sons of thunder”, are Castor and Pollux, the sons of thunder god Zeus).

[Eric Wojciechowski · Rating 5 out of 5]

Half way through reading MacDonald's other work, “Does the New Testament Imitate Homer”, I converted from someone who used to believe these texts were backwards ramblings of ancient goat herders to understanding these writers, whoever they were, were probably of the upper educated class. This alone caused me to give a second look with a different perspective to the New Testament.

Now, after finishing the present volume, “The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark”, I'm considering taking up the study of Koine Greek to one day read the New Testament in it's original language. A new appreciation has been made.

If anything, the work of Dennis MacDonald changed the way I see these stories. Since Mark was the first Gospel and Matthew and Luke copied and “corrected” along the way, and John as well (although much more Gnostic), we can now with fair certainty see the story of Jesus as myth making from copies of Greek epics, primarily the Iliad and Odyssey. This does not mean there was no historical Jesus (although the case for mythicism is settled, for me at least, through the works of Richard Carrier and Robert M. Price). What this means is that the story of Jesus as what's survived in the New Testament is a Christian retelling of the works of Homer. And with that, if there was a historical Jesus, that man has been lost to history.

Seeing the crucifixion as an imitation of the death of Hector and retrieval of his body by Priam was probably the most eye opening. Because whatever else Christianity teaches, the triumph of Jesus over death is the foundation of that belief system. And yet, seeing it now as a clever writer imitating the most important death in the Iliad forever changes my approach to it. Once seen, can no longer be unseen.

As a fan of mythology, now seeing the New Testament for what it is has enhanced my appreciation for it. It is a shame that for two-thousand years, these stories were told as history and such tragedies, too long and much to mention here, became the result. I wonder now if the writer of Mark ever meant for this to happen? When and where did the origin of his Gospel get lost? Was it not understood as being a work imitating Homer right out of the gate? Or perhaps a matter suppressed for political reasons? The answer to this may be lost to history as well.

For me personally, the tragedy was my early dismissal of these texts as stated above. But now after seeing the way Mark was constructed (as well as much of the rest of the New Testament), it's been a pleasure being wrong. I am reminded of the story Richard Dawkins tells about the respected elder statesman of the Zoology Department of Oxford who found out he was wrong about teaching the Golgi Apparatus didn't exist. An American gave a lecture showing that it was indeed real. And afterwards, the statesman approached the American, shook his hand and said, “My dear fellow, I wish to thank you. I have been wrong these fifteen-years.” If I ever meet MacDonald, I may behavior the same.

My only reservation regarding the present volume was that perhaps two or three instances where MacDonald claimed mimesis seemed like stretching to make the case. However, even if those pieces are found to be in error, the majority of Mark does indeed mimic the Odyssey and Iliad and with that, I'm much more interested in continuing to study the history of Christianity from a more learned perspective than before.

[JP · Rating 3 out of 5]

MacDonald's thesis is that Mark deliberately used Homer as a model and planted flags within his text that make this clear. His argument is sufficiently thorough and convincing that one can't merely dismiss it as just another theory. My primary reservation is that I don't have enough experience in this area to decide at once if similar parallels with other works might be possible. Certainly, any charismatic leader whose popularity grows must find themself in similar situations with crowds and critics. Perhaps for that same reason such events are part of the human experience conveyed in Homer's epics.

[Iván · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is really an amazing book. It's so detailed it may sometimes be not too easy to follow, but the author's prose is very clear in documenting his theories. This work claims that Mark's Gospel draws extensively from the Homeric epics, especially "The Odyssey", and a couple of chapters from "The Illiad". Conclusions are unescapable upon finishing: Mark's Gospel is not an historical account of real-life characters. It's a work of art, very cleverly written, with clear theological aims.

[Yimmy · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think there is a gradient of Homeric influence with each parallel he mentions in the book. Some parallels are close to nonexistent and others clearly show Mark's dependence on Homer. Anyone who is interested in the Gospels should read this book; it's one that needed to be written.

[Dr Zorlak · Rating 5 out of 5]

Goosebumps.

There are parallels I feel are a little strained. The rest are right on. A great ride.

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was excellent, and I wish I'd come across it earlier. I was nervous that MacDonald might be stretching the similarities to argue a thesis, but I found that the more I thought about the examples, the more I realised that MacDonald is suggesting a deeper kind of emulation than superficial 'word borrowing' and things like that. It takes a certain level of scholarship to be able to detect themes at the framework level, and recognise emulation of attitudes and emotions. I liked his conclusion too, which ended, "A significant aspect of theology always has been the transvaluation of traditional texts, symbols, and practices to address changing realities. 'Gospel truth' is not a deposit of historically reliable data concerning Jesus but a process of generating more humane, ethical, beautiful, and inspiring myths."

What The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark implies is that the author of Mark's gospel, the earliest gospel writer, was crafting his stories around Homer's well-known epics. He does it quite brilliantly, in that the emulation isn't tacky and tasteless, but artful, intentional, and obviously subtle since it went mostly unnoticed for millennia.

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dennis MacDonald creates a compelling comparison showing the Homeric influences for Mark's gospel. For me, this is yet another compelling argument for the thesis of The Singer of Tales, wherein the structures and story frames of oral cultures eventually make it into the literature and culture of the west. MacDonald argues that Mark, as an educated Greek, would have been deeply influenced by the Homeric Epics, and that Mark draws from the Odyssey and Iliad to construct the mythology of the Messianism of Jesus as son of God. For MacDonald, the affinity between Mark and the Odyssey explains structures of the miracle stories, the requirements for secrecy regarding Jesus' true nature, and the death and resurrection. All of this is of interest, with great explanatory power, though I wonder how much of Mark's art was already informed by these structures transmitted by the oral cultures that would have originally told the stories of Jesus by adapting them to the oral traditions that would have informed the communities of Palestine, Asia Minor, and the Roman provinces. In either case, the book is an accessible and interesting read.

[Aylin · Rating 5 out of 5]

İyi bir Homeros okuyucusuysanız bu araştırma sizi memnun edecektir. Kalın ve dolgun olması sizi korkutmasın Türkçe çevirisi çok güzel yapılmış, çevirmenin ellerine sağlık. Ayrıca kitap bilimsel dille veya araştırma yöntemleri ile okuyucu boğmadan keyifli bir karşılaştırma yapmış. Hristiyanlığı hiç iyilemeden veya kötülemeden sadece iki edebi eseri karşılaştırmış gibi. Markos İncilinin İlyada ve Odysseia'dan esinlenerek tek tanrılı dinin ilk destanlarından olması literally mind blowing 🤯

[Ismail Erk Deliormanli · Rating 5 out of 5]

Muazzam bir karşılaştırma. İncilleri ve Homeros destanlarını okumuş olan herkesin mutlaka okuması gereken bir kitap.

[Landon Sperduti · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sometimes the connections seem a little stretched but otherwise he makes a compelling case. Helpful for appreciating Mark as literature.

[Fred Kohn · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's about time I read this book since it kept popping up in the footnotes and endnotes of many other Jesus books that I have read. The thesis is defended solidly, but the writing left a bit to be desired. Now, I suppose, I'd better go read The Odyssey and The Iliad to make sure this guy is on the level :)

[Katerina Kiritsaki · Rating 1 out of 5]

Ανόητο