Mimesis Criticism: The Homeric Epics and the Gospel

[Brian2]

Doubt is more likely from a literalist interpretation.

If literalist means seeing historical text as historical then much of criticism has thrown doubt on that.

 

[syo]

homer and bible are religious text, so they are identical.

 

[David Davidovich]

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.

So, what do you think? Do you find that 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.

Precisely... We can agree on that.

 

[David Davidovich]

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.

Perhaps they start with that idea because things were just the opposite at one time. Therefore, it seems like more evidence is being discovered that the Bible is not true and that there are sources that support this.

And by the way, I am waiting for Exchemist to give me reasons or examples as to why it could be said that the OP mimesis examples are strained.

 

[David Davidovich]

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.

It seems as if a hear a tinge of bias in your observation.

 

[David Davidovich]

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.

Interesting... But I don't see what's so strange about that. Especially, since the New Testament discusses a lot of fantastical stories, and tales that match up with the 'other' messiahs (that most people don't know about) who existed during that time.

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.

Interesting... But what you're describing sounds more like the paganistic dying and rising god motif, along with the many other ancient, pre-Christian motifs which are borrowed from the New Testament. .

 

[David Davidovich]

I think most critical scholars would admit that within the NT are found myth, legend, folklore etc.

Thank you, pearl. And what you're describing are facts.

 

[David Davidovich]

It might depend on the definition of "critical scholar".

Also, are one's own religious biases, which determine whether or not they view someone as a "critical scholar."

Plus, as an old television show used to say: "The truth is out there."

 

[David Davidovich]

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

Thank you again, Pearl. Your words are so valuable. Especially, since I just noticed that you are Catholic.

 

[David Davidovich]

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.

Interesting post. However, if what you're saying is true, then it looks as if God is doing a poor job at spreading his love and his will around the world.

 

[David Davidovich]

Historical criticism, literary criticism, redaction criticism etc.

I don't mean this in a derogatory way, but an inflexible apologist would be oblivious to those things.

 

[David Davidovich]

That seems to tear down the faith more than defend it, but throwing doubt on the Bible much of the time.

But what you're saying sounds more like an unyielding apologist.

 

[David Davidovich]

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.

That seems to be a recurring theme that I'm hearing in this thread where the translation of: "the technique might be not much good" seems to sound more like what is being said is: 'I don't like this technique of analysis.'

 

[David Davidovich]

If literalist means seeing historical text as historical then much of criticism has thrown doubt on that.

But how do you know that it's actually historic?

 

[exchemist]

So, what do you think? Do you find that the comparisons he makes between the NT and Homer's epics strained and unconvincing?

Not being a bible scholar and not having read anything by this guy myself, I can't really offer an informed opinion of my own.
(As with other things in which I am not expert, I tend to follow the experts unless there seem to be compelling reasons to doubt them.)

 

[David Davidovich]

Not being a bible scholar and not having read anything by this guy myself, I can't really offer an informed opinion of my own.
(As with other things in which I am not expert, I tend to follow the experts unless there seem to be compelling reasons to doubt them.)

Fair enough. Also, I can give you credit for not being as dogmatic as Brian2 appeared to be.

 

[Brian2]

Interesting... But I don't see what's so strange about that. Especially, since the New Testament discusses a lot of fantastical stories, and tales that match up with the 'other' messiahs (that most people don't know about) who existed during that time.

The New Testament has an advantage over the other "messiahs" of being supported stores about a person from people who were associated with that person and claimed to know that the stories were true.
The others were not really "messiahs" (people anointed by God) and especially in the way Jesus turned out to be the one chosen and sent and whose messiahship can be seen in the OT prophecies He fulfilled.

Interesting... But what you're describing sounds more like the paganistic dying and rising god motif, along with the many other ancient, pre-Christian motifs which are borrowed from the New Testament. .

Not all the stories in the book "Eternity in their Hearts" were around any motifs like that.

 

[Brian2]

Perhaps they start with that idea because things were just the opposite at one time. Therefore, it seems like more evidence is being discovered that the Bible is not true and that there are sources that support this.

What evidence are you speaking about?

 

[Brian2]

But how do you know that it's actually historic?

It's a belief. Some people believe the historicity of the Bible and others believe the criticism that says it's not true.

 

[Brian2]

That seems to be a recurring theme that I'm hearing in this thread where the translation of: "the technique might be not much good" seems to sound more like what is being said is: 'I don't like this technique of analysis.'

That criticism can go both ways. Some people like a technique because it comes to conclusions they believe.
But of course there are good reasons to not like some techniques when used to study the historicity of the Bible and other scriptures when naturalistic presumptions are involved which make the whole conclusion part of circular reasoning.