Why "Q" makes no sense to me

[hurst]

TOME:

But the fact remains, there is a large body of work that raises the posibility of the “Q” source and their works should be addressed as presented not dismissed outright without a fair hearing.

They should be dismissed because it is not founded in obedience to Christ.

Eve followed your advice when she decided to give the serpent a “fair hearing”.

Should we pay heed to pornography simply because it is out there, and in large quantities, and pursued by many people?

We know better. Let us restrain our proud curiosity. If one studies this Q stuff, let be only out of a duty imposed on them and not because they seek some occult knowledge that implies the Church is wrong, for that would not be done in good faith.

TOME:

Also, I find at the rejection of the “Q” source is rooted in the mistrust of where this hypothesis developed.

And why shouldn’t it?

TOME:

Even with a cursory knowledge of this debate one should know that the scholariship that originally developed this theory was rooted in the Enlightenment and Protestant biblical scholarship of the 18th and 19th centuries. Because of this, I find people a prejudice that fuels rejecttion this scholarship outright because it is perceived as an attack, either directly or indirectly on the teaching authority of the Pope and the Church and not on the merits of the scholarship itself…

No need to call it prejudice. It only makes sense to not trust theories developed by an antagonistic entity. If only Eve would have realized that, she would not have listened to the serpent and conducted empirical studies for experimental verification…

You see, the path you are tentatively going down is not one “historically” encouraged by the Church. We must follow our faith, and not our curiosity.

TOME:

However, again I ask (somewhat rhetorically) if there was no reason to even think that a possible outside source existed, how was thought even conceived?

There is no reason for a Catholic to think that. You yourself admit it was invented by a Protestant. Such people reject Catholic scholarship, and would naturally lack much knowledge concerning sources.

That it has found root among Catholic scholars is the real question. Perhaps it is because they (like you?) were caught up more with exercising their intellectual skills than with exercising humility and obedience to the Church and its Faith?

A child filled with energy wants to use it, and so seeks to run and play. A scholar with intelligence wants to use it, and so seeks occasions also.

But like the child, so does the scholar need to be disciplined and obedient. Let us set our hearts on giving all we have to God’s service in humble obedience.

Proverbs 3:7 Be not wise in thy own conceit: fear God, and depart from evil

hurst

 

[hurst]

TOME:

Why couldn’t the “Q” source suffered this same fate especially, as I stated about, those sayings/stories of “Q” that effected the Church the greatest were incorporated into the written faith response of the Church we know as the Gospels?

I think you would benefit greatly by using your wonderful intellectual ability for the glory of God rather than for the embellishment of a speculation which is used by many to doubt the authoritative value of Scripture and the Church.

hurst

 

[Jaypeeto4]

I personally totally reject the Q hypothesis.
It is pure conjecture and has no patristic support whatsoever.
Moreover, it originated in the Liberal theological wing of Protestantism. It is a bad “tree” which produces bad spiritual “fruit” in those who take it seriously, as the modernist study notes to the New American Bible amply demonstrate.
Q is pure protestant conjectural nonsense.

Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3)

 

[TEME525]

When I posted my original response( as TOME) to this thread my post was was purely subjective and therefore I would like to add that I do respect those who disagree with my position althought I do say I find it hard to understand the reasoning of some of those who disagree we me.

My difficulty lies in that too often I infer from their statement that they consider ligitimate and sincere bilical scholarship as something other than in the best tradition of our Church. I say this in particularly given the orthodoxy of the work is rooted in the directives and encouragements of our past Popes as well as Pope Benedict.

If Catholic biblical scholars are acting under the auspices of the Church Magisterium as articulated through papal directives such as Dues of Leo XIII,Divino Afflante Spiritu of Pius XII and the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum) how can this be anything but orthodox? Even if through their studies they come to similar conclusions as Protestant scholars of the past.

I am not blind to abuses of many theologians but more often than not my criticism does not lie in their studies in themselves but rather in thier conclusions or how they attemp to aply their work which has brought some into tention and open conflict with the teaching authority of the Church leading to the Church being forced to condemn their publications or better their opinions.

Still, I know of no time when any the Popes since I was born (starting with Pius XII) that hasn’t encourage continued biblical scholarship, using the best that science and history has to offer.
Granted, our Holy Fathers have had to teach and remind all about the role of Catholic biblical scholarship and its limitations, but there has never benn an outright condemnation of it and no Pope has put a stop to biblical studies.

If I am wrong, I hope someone would point out where I am in error.
However, if I am correct then I ask how anyone can say that such scholarship is not Catholic, is not orthodox? Also, I would like for someone to explain to me how wanting to develope a deeper understanding of the Bible is misguided or is not in and of itself the responsibility of all Catholics, even when those studies are in agreement with Protestant theologians yet not condemned by the Magisterium of the Church as opposed to the theological opinion of another whose understanding of the bible is what could be labled as conservative thus for some, “orthodox”?

Dealing with this thread in particular, I had hope and continue to hope that those who have disagreed with my position would have specifically how what I wrote is unreasonable as opposed to being wrong because it is not what they consider to be orthodox, despite the teaching of the Church as promulgated in the above mentioned letters of the popes and a Constitution of the Church.

 

[JimG]

Oh, there is no doubt whatsoever as to the existence of Q.
It is right there in the gospels. To quote from a link previously posted:

It is perhaps worth noting here that the contents of Luke’s central section roughly correspond with the conjectural document known as “Q,” which many modern exegetes consider to be one of the sources of Matthew and Luke.)Source = catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9403fea1.asp

The only question is whether there exists some separate historical textual document which was the source of that gospel material. A document for which there is absolutely no historical evidence.

 

[hurst]

TEME525:

I say this in particularly given the orthodoxy of the work is rooted in the directives and encouragements of our past Popes as well as Pope Benedict.

That is misleading to say that.

The Popes encouraged Biblical studies, but that does not make any Biblical study itself orthodox.

TEME525:

If Catholic biblical scholars are acting under the auspices of the Church Magisterium as articulated through papal directives such as Dues of Leo XIII,Divino Afflante Spiritu of Pius XII and the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum) how can this be anything but orthodox?

Orthodox means “right belief”, so just because those documents allow for study and research does not automatically make your study and research orthodox. One must stay within the bounds (which are also mentioned in the above documents).

TEME525:

Even if through their studies they come to similar conclusions as Protestant scholars of the past.

But now the bounds are exceeded, if what those Protestants concluded is outside of Church teaching.

TEME525:

I am not blind to abuses of many theologians but more often than not my criticism does not lie in their studies in themselves but rather in thier conclusions or how they attemp to aply their work which has brought some into tention and open conflict with the teaching authority of the Church leading to the Church being forced to condemn their publications or better their opinions.

Thank you for distinguishing between the studies and their conclusions.

TEME525:

Still, I know of no time when any the Popes since I was born (starting with Pius XII) that hasn’t encourage continued biblical scholarship, using the best that science and history has to offer.
Granted, our Holy Fathers have had to teach and remind all about the role of Catholic biblical scholarship and its limitations, but there has never benn an outright condemnation of it and no Pope has put a stop to biblical studies.

Agreed. But don’t forget about the constraints to those studies.

TEME525:

Also, I would like for someone to explain to me how wanting to develope a deeper understanding of the Bible is misguided or is not in and of itself the responsibility of all Catholics, even when those studies are in agreement with Protestant theologians yet not condemned by the Magisterium of the Church as opposed to the theological opinion of another whose understanding of the bible is what could be labled as conservative thus for some, “orthodox”?

True, ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ, so we all ought to do what we are able to grow in the Scriptures, especially since we can read and the Bible is easy to obtain.

TEME525:

Dealing with this thread in particular, I had hope and continue to hope that those who have disagreed with my position would have specifically how what I wrote is unreasonable as opposed to being wrong because it is not what they consider to be orthodox, despite the teaching of the Church as promulgated in the above mentioned letters of the popes and a Constitution of the Church.

Have I answered your questions?

To develop our understanding requires that we stay connected to the Vine and find new avenues of growth that also spring from that Life.

But to invent theories and embellish speculations that are not connected to the Vine in the first place is a problem. It does not bear fruit of truth because it is not rooted in truth. Just because someone else rooted in truth modifies it slightly to keep it in line, doesn’t mean it is legitimate or worthy of pursuit.

Pursuit of Biblical studies should not be done as a purely academic exercise, but rather in the spirit of prayer and humility. It is Truth. Do not throw what is sacred to the dogs of speculation (Matt 7:6). Let us revere the Word as we revere Christ’s body (cf. Dei Verbum).

hurst

 

[buffalo]

JimG:

Oh, there is no doubt whatsoever as to the existence of Q.
It is right there in the gospels. To quote from a link previously posted:It is perhaps worth noting here that the contents of Luke’s central section roughly correspond with the conjectural document known as “Q,” which many modern exegetes consider to be one of the sources of Matthew and Luke.)

** The Gospels are Historical**

Part 3

The Q Source

           There are verses in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke which are identical. The Markans claim the             authors copied from Mark`s Gospel. They further assert that Matthew and Luke had no knowledge of each other. So             where did they obtain their many identical verses that were not present in Mark`s Gospel? Markans say they             copied from a lost document, which they call `Q` from the German word `Quelle` (Source).

           There is not the slightest historical evidence, or even a hint, that `Q` or its author ever existed.             If `Q` had existed, it would have been the most precious scroll of Christianity during the first 50-70 years of             the new religion. According to the Markans we owe the preservation of `The Our Father` and `The Beatitudes` to             `Q`. Mark did not bother to record them. If `Q` had been the key document containing the sayings of Christ, it             would have been treasured, copied and passed from hand to hand and read at Services.

           Markan priorists want us to believe that the community that produced `Q` later lost it, although             it was so important that Matthew and Luke, unknown to each other, made much use of it. Then the communities of             Matthew and Luke also lost it. It is hard to believe that only two copies were made of `Q` and these just happened             to be in the possession of the isolated communities in which Matthew and Luke lived and these communities lost             them. If more copies were made for many communities, Markans have to explain how all these copies of this key Christian             document were lost. Also, how did ‘Q’ disappear without leaving even a vague reference or echo in any piece of             Christian or heretical literature?

           Those who hold the Markan theory demand the most stringent proof for the historicity of the Gospels,             for which we have much historical evidence. Yet they accept conjectures and theories about `Q`, based on further             conjectures and theories for which there is no evidence at all. In reality `Q` was created in the 19th century, out of nothing, to fill a hole in the Markan priority theory.

more…

 

[buffalo]

cont’d

Year AD ** Event** The Resurrection. The leaders of the Jews persecute the first Christians. Saul/Paul is converted. Matthew composes his Hebrew gospel/ liturgy in Palestine. Matthews gospel is translated into Greek. King Herod Agrippa executes the Apostle James the Great. Peter escapes and flees to Rome. The other apostles spread out from Palestine. **44** **King Herod Agrippa dies.** **49** **Jews and Christians expelled from Rome following riots.** Luke writes his gospel, partly based on Matthews gospel, for the Gentiles. First of Pauls epistles; some influenced by Matthews gospel. Paul imprisoned by Romans. 54 Nero becomes emperor. The Apostle James the Less, bishop of Jerusalem, killed by stoning. The Christians are expelled from the Temple. Luke completes his Acts of the Apostles. Paul asks Timothy to join him on a mission to Spain. Paul released from prison. Peter ordains Linus, Cletus and Clement as assistant bishops. Peter endorses Lukes gospel by using it in a series of talks. Mark issues a first transcript of Peters talks. Peter endorses Marks transcript so authorising it as a Gospel. Lukes gospel published as an authorised gospel. Acts issued with authorisation of Peter and Paul. John writes his gospel of twenty chapters. 64 July Rome devastated by fire. 65 Spring Nero commences persecution of Christians. Peter martyred. Linus replaces Peter as bishop of Rome. Mark reissues Peter`s talks, with answers to questions included. 66 Jewish rebellion in Palestine. Paul goes to Spain. 68 early Jerusalem surrounded for first time by Romans. 68 June Suicide of Emperor Nero followed by civil strife. This leads to the Roman troops being withdrawn from around Jerusalem. Paul returns from Spain and visits Asia and Crete. Paul writes an epistle to the Hebrew Christians in Jerusalem. The Hebrew Christians flee from Jerusalem to Pella. Paul again imprisoned in Rome and then martyred. 69 Galba, Vitellius and Otho die trying to become emperors. 69 Vespasian becomes emperor and renews war in Palestine. 69 Romans surround Jerusalem for second time. Clement of Rome replies to Corinthians on behalf of Linus. 70 Aug Jerusalem, including its Temple, is destroyed. Linus dies (about 81). Cletus becomes bishop of Rome. ** 91** Domitian starts persecution. Cletus dies (about 92). Clement becomes bishop of Rome. Jewish leaders (about 96) hold a conference at Jamnia. Clement, bishop of Rome, exiled by Romans to the Crimea. John the Apostle (About 96) adds final chapter to his gospel. John the Apostle dies.

 

[TEME525]

Hurst,
Thank you for your response and I am in agreement with you on what I believe is the most important points of your comments.
The attitude that must guide all scholarship is ones love for the Church that should drive all who seek to understand the Holy Scriptures better and from this love of our Church should flow a natural obedience to the Church’s authentic teachings and restraints.

I think the best way to describe what should be the fundlemental principle of all biblical scholars is found in a work by Fr R. Kereszty on Christology. “Jesus Christ” I belive is the title ( I have trouble enough trying to remember his name but to try to remember his book’s title as well, without any notes is beyond my mental capabilities). I am going to have to paraphrase the good priest but in his discussion of the Fathers of the Church he writes how their love of their faith and Church permeated their very being. There were no ego trips involved in their writing but a love of Christ and His Church. If all who study the bible have this as their attitude in life I think scholarship would be of more effective service to us all.

However, you declared my one statement to be misleadiing. Again I have to agree with you but from my view point the error wlies in my poor communication of my thoughts. The point I was trying to make is one cannot dismiss Catholic biblical scholarship out right with the too often used term that it is not orthodox or Catholic in their findings. One should not condemn another’s work as being “UnCathoilc” or “not orthodox” without stating why and how, that is where do we find an offical Church pronouncment of condemnation of a given writers work. Also I know of no pronouncement from the offical Magisterium of the Church on such topics as the “Q” source.

There may be many learned theologians and scriptural scholars whose writings reject such scholarily findings, but these men and women are not the Magisterium of the Church. Therefore, to criticize or condemn work’s expousing the theory of “Q” and other controversial theories as “unorthodox” is as misleading and in correct as my proclaiming them to be orthodox and part of the apostolic tradition (another tem often used loosely without a real understanding of its meaning that is a “tradition” of the Church is equated with the “Apostolic Tradition”. The two are essentially different.

 

[hurst]

TEME525:

The point I was trying to make is one cannot dismiss Catholic biblical scholarship out right with the too often used term that it is not orthodox or Catholic in their findings. One should not condemn another’s work as being “UnCathoilc” or “not orthodox” without stating why and how,

That is reasonable.

TEME525:

that is where do we find an offical Church pronouncment of condemnation of a given writers work.

It is not necessary for a specific writer to be condemned in order to know that their work is to be avoided. As already stated, one can point out that their work falls under condemned categories etc. Of course, that would not mean the writer is officially condemned, but it does cause people to label them as “unorthodox” as an informal means of avoiding their errors and erroneous perspective which one can with good reason anticipate in all other works by that same writer (at least, until that writer has a change in belief or perspective).

TEME525:

Also I know of no pronouncement from the offical Magisterium of the Church on such topics as the “Q” source.

There are indirectly.

Still, it finds refuge by claiming to be only a theory that is itself in development.

Furthermore, there are plenty of “scholars” perpetuating this study in a manner contrary to the will of the Church. It is being found in Bible study materials now, as if it were official, and so leads unsuspecting people astray.

How? By implying that the Apostles were not the authors, that there could be errors in scripture, that what is there is only a sort of group effort of the church at the time and can thus be disregarded since we live in more modern times, and more!

So while I have not seen explicit condemnation of the “Q” theory, there are already plenty of condemnations for the conclusions being made as a result of taking it seriously.

TEME525:

There may be many learned theologians and scriptural scholars whose writings reject such scholarily findings, but these men and women are not the Magisterium of the Church.

But if they use conclusions made by the magisterium, what is the difference?

TEME525:

Therefore, to criticize or condemn work’s expousing the theory of “Q” and other controversial theories as “unorthodox” is as misleading and in correct as my proclaiming them to be orthodox and part of the apostolic tradition

If someone uses Q and produces a conclusion that happens to be orthodox and in line with Church teaching etc., then perhaps you have a valid point.

But the fact is, I have seen little if any of that. I see quite the opposite.

And since Q is not needed to know what the teaching is, I have no problem with evicting it from public display.

Instead of saying it should be allowed until explicitly condemned, I say we keep it out of the public view (and quarantine it) until it is explicitly approved. Why? Because as I said, it has already done much damage. Why isn’t it being reeled in by the Vatican yet? Good question. The same question applies to many other heretics and wayward clerics and so forth. Perhaps it is too much to handle right now.

hurst

 

[tony_c]

Let us not forget that the Gospel was transmitted orally. St Paul certainly converted many people without the benefit of a written Gospel

 

[TEME525]

Hurst, I would like to offer a couple of thoughts. I don’t know if they will be final thoughts for this thread or open up further diologue - I am open to both.

First, I agree that too much of what has been and continues to be discussed should have remained in an academic environment and should not have entered the public forum as it has. But one cannot sell books or go on TV as a consultant with out the necessary public exposure only found in a popular forum. So it is a reality we live with and sometimes, at least in my own case, enjoy.

Looking back, I think entirely too much energy is given to the discussion about the “Q” source itself. As I stated earlier this is an hypothesis I see as reasonable and accept, at least its probrability. But if I was proven wrong it wouldn’t bother me at all.

However, I find in all this discussion something that runs deeper in this thread and others. what I find is a mistrust of modern biblical scholarship based of the firm belief that most of these studies’ goal is to undermine the Teaching Authority of the Church and thus the Church itself.

I find this attitude expressed through such terms questioning the orthodoxy of such studies and the branding of scholars as heretics teaching against Dogmas of the Church. But too often I find such charges unsubstantiated and based on a totally subjective understanding of what constitutes authentic teaching of the Church with little basis in reality.

I find in people’s response to modern bible scholarship a reaction based on the fact that such scholarship points out that the Church itself did not developed in a rather steady progress starting with Christ Jesus establishing a heirarchical Church with clear establish lines of authority guided by the Holy Spirit. Also I find that many react to modern biblical scholarship negatively because these works point out inconsistencies in the NT and in Christology itself which again attacks their understanding of the Church

For example, if we develope our understand of the Church from Acts alone it is easy to come to the understanding that the Church developed in a way that is quite different from the development of the Church found through out the letters of Paul.

Also, many find the works of modern scholarship attacks their own Christology with its emphasis or starting point being a low christology, that Jesus was a man far different than the Christ of the movie “King of Kings” and other movies like it. And because this approach is so different from their their understanding that study must necessarily but heretical - not orthodox.

But as you admitted most of these works are not condemned by the Church although I would disagree with what I infer from what you stated and the reason the Church hasn’t condemned them is because there are so many the Church cannot deal with them all.
My point of view is that there isn’t this broad condemnation is because they are essentially not heretical not part of a protestant conspiricy but are actually quite true to authentic teachings.

 

[Texan_in_DC]

I have recently read a book “The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark” written by Dennis R. MacDonald. Which basicaly shows how the author took an oral story about the Odyssey and the Illiad that everyone at that time would have understood. And was able to tell a different story with the same fictional storyline, yet teach the audience theology. By using a consistent biblical typology that is used throughout the bible, which ultimately always foreshaddows Jesus Christ, the Eucharist, The Catholic Church, and the promise of eternal life.

This book talks about the “Q” I strongly recomend that anyone interested in this post about Q take a look at this book The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, Dennis R. MacDonald has written several books but this is a great starter book.

It has given me a solid base and strengthened my faith in the gospels.

 

[Texan_in_DC]

n Chapter 1, MacDonald also outlines the major parallels to be developed between the Iliad and Odyssey over the course of the book, and he explains the method he will employ in elucidating these parallels. His general scheme couples Jesus with Odysseus, Jesus’ disciples with Odysseus’ crew, and the Jewish authorities with Penelope’s suitors (2). (MacDonald even suggests that Jesus was depicted as a carpenter mainly because Odysseus was one [18].) The criteria for assessing the likelihood of parallels between the Homeric epics and the Gospel of Mark are listed as accessibility, analogy, density, order, distinctiveness, and interpretability (8). Criteria one and two are “environmental.” They have to do with literary activity in the author’s cultural milieu, accessibility referring to the likelihood that the author had access to the hypotext and analogy placing parallels within a tradition of imitations of the same model. Criteria three, four, and five test for similarities between the texts themselves. The oddly named sixth criterion, interpretability (or intelligibility), looks for differences between texts as evidence of emulation (8-9).

 

[Texan_in_DC]

Following the introductory chapter, the author argues his case in twenty-one dense and compact chapters. Odysseus and Jesus are carpenters who suffer and endure many things (Chapter 2). They undertake heroic endeavor against a landscape of mountains, uninhabited regions, villages, and, most importantly, the sea (Chapter 7). Each is surrounded by a band of foolish companions (Chapter 3), and each faces threats not only from a group of murderous usurpers (Chapter 5) but from dangerous supernatural foes like Circe and the demoniac in Mark 5:1-20 (Chapter 8). Both must therefore resort to secrecy (Chapter 6). Jesus’ transfiguration on the mountain (Mark 9:2-8) is said to be based on Odysseus’ appearance to his son Telemachus in Odyssey 16 (Chapter 11), while his confrontation with the blind beggar Bartimaeus in Mark is modeled on Odysseus’ meeting with Tiresias in Odyssey 11 (Chapter 12). Odysseus’ entry into the city of the Phaeacians prefigures Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem (Chapter 13), while Jesus’ anointing by an unnamed woman in Mark 13-14 owes much to Odysseus’ anointing by Eurycleia in Odyssey 19 (Chapter 14). Following his anointing, Jesus’ disciples are dispatched to procure a location for the observation of Passover, being ordered to follow a man carrying a jar of water. This scene is supposedly modeled on both Odyssey 10, where the Laestrygonian girl draws water and also on the Nausicaa episode from book 6 (Chapter 15). Jesus’ prayer at Gethsemane to avoid his execution resembles the end of Odyssey 10, Odysseus’ “last supper” with Circe before sailing to Hades (Chapter 16).

 

[Texan_in_DC]

As Mark approaches his account of Jesus’ death, he switches from the Odyssey to the Iliad as his primary source. Jesus imitates Achilles in his predictions of his imminent death (Chapter 17), but otherwise he resembles Hector: both meet violent deaths (Chapter 18) and have their corpses rescued for burial – by Priam in the Iliad and Joseph of Arimathea in Mark (Chapter 20). Finally, the young man at the tomb on Easter morning in Mark is said to imitate – or rather “emulate” (166) – Elpenor from the Odyssey (Chapter 21).

Chapters 4, 9, 10, and 19 take up themes peripheral to the comparison of Jesus with Odysseus, Achilles, and Hector. In Chapter 4 (“Sons of Thunder”), MacDonald argues that the depiction of James and John, the sons of Zebedee, derives from legends associated with Castor and Pollux. Chapter 9 argues that Mark’s account of the death of John the Baptist was influenced by Homer’s depiction of the death of Agamemnon. Chapter 10 claims that Mark describes two feasts at which Jesus feeds the multitudes in order to signal affiliation with the two feasts that begin Odyssey 3 and 4. Chapter 19 (“Hydropatetics”) finds Jesus walking on the water in imitation of the god Hermes, who flies over the water in both the Iliad and Odyssey.

 

[Texan_in_DC]

In the concluding chapter, MacDonald summarizes his case by characterizing the Gospel of Mark as “theological fiction” derived largely from Greek religious traditions and much less indebted to Jewish scriptures and stories about Jesus than scholars have commonly supposed (189). While we are told in Chapter 1 that Mark was “long on concealing, short on revealing” his debt to the Homeric epics (6), Chapter 22 emphasizes that Mark wanted his readers to recognize this extensive network of parallels and connections with the Homeric epics (170). The book concludes with three appendices that together provide a synoptic overview of the relationship between the nostos (homecoming) of Odysseus and the hodos (journey) of Jesus.

The author develops his argument by setting parallels between the Homeric epics and the Gospel of Mark in side-by-side columns, which are explicated in accordance with the criteria listed above. Individual chapters often conclude with a statement of the transvaluation that the hypertext is supposed to accomplish. A typical example of this procedure should make the flavor of the argument clearer. (I quote consecutively what appears in the book in parallel columns.)

 

[Texan_in_DC]

Iliad 24:
“Priam, king of Troy, sets out at night to rescue the body of his son, Hector, from his murderer, Achilles. The journey was dangerous. He entered Achilles’ abode, and asked for the body of Hector. Achilles was amazed that Priam dared to enter his home. Achilles sent two soldiers to get the ransom, and summoned maidservants to ‘wash and anoint him’. Hector’s body had been saved from desecration. ‘So when the maids had bathed and anointed the body sleek with olive oil and wrapped it round and round in a braided battle-shirt and handsome battle-cape, then Achilles himself lifted it and placed it upon a bier’. [Hector’s bones would be placed in an ossuary, buried in the ground, and covered with stones.] [Priam left with the body at night and brought it to Troy for a fitting burial.] Cassandra was the first to see Priam coming with the bier in the wagon. Three women led in the lament: Andromache, Hecuba, and Helen. After elaborate preparations, they burned Hector’s body at dawn.”
Mark 15:42-16:2:
“When it was late, and since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, a distinguished member of the council, who was also himself waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God, dared to go to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate was amazed that he might already be dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he had been dead for some time. [A woman earlier had anointed Jesus.] When he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph. [Jesus’ rapid death and burial saved the corpse from desecration.] Then Joseph bought a linen cloth, and taking down the body, wrapped it in the linen cloth and placed it in a tomb that had been hewn out of rock. He then rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where the body was laid. When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb” (159).
Some of the parallels laid out in the book seem persuasive, especially the argument in Chapter 4 that the depiction of the sons of Zebedee owes something to mythological traditions about the Dioscuri. (Yet this chapter rests uncomfortably in a book devoted to parallels between Mark and the Homeric epics, since evidence is derived mostly from sources other than Homer.) Chapter 2 makes a reasonable point: the figure of Odysseus may lurk somewhere in the background of the depiction of Mark’s much-suffering protagonist. In their own ways, both Mark and Homer in the Odyssey are concerned to emphasize the heroic triumph of life over death. Yet, we are told, Mark was also interested in transvaluing the Iliad on this matter, since the death of Jesus is modeled on the death of Hector: Hector’s tomb would forever hold his remains, while Jesus would rise from the dead after three days (162). The general depiction of Jesus’ disciples as fearful, unfaithful, and uncomprehending may owe something to Homer’s depiction of the comrades of Odysseus (Chapter 3). Similarly, the “blind seer” Bartimaeus may have a precedent in the depiction of Tiresias in the Odyssey, since later Christian sources sometimes fashioned blind men after the model of Homer’s Tiresias (99-100).

 

[whowantsumadebo]

Texan in DC:

I have recently read a book “The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark” written by Dennis R. MacDonald. Which basicaly shows how the author took an oral story about the Odyssey and the Illiad that everyone at that time would have understood.

I am familiar with this book.
Ok, that book attempts to draw too many parallels that simply aren’t there. That’s like the old Lincoln/Kennedy comparison, much worse because the Odyssey is total fiction. Not “everyone would have understood,” and not everyone would even care about Homer, exceot maybe in the world McDonald needs for his thesis to float. A wise man once said: “what has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” In that same vein it would be much easier to prove how the Gospel authors used stories in the Old Testament to explain who Jesus is–which they actually did.
Moving on…
Mark’s greek is absolutely horrendous; it’s obviously not his mother tongue, and the author of HEatGoM needs an encultured Mark who knows everything about Greek epics.
HEatGoM must completely ignore all other New Testament traditions about Jesus, such as St.Paul and Peter’s writings. And to be sure, John’s Gospel utterly ruins McDonald’s theory.
It completely relies on Markan priority. Even if Matthew did use Mark for a source, he still has the exact same tradition as Mark does, because he will follow the same narrative but have extra material. Never rely on a hypothesis which has to dismiss evidence to work.
HEatGoM doesn’t seem to understand what Q is. Again, I’ve repeatedly stated that Q makes no sense because peices of it are simply fill-in-the-blanks between and inside the narratives. Ex. The temptation by the devil, and disputations with the pharisees at certain points, have no context in a document made of only sayings.

 

[Texan_in_DC]

whowantsumadebo:

I am familiar with this book.
Ok, that book attempts to draw too many parallels that simply aren’t there

Well I disagree with you, i believe it is very possible for the authors to have taken an oral story make a few character changes, to teach fictional theology, I do not see this taking away anything from Jesus Christ or His disciples… but strengthening it.

I will not carry out this arguement, because it is pointless.
Bottom Line
I see the truth within his work and it enhances my Catholic faith.