Does Dennis R MacDonald's work regarding New Testament writings and Homeric epics have mainstream support?

Answer 1

A:Dennis R MacDonald set out to examine the Homeric parallels in the non-canonical Acts of Andrew. This is uncontroversial, as Acts of Andrew has long been regarded as substantially based on the Homeric epics. As he worked, he began to realise that what he was seeing in Acts of Andrew, he was already familiar with in Mark's Gospel. He then decided to defer his examination of Acts of Andrew and focus instead on Mark. In his book, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, he provides credible evidence that Mark's Gospel was influenced by Homer's Iliad and Oddyssey. Having read the book myself, I believe that MacDonald made a too-common mistake of trying to attribute everything to Homeric influence, rather than focussing on the closest parallels and accepting that not everything in the gospel had to be based on just the one source. On the other hand, if he had understood the chiastic structure of Mark he could have made much stronger cases that the author had a classical Greek education and that the gospel is not the historical account it seems.

MacDonald's views have created a minor sensation, but realistically have only been accepted by a minority of mainstream scholars at this stage. There will be further reviews of his theses, more critical analysis and more evaluation of the concept, after which the majority could modify, abandon or accept his views. The following four reviews will provide a sample of the reactions that his book has brought forth:

Richard Carrier says that when he first heard of this hypothesis he assumed it would be yet another intriguing but only barely defensible search for parallels, stretching the evidence a little too far-tantalising, but inconclusive. Instead, he says MacDonald's case is thorough, and though many of his points are not as conclusive as he makes them out to be, when taken as a cumulative whole the evidence is so abundant and clear it cannot be denied.

Michael Gilmour (Providence College Otterburne) says that, if correct, MacDonald's work would suggest the need for a significant paradigm shift in Markan studies. He says MacDonald's proposal is a priori quite reasonable, even as his thesis is unique, even bold. Gilmour raises some objections, but says the strength of the overall thesis lies in the sheer number of examples given by MacDonald. Repeatedly Markan narratives are shown to have undeniable similarities with Homeric tales, with the secrecy motif used by both writers a significant example. His view is that even if specific details in the argument are questioned, the larger thesis put forward will not be so easily dismissed.

Ronald F Hock (University of Southern California) says that Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark is a truly fresh, perceptive, and comprehensive interpretation of the Gospel of Mark. Hock calls MacDonald's intertextual reading of Mark at many specific points, "discerning, insightful, and even brilliant", but not always convincing.

James Patrick Holding (Christian Research Journal) takes a contrarian view, saying that the overwhelming majority of parallels drawn in The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark are the product of MacDonald's vague generalisations, fertile imagination, and literary manipulations.

Answer 2

Dennis R MacDonald's work drawing parallels between New Testament writings and Homeric epics has garnered mixed reactions in the academic community. While some scholars appreciate his insights and methodology, others have raised concerns about the validity and extent of his comparisons. Overall, his work is considered more of a provocative and controversial interpretation rather than a widely accepted mainstream theory.