• 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
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.



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

Brian, I haven't forgotten about you, however, I've been kept busy at the forum with other threads and I'm still doing research to reply to you comments.
 

David Davidovich

Well-Known Member
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.

Well, I would have say that's up for debate because I've seen where a lot of Jewish have explained that those OT prophecies are being misused and how they are not prophesying about Jesus.


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

Okay, I see. But which stories were about the paganistic dying and rising god motif.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Well, I would have say that's up for debate because I've seen where a lot of Jewish have explained that those OT prophecies are being misused and how they are not prophesying about Jesus.

We can take the Jewish pov or a sceptic pov etc about the prophecies and if you want you can deny that the gospel stories happened, but I guess that is where the need comes in to take another pov about the prophecies.

Okay, I see. But which stories were about the paganistic dying and rising god motif.

It's been a while since I have read the book.
 

David Davidovich

Well-Known Member
What evidence are you speaking about?


Unfortunately, the scientific evidence shows that Adam and Eve could not have existed, at least in the way they’re portrayed in the Bible. Genetic data show no evidence of any human bottleneck as small as two people: there are simply too many different kinds of genes around for that to be true. There may have been a couple of “bottlenecks” (reduced population sizes) in the history of our species, but the smallest one not involving recent colonization is a bottleneck of roughly 10,000-15,000 individuals that occurred between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago. That’s as small a population as our ancestors had, and—note—it’s not two individuals.

Further, looking at different genes, we find that they trace back to different times in our past. Mitochondrial DNA points to the genes in that organelle tracing back to a single female ancestor who lived about 140,000 years ago, but that genes on the Y chromosome trace back to one male who lived about 60,000-90,000 years ago. Further, the bulk of genes in the nucleus all trace back to different times—as far back as two million years. This shows not only that any “Adam” and “Eve” (in the sense of mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA alone) must have lived thousands of years apart, but also that there simply could not have been two individuals who provided the entire genetic ancestry of modern humans. Each of our genes “coalesces” back to a different ancestor, showing that, as expected, our genetic legacy comes from many different individuals. It does not go back to just two individuals, regardless of when they lived.

These are the scientific facts. And, unlike the case of Jesus’s virgin birth and resurrection, we can dismiss a physical Adam and Eve with near scientific certainty.

Quoted from this article: Adam and Eve: the ultimate standoff between science and faith (and a contest!) – Why Evolution Is True
 

David Davidovich

Well-Known Member
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.

And what sort of naturalistic presumptions are you talking about?
 

David Davidovich

Well-Known Member
We can take the Jewish pov or a sceptic pov etc about the prophecies and if you want you can deny that the gospel stories happened, but I guess that is where the need comes in to take another pov about the prophecies.

But isn't that being a bit one sided and closed minded when it comes to at least the Jewish point of view, since Jews are believers and skeptics aren't?

It's been a while since I have read the book.

Well, at least you admitted that some of stories in the book "Eternity in their Hearts" have the paganistic dying and rising god motif, along with the many other ancient, pre-Christian motifs which are borrowed from the New Testament.

Also, there are just way too many detailed similarities of the dying and rising god motif that saturated the ancient world, which makes it hard not to see that the Christian story itself is a mimesis:

 

Brian2

Veteran Member

It would depend on how God made Adam and Eve I imagine.
If the body of Adam evolved as an animal and God made some changes at the end then our Genes would show the genetic history of the animals before man was created (by breathing the breathe of life into what God had formed by evolution and whatever changes He might have made)
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
But isn't that being a bit one sided and closed minded when it comes to at least the Jewish point of view, since Jews are believers and skeptics aren't?

My pov is Christian. If that is being closed minded then so be it.

Well, at least you admitted that some of stories in the book "Eternity in their Hearts" have the paganistic dying and rising god motif, along with the many other ancient, pre-Christian motifs which are borrowed from the New Testament.

I don't really remember that. But I do remember that some do not.

Also, there are just way too many detailed similarities of the dying and rising god motif that saturated the ancient world, which makes it hard not to see that the Christian story itself is a mimesis:


The similarities are not detailed at all. For Mr average that might be what Carrier is pointing out but you know better. It is vague unsimilarities that you want to say inspired the Jesus story.
 

Balthazzar

Christian Evolutionist
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:


A poets influence in new testament writings seems obvious, at least as it applies to the book of Acts. Honestly, I couldn't see it playing out any other way. The way we relate to music, movies, books, etc. and borrow from that type of inspiration in our own works is typically the status quo of any era i would presume. Why would the bible be any different?

Jesus is viewed differently in different cultures, and I guess this is due to both popularity and specific cultural values. The French valuing wine and Italians valuing olives might seem insignificant in relation to biblical interpretations, but each cultures values help determine the way we write and how we present and characterize people, places, and things. I had never given much thought to this prior to a few years ago. Mimesis is a new term to me, but I think I understand the implications. I can't disagree.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
I don't see how the faith is defended by apologists who say that some things in the NT are myth, legends or folklore.

I draw a difference between an apologist whose objective is to defend the faith, and critical scholars who while remaining faithful, try to determine the intent of the author's narrative.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
I draw a difference between an apologist whose objective is to defend the faith, and critical scholars who while remaining faithful, try to determine the intent of the author's narrative.

I imagine that apologists want to determine the meaning in the narrative and the intent of it.
The intent would no doubt be different for an apologist compared to a critical scholar since they might begin with different attitudes to the text and when it might have been written.
 
Top