• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Mimesis Criticism: The Homeric Epics and the Gospel

David Davidovich

Well-Known Member
I was wondering if anyone is familiar with the concept of mimesis criticism, which was pioneered by Dennis MacDonald and what do they think about it:

Mimesis criticism is a method of interpreting texts in relation to their literary or cultural models. Mimesis, or imitation (imitatio), was a widely used rhetorical tool in antiquity up until the 18th century's romantic emphasis on originality. 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.​

As a critical method, mimesis criticism has been pioneered by Dennis MacDonald, especially in relation to New Testament and other early Christian narratives imitating the "canonical" works of Classical Greek literature.​

click here: Mimesis criticism - Wikipedia

And in addition to the link above, here is some more information about mimesis criticism and Dennis MacDonald:

Christianizing Homer[edit]

In one of MacDonald's first books, Christianizing Homer: The Odyssey, Plato, and the Acts of Andrew, he posited the theory that the non-canonical Acts of Andrew was a Christian retelling of Homer's Iliad.[2] In it he argued that one could detect trends that showed parallels between the Homeric epic and the Acts of Andrew. He argued that the Acts of Andrew is better understood in light of the Odyssey. That the order of events in the Acts follows those found in the Acts of Andrew, that certain events in the Acts are better understood when understood in context of the Homeric epics, and that the Homeric texts commonly were available during the first century AD. In subsequent works, MacDonald expanded his hypothesis to include the Acts of the Apostles and the Gospel of Mark as being Christian variations of the Homeric epics.

In Christianizing Homer, MacDonald lays down his principles of literary mimesis, his methodology for comparing ancient texts. There are six aspects he examines 1) accessibility, 2) analogy, 3) density, 4) order, 5) distinctive traits, and 6) interpretability.[1] According to his hypothesis, not only was Homer readily available to the authors of the New Testament, but the Homeric epics would have been the basic texts upon which the New Testament authors learned to write Greek. MacDonald also argues that the number of common traits, the order in which they occur, and the distinctiveness thereof between the Homeric Texts and early Christian documents help to show that the New Testament writers were using Homeric models when writing various books.

In his earliest reviews, MacDonald only applied his hypothesis to works such as Tobit and the Acts of Peter. In later works, he posits the Acts of the Apostles, the Gospel of Mark, and Gospel of Luke merged two cultural classics of his time period in order to "depict Jesus as more compassionate, powerful, noble, and inured to suffering than Odysseus."[3]

click here: Dennis MacDonald - Wikipedia

I only learned about this subject within the last couple of months from a YouTube video and thought that the comparisons between the Homeric epics and some of the books of the Bible were fascinating. Also, free to click on the links above and watch the 35 minute video below and share any comments that you might have about this topic:

 
Last edited by a moderator:

exchemist

Veteran Member
I was wondering if anyone is familiar with the concept of mimesis criticism, which was pioneered by Dennis MacDonald and what do they think about it:

Mimesis criticism is a method of interpreting texts in relation to their literary or cultural models. Mimesis, or imitation (imitatio), was a widely used rhetorical tool in antiquity up until the 18th century's romantic emphasis on originality. 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.​

As a critical method, mimesis criticism has been pioneered by Dennis MacDonald, especially in relation to New Testament and other early Christian narratives imitating the "canonical" works of Classical Greek literature.​

click here: Mimesis criticism - Wikipedia

And in addition to the link above, here is some more information about mimesis criticism and Dennis MacDonald:

Christianizing Homer[edit]

In one of MacDonald's first books, Christianizing Homer: The Odyssey, Plato, and the Acts of Andrew, he posited the theory that the non-canonical Acts of Andrew was a Christian retelling of Homer's Iliad.[2] In it he argued that one could detect trends that showed parallels between the Homeric epic and the Acts of Andrew. He argued that the Acts of Andrew is better understood in light of the Odyssey. That the order of events in the Acts follows those found in the Acts of Andrew, that certain events in the Acts are better understood when understood in context of the Homeric epics, and that the Homeric texts commonly were available during the first century AD. In subsequent works, MacDonald expanded his hypothesis to include the Acts of the Apostles and the Gospel of Mark as being Christian variations of the Homeric epics.

In Christianizing Homer, MacDonald lays down his principles of literary mimesis, his methodology for comparing ancient texts. There are six aspects he examines 1) accessibility, 2) analogy, 3) density, 4) order, 5) distinctive traits, and 6) interpretability.[1] According to his hypothesis, not only was Homer readily available to the authors of the New Testament, but the Homeric epics would have been the basic texts upon which the New Testament authors learned to write Greek. MacDonald also argues that the number of common traits, the order in which they occur, and the distinctiveness thereof between the Homeric Texts and early Christian documents help to show that the New Testament writers were using Homeric models when writing various books.

In his earliest reviews, MacDonald only applied his hypothesis to works such as Tobit and the Acts of Peter. In later works, he posits the Acts of the Apostles, the Gospel of Mark, and Gospel of Luke merged two cultural classics of his time period in order to "depict Jesus as more compassionate, powerful, noble, and inured to suffering than Odysseus."[3]

click here: Dennis MacDonald - Wikipedia

I only learned about this subject within the last couple of months from a YouTube video and thought that the comparisons between the Homeric epics and some of the books of the Bible were fascinating. Also, free to click on the links above and watch the 35 minute video below and share any comments that you might have about this topic:

It seems most scholars don't buy MacDonald's hypothesis, considering the comparisons he makes between the NT and Homer's epics strained and unconvincing.

However he gets some credit for emphasising the need to understand how literate people of the time were educated through study of Homer, which may have influenced how they wrote.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
MacDonald lays down his principles of literary mimesis, his methodology for comparing ancient texts.
Thanks for the information. I read this article: Q+/Papias hypothesis - Wikipedia

Its a neat idea. We could, using his rules, pick a modern English translation and attempt to reconstruct this Logoi of Jesus ourselves to see if it kind of resembles Deuteronomy.

Mimesis, or imitation (imitatio), was a widely used rhetorical tool in antiquity
Maybe the end of mimesis led to its reinvention. We do something similar today with spoofs. Sometimes a spoof can criticize or can present serious ideas even while it is making fun of original work.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
I was wondering if anyone is familiar with the concept of mimesis criticism, which was pioneered by Dennis MacDonald and what do they think about it:

Mimesis criticism is a method of interpreting texts in relation to their literary or cultural models. Mimesis, or imitation (imitatio), was a widely used rhetorical tool in antiquity up until the 18th century's romantic emphasis on originality. 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.​

As a critical method, mimesis criticism has been pioneered by Dennis MacDonald, especially in relation to New Testament and other early Christian narratives imitating the "canonical" works of Classical Greek literature.​

click here: Mimesis criticism - Wikipedia

And in addition to the link above, here is some more information about mimesis criticism and Dennis MacDonald:

Christianizing Homer[edit]

In one of MacDonald's first books, Christianizing Homer: The Odyssey, Plato, and the Acts of Andrew, he posited the theory that the non-canonical Acts of Andrew was a Christian retelling of Homer's Iliad.[2] In it he argued that one could detect trends that showed parallels between the Homeric epic and the Acts of Andrew. He argued that the Acts of Andrew is better understood in light of the Odyssey. That the order of events in the Acts follows those found in the Acts of Andrew, that certain events in the Acts are better understood when understood in context of the Homeric epics, and that the Homeric texts commonly were available during the first century AD. In subsequent works, MacDonald expanded his hypothesis to include the Acts of the Apostles and the Gospel of Mark as being Christian variations of the Homeric epics.

In Christianizing Homer, MacDonald lays down his principles of literary mimesis, his methodology for comparing ancient texts. There are six aspects he examines 1) accessibility, 2) analogy, 3) density, 4) order, 5) distinctive traits, and 6) interpretability.[1] According to his hypothesis, not only was Homer readily available to the authors of the New Testament, but the Homeric epics would have been the basic texts upon which the New Testament authors learned to write Greek. MacDonald also argues that the number of common traits, the order in which they occur, and the distinctiveness thereof between the Homeric Texts and early Christian documents help to show that the New Testament writers were using Homeric models when writing various books.

In his earliest reviews, MacDonald only applied his hypothesis to works such as Tobit and the Acts of Peter. In later works, he posits the Acts of the Apostles, the Gospel of Mark, and Gospel of Luke merged two cultural classics of his time period in order to "depict Jesus as more compassionate, powerful, noble, and inured to suffering than Odysseus."[3]

click here: Dennis MacDonald - Wikipedia

I only learned about this subject within the last couple of months from a YouTube video and thought that the comparisons between the Homeric epics and some of the books of the Bible were fascinating. Also, free to click on the links above and watch the 35 minute video below and share any comments that you might have about this topic:


I have noticed that some of it relies on the idea that the New Testament was written later than the books suggest and by more educated people.
It is interesting how many stories the Gospel writers are supposed to have copied from.
The Old Testament memesis also relies on the idea that the OT books were written later than the books suggest and by people who might know the other literature from other cultures.
Both NT and OT memesis also, along with religious anthropology seem to start with the idea that the writings in the Bible are not true and then look for sources...............which of course does get strained at times as Exchemist said.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
The Old Testament memesis also relies on the idea that the OT books were written later than the books suggest and by people who might know the other literature from other cultures.
Yes, that is its weakness. It can never become popular with the large masses of people who don't consider it a possibility. It is not sacrilegious, however. Many think there are some good reasons to think that the NT is both sincere and not literal, which opens the door to consider other times of writing. Scholars love alternative meanings and cannot help following every tiny boring detail of everything. Personally I cannot relate. They just eat up new knowledge, new ideas. They don't mean to attack or to ignore. It is basically a thirst for knowledge that they develop which makes them a bit odd. They would love it if languages got even more complicated rather than less complicated.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Yes, that is its weakness. It can never become popular with the large masses of people who don't consider it a possibility. It is not sacrilegious, however. Many think there are some good reasons to think that the NT is both sincere and not literal, which opens the door to consider other times of writing. Scholars love alternative meanings and cannot help following every tiny boring detail of everything. Personally I cannot relate. They just eat up new knowledge, new ideas. They don't mean to attack or to ignore. It is basically a thirst for knowledge that they develop which makes them a bit odd. They would love it if languages got even more complicated rather than less complicated.

A side note. For the scholars the most complicated you can get, is a combination of cognitive, cultural and moral relativism.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Yes, that is its weakness. It can never become popular with the large masses of people who don't consider it a possibility. It is not sacrilegious, however. Many think there are some good reasons to think that the NT is both sincere and not literal, which opens the door to consider other times of writing. Scholars love alternative meanings and cannot help following every tiny boring detail of everything. Personally I cannot relate. They just eat up new knowledge, new ideas. They don't mean to attack or to ignore. It is basically a thirst for knowledge that they develop which makes them a bit odd. They would love it if languages got even more complicated rather than less complicated.

The New Testament being both sincere and not literal is a strange one for me but I do believe there are people who see it that way.
I read a book once called "Eternity in their hearts" by Don Richardson, which shows many different cultures all over the world with prophecies and stories that he said prepared people for the coming of the gospel story. But of course, with many of these the missionaries seemed to use the bulldozer method to an extent and instead of listening to the stories and learning the cultures, they saw the cultures as inferior and demonic and to be banned if possible.
These other stories in the area of the Bible's development could be seen in that light, stories that prepared people to accept the gospel message.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Some are apologists with the purpose of defending the faith, others, while remaining faithful, present a critical analysis of the composition of Scripture.

I don't see how the faith is defended by apologists who say that some things in the NT are myth, legends or folklore.
What sort of things do they say that about?
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
If you look back at history of civilization, all the main ancient cultures build upon each other. This occurred through the once dominance of earlier cultures in war and commerce and their extended empires which had influence on their colonies and trading partners. The Egyptian culture was once dominant and through this empire, their culture was spread far and wide to add to the local customs of other nations. Moses was trained as an Egyptian at the highest level. God's plan was not to be closed minded but to assimilate the best of that time. Moses's mind set would become part of Israel; man of destiny who would kneel to the Lord, while never seeing the promised land.

The Greek culture was very advance and came before Rome. The younger, not yet for prime time, Rome was influenced by this earlier dominance. An intelligent culture, in the run for world dominance, was not thick headed and believed they had to be original to be dominant. It makes more sense to pick and chose from the past and then add you own unique flair that would set your trajectory. This is how nature works. Missing links are not common, instead, new things build upon the past.

In terms of the NT, Israel was a colony of Rome even before Jesus was born. Rome had a loose open colony structure that allowed its colony cultures to retain their cultural and religious traditions, while also being immersed in the over lord culture of Rome. By the time of Jesus a new way of looking at life appears based on both world. Jesus would stop thinking clan, and start thinking cosmopolitan and access to God for all man. Rome showed this was possible by their tolerance in religious things. Jesus, however, offended the secular world of Rome but suggesting law be abolished since a good or evil overlord could control the law.

If you look at how history would then unfold, Christianity would go though a lot of crap; death, early, but it would endure to become the official religion of Rome in the 4th century. As the years went on, Christianity would evolve and would become part of a hybrid culture with both Roman secularism and Christian values. it was ani unique paradox of extreme and opposites.

The Holy Roman Empire would also integrate things from previous cultures like Greek, and would also try to assimilate the Pagans colonies through their cultural ways; Christmas. When I was a child, the influence of the Catholic Church on local secularism caused Latin and Greek to part of language study in high school. These are root language of which so many other languages were based. While Christmas was designed for all to enjoy no matter what you believed or did not believe; boost for secular society.

If you believes in prophesies, then the past will see it necessary to adjust to the needs of the future, so the future can be fulfilled. We have some control over the future since we help to create our own reality. The gospel needed to be preached to all nations before the end. The best way to do that was to have roots in all nations, though a world empire and through preserving the best of the past, especially that which had early fingers in all the nations. The middle east is still fighting battles from the glory days of thousands of years ago. Some roots run deep and connect people in odd ways. But through these roots we can connect.

The mimesis premise is too narrowly visioned, since it does not look at the bigger picture of natural cultural evolution; gradual change and not purely missing links. The ancient super powers built things to last and not just be a modern flash in the pan, based unique niches and clan things.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Not to throw doubt, to undestand better the composition of Scripture.

Understanding is good. Throwing doubt is not. It depends on those who are doing the critiquing I guess.
Certainly scholars can get carried away with a technique of analysis and believe all it says even if the technique might be not much good.
 
Top