For centuries there has been immense debate about the authenticity and historicity of biblical literature and the characters contained within it. For those scholars responding most directly to Christian ideologies (whether as a proponent or skeptic), the books of the New Testament (NT) seem to be the primary and most advantageous battleground. Simply, the skeptical scholar might assume the conclusion that if the books of the NT are proven to be non-literal (or lacking in historic and scientific basis) that it would quickly dismantle the very foundations of the Christian faith (specifically the gospels).
Instead of reading, you can also watch & listen to the video below.
Alternatively, the Christian scholar understands that in order to maintain the traditional philosophies and ideologies of Christianity, the NT must be held in high esteem as a literal and historically true work of God brought about by supernatural, spiritual means. In other words, one of the primary Christian beliefs which holds “true doctrine” in place is that it (the NT) is an original, authentic and “God-inspired” work that accurately details the historic events of Jesus Christ.
But what happens when these core beliefs of the Christian faith come directly into conflict with evidence that the gospel stories were borrowed from older, pre-existing writings? What would happen if it were demonstrated that the NT gospels not only inserted corollary motifs in some sporadic manner, but instead, used sequential and distinctive markers which display the “fingerprints” of direct mimicry? In this article, you may find out.
In his groundbreaking research, Dr. Dennis R. MacDonald pioneers a process called mimesis criticism which is a method of interpreting texts in relation to their literary or cultural models. Mimesis criticism looks to identify intertextual relationships between two texts that go beyond simple echoes, allusions, citations, or redactions. The effects of imitation are usually manifested in the later text by means of distinct characterization, motifs, and/or plot structure. In layman's terms, this means that mimesis criticism is a process by which scholars identify sequential and distinctive clues (markers) which demonstrate that one text conclusively served as the framework for another.
A statement from detractors seeking to discredit this method might say: “Just because you find analogies between two stories, one in the gospel and one in Homer, doesn’t mean there’s a literary connection.” “That’s right,” says Dr. MacDonald, “on the surface it doesn’t. But my question then is how many whiskers make a beard?”
As it pertains to the study and development of mimesis criticism, that truly is the million-dollar question. How many whiskers make a beard? MacDonald continues, "what I mean by that is how many parallels in sequence and distinctiveness do you need in order to have mimesis criticism, And to have imitation? Another way to put it is how many beans make a pile? Yes, you can have parallels between texts that have no literary connection and you can have parallels between texts that do have literary connection. I’d like to know what criteria you’re going to use to make that judgment and then we can compare them to the stories. So unless you have criteria, I’m going to assume that the question of how many whiskers make a beard is open.”
“Several scholars who reviewed or commented on it have said this book will revolutionize the field of Gospel studies and profoundly affect our understanding of the origins of Christianity, and though I had taken this for hype, after reading the book I now echo that very sentiment myself.” -Richard Carrier, Ph.d.
The Six Criteria
In order to prevent subjectivity, Dr. MacDonald suggested six criteria for determining whether a claim for a mimetic connection between texts is reasonable: The first two criteria concern the status of the text used as a model ("ante-text" or the text being used as a framework for another); the final four criteria concern the later text that may have used the antetext. The following are the 6 criteria:
Accessibility: One must demonstrate that the author of the later text would have been reasonably able to access a copy of the text being imitated. Was the antetext well known or obscure at the time of the later text's composition?
Analogy: If one text is discovered to imitate a certain antetext, it is probable that other texts have also done so. Are there examples of other authors using this antetext as a literary model?
Density: The greater number of parallels one can induce between the two texts, the stronger one's case will be for a mimetic relationship between them.
Order: The more frequently the parallels between the two texts follow the same order, the less likely it becomes that the parallels are just coincidental.
Distinctive Traits: If there are parallels between two texts, but none of the parallels are anything but one would expect in their respective contexts, then it becomes difficult to argue for a mimetic connection. Especially helpful are non sequiturs or other unusual elements present in the later text which parallel the proposed model. It is also typical for authors to use significant names to alert the reader to the textual interplay.
Interpretability: A common motivation for imitating an earlier text is to rival that text, whether philosophically, theologically, politically, or otherwise. If one can determine such a motivation in a compelling fashion, then there is a stronger case for imitation.
Without any further delay, allow me to now share a small example of the mimetic connections in the Gospel of Mark brought forward in Dr. MacDonald’s book Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark. It will be from this perspective that scholars may begin to truly digest the sheer impossibility of these connections, lest they were created intentionally.
In the following texts, it can’t be emphasized enough that these 16 examples are sequential (in order to each other), dense and highly distinctive. The events that took place in each story are compared in the actual order they were written down by the authors. The designation of "Homer" here below represents sequential statements from Homer’s The Oddysey, written in the 8th or 7th century BCE (was part of Greek literary canon by 6th century BCE). The designation of "Mark" here below represents sequential statements from Mark 13:1-4, 28-37 & 14:1-11.
Reading through both texts sequentially, the following mimetic connections between the two texts is demonstrated:
Homer: Telemachus was amazed at the great light that shown on the walls of his house.
Mark: One of Jesus’ disciples was amazed at the great buildings and Jerusalem temple.
Homer: Odysseus went to Penelope and sat.
Mark: Jesus went to the Mount of Olives, and sat.
Homer: Penelope in private questioned her husband in disguise.
Mark: Four of the disciples in private asked him about the destruction of the temple.
Homer: Odysseus answered and gave her signs that he had seen her husband and that he would soon return.
Mark: Jesus answered and gave the sign when he would return.
Homer: That very day Odysseus was consulting the oak sacred to Zeus at Dodona.
Mark: The disciples should consult the fig tree.
Homer: He is near.
Mark: He is near.
Homer: All these things will come to pass.
Mark: Until all these things take place.
Homer: No one in Ithaca knew if or when Odysseus would return.
Mark: Keep watch, for you do not know when the Lord of the house is coming.
Homer: The suitors were prepared to kill Telemachus and Odysseus.
Mark: The Chief Priests and scribes were seeking some deceitful way to arrest and kill him.
Homer: The suitors feared harm from the people of Ithaca.
Mark: The authorities feared a popular uprising.
Homer: After giving his prophecies to Penelope, Odysseus disguised as a beggar sat by himself.
Mark: After giving these prophecies to four disciples, Jesus sat at a table in the humble home of a leper.
Homer: Eurycleia came in with a bowl of water and washed his feet, later she anointed him generously with oil.
Mark: A woman came in with an expensive stone jar of ointment and poured the contents on Jesus’ head.
Homer: When she recognized her master, she dropped his leg into the brass vessel spilling water.
Mark: She broke the jar to release the oil.
Homer: She alone recognized her king (She recognizes him by seeing his scar).
Mark: She alone recognized that Jesus soon would die.
Homer: Melantho, the slave girl, had objected to Penelope’s generosity to a poor beggar.
Mark: People at the mill objected to the woman’s extravagant anointing, the ointment could have been sold and the money given to the poor.
Homer: Odysseus and Eurycleia discuss the disloyalty of some of the slaves.
Mark: Then Judas Iscariot, one of the 12, went to the Chief Priests for the purpose of betraying him.
As Dr. MacDonald so simply pointed out, “Those parallels are remarkable and they certainly qualify for enough whiskers to make a beard.” In a discussion of these few examples held during a Mythvision Podcast episode (embedded below), Derek (Mythvision's host) perfectly pointed out that there is a literary connection just in the name “Eurycleia” as well.
Dr. MacDonald explains this single example even further:
“I delayed the most strikingly unusual parallels until now, Jesus praises the woman by declaring ‘Wherever the good news is proclaimed throughout the world, what this woman has done will also be mentioned in her memory.’ That is, this woman will have far-flung renown, she will be Eurycleia, renowned far and wide. The significance of the name Eurycleia is noted by an ancient reader… ‘Eurycleia, she who had far-flung and great fame.’ So the very name Eurycleia, tells us why this woman is going to have acclimation, because of her act of perceptive generosity” says MacDonald.
To put it simply, the name of the woman who washed Odysseus’ feet was Eurycleia, a name which means “to be known far and wide” or "broad renown." Meanwhile, the statement about the woman in Mark's Jesus narrative was that she also would be known “far and wide" for her acts of kindness, alluding to the very woman who washed Odysseus’ feet.
"Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her." -Mark 14:9
“That is a distinctive trait, in mimesis criticism we call that a distinctive trait,” says Dr. MacDonald. Personally, I can’t help but agree. That is a highly distinctive designation and a perfect example of what mimesis criticism is about, unlocking the truest forms of influence on ancient writers. But some of Dr. MacDonald’s opponents have asked “When you identify parallels between the gospels and Homer, how do you know it’s not just Homeric radiation on the culture?” MacDonald replies, “My answer to that is, again, you have to have criteria for determining whether or not the parallels are literal or cultural. I think, for Mark’s readers for example, that they may not have been able to read the Homeric epic. Maybe they did know it from the culture, that’s what I would assume. That doesn’t mean the author of Mark doesn’t know it, or isn’t conscious of trying to make this connection. We need criteria for determining it.”
Additionally, some apologists have determined to focus on methodological assaults against Dr. MacDonald’s work, in which detractors question the methods through which he draws such parallels. To this, Dr. MacDonald replies:
“Now I’m not saying that the imitations of Greek poetry in the gospels are zerographic. They are not photocopies, they are transvalued. The only way to transvalue something is to make changes in it, but those changes can still be significant. A good example is when my daughter was about 4 years old, a friend of ours gave her a book called Sleeping Ugly. It’s obviously about Sleeping Beauty. The word ‘ugly’ is the opposite of ‘beauty,’ so it’s still a parallel but it’s a transvaluative parallel. So I don’t buy that the differences between the texts can’t be significant markers to their connection.”
The limited examples provided in this article are only but a few of the many more available within the pages of Dr. MacDonald’s book, which you can grab a copy of here.
“Now I’m not saying that the imitations of Greek poetry in the gospels are zerographic. They are not photocopies, they are transvalued." -Dr. MacDonald
Conclusion
Ultimately, even these examples from the Gospel of Mark demonstrate a shocking transvaluative literary process with dense, sequential and distinctive markers that leave little room for the plausibility that this mimesis could have occurred unintentionally or randomly. Unfortunately for christian apologists who’d like to prove both the inerrancy and originality of the New Testament writings, (supposedly written “under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit”) mimesis criticism demonstrates that the true inspiration for the the author of Mark’s gospel was their own love for Homeric prose and motifs.
Dr. Richard Carrier, Ph.d., (historian, author and activist), the author of On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (read here) and Jesus from Outer Space: What the Earliest Christians Really Believed about Christ (read here) responded to the book with a detailed review, examining the plausibility and methodology of the arguments presented in Dr. MacDonald’s Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark. In Carrier’s examination he says:
“When I first heard of this I assumed it would be yet another intriguing but only barely defensible search for parallels, stretching the evidence a little too far-tantalizing, but inconclusive. What I found was exactly the opposite. 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. And being a skeptic to the thick, I would never say this lightly. Several scholars who reviewed or commented on it have said this book will revolutionize the field of Gospel studies and profoundly affect our understanding of the origins of Christianity, and though I had taken this for hype, after reading the book I now echo that very sentiment myself” (Dr. Carrier, Ph.d., A Review of Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark).
You can listen to Dr. MacDonald and Derek Lambert read these parallels sequentially and discuss the literature more below (46:34 timestamped):
Dennis R. MacDonald received his PhD from Harvard University in 1978 and has taught New Testament and Christian origins at Goshen College, the Iliff School of Theology, and the Claremont School of Theology. From 1999-2010 he served as the director of The Institute for Antiquity and Christianity at Claremont Graduate University... (read more).
Don't forget to thank Derek Lambert at Mythvision Podcast for sharing his incredible work, by subscribing to his YouTube channel and visiting him at MythvisionPodcast.com.
If you'd like to see more of my work, join me by subscribing to the Bustin Jest YouTube channel and visiting my home page to join my mailing list.
Until next time, I wish you sound logic and a clear mind.
-Justin