Dr. Dennis R. MacDonald is the author of Synopses of Epic, Tragedy, and the Gospels (2022)
55 ratings averaging 4.8 stars, 90% are 5 stars, 6% are 4 Stars, therefore 96% are 4 stars are better
dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.38Qa2OWnfBxO-qhaJGVsDw.ZsR08qzrTBRS9tzLNtEp1JuNDQx4QwGNHiL0TnPxG2Y&dib_tag=se&keywords=Synopses+of+Epic%2C+Tragedy%2C+and+the+Gospels&qid=1738952609&sprefix=synopses+of+epic%2C+tragedy%2C+and+the+gospels%2Caps%2C87&sr=8-1
@Stephen
Here’s a book for your reading list.
Among its innovations are the incorporation of the lost Gospel Q+ and the rearrangement of the columns to reflect the historical evolution of the Synoptic tradition (Q+ → Mark → Matthew → Luke). What makes it a “MimeticSynopsis” is its concentration on literary imitations of classical Greek poetry to present Jesus as a hero who transvalues characters in the Homeric epics and Athenian tragedy.
Volume 2 is not a synopsis but a syncrisis, a comparison of the Acts of the Apostles with classical Greek literature. By applying the criteria of mimesis criticism, one can detect, for example, how Luke imitated the Homeric epics to rival Vergil’s Aeneid. This volume again contains original translations of the relevant ancient texts and includes Luke’s imitations also of Euripides’ Bacchae and Plato’s Socratic dialogues.
Mimetic Synopsis of Three Gospels of John, Volume 3, compares the three compositional stages that produced the Fourth Gospel: (1) the Dionysian Gospel, which extensively imitated Euripides’ Bacchae; (2) the Anti-Jewish Gospel; and (3) the Beloved Disciple Gospel.
Mark G. Bilby says, in a top review from the United States.
5 stars 564 pages of brilliance
I wrote a blurb for MacDonald’s Luke and the Politics of Homeric Imitation and collaborated with him on the multi-contributor Classical Greek Models of the Gospels and Acts and regional, national, and international several conference sessions devoted to his works. Mimesis Criticism needs to go mainstream, and it is, if the many publications of his students (Michael Kochenash, Christopher Zeichmann), collaborators (Chris Shea, Austin Busch, Courtney Friesen), and admirers (Chris Rosser) is any indication. This volume is a massive compilation of almost all the insights that MacDonald has pioneered as the leading practitioner of Mimesis Criticism. A must have.
Richard says
5 Stars, A Step Forward
For the uninitiated, a synopsis lays out the canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and, when appropriate, John) in parallel columns when they tell of similar events, sayings, and deeds. The gold standard among New Testament scholars is Kurt Aland’s Synopsis quattuor evangeliorm. MacDonald’s synopsis is its adventurous offspring. MacDonald sets out to address four shortcomings of Aland’s synopsis: 1) while Aland does not treat Luke and Act as being literarily connected, MacDonald does 2) while Aland assumes that there is only one edition of John, MacDonald entertains the idea of multiple editions, 3) in contrast to Aland’s limits in paralleling only the canonical gospels, MacDonald parallels other Jewish and Greek literature, and 4) unlike Aland, MacDonald does parallel Q (or Q+). This means that MacDonald has at least four additional sources from which to draw parallels than Aland does. The colored illustrations and charts are a treat for the eye when you come across them. It has to be admitted that MacDonald may be too adventurous here and there. Yet the lion’s share of his parallels will spark your imagination. If you made it this far in the review, then MacDonald’s synopsis is the conversation partner you’ve been looking for.
Steefe
Ah, here’s something that matches what I said this week.
Benny Hinrichs:
An indispensable lens into the Hellenistic influences on the New Testament / 5 stars
If you’re serious about learning about the New Testament, I would dare say that this volume is a mandatory companion to your studies. Really groundbreaking stuff. If you only consider Jewish influences, you’re missing out on a full 50% of the environment that the N T was written in. This three-volumes-in-one work lays bare the other 50%. Imagine if you read Narnia, but you only knew about fantasy and you had never heard of Christianity. That’s the kind of veil of ignorance this book seeks to dispel.
MacDonald is not dogmatic. He won’t stonewall and insist that every parallel highlighted is a certificate of literary pedigree. He acknowledges that this is a pioneering work and fully hopes that future publications will improve on its observations.
On top of that, Dennis is one of the sweetest people you’ll find. He doesn’t care whether you use this information for or against a particular creed, he just wants the public as educated on the topic as possible.
Really, if you want to know New Testament, slot this book into your arsenal posthaste!
Steefen:
He says,
If you only consider Jewish influences, you’re missing out on a full 50% of the environment that the N T was written in.
It must have been last night when I thought the same thing because I was trying to add that to my:
1) The Post-Akkadian Cuneiform Perspective of the Bible
2) The Post-Rosetta Stone Perspective of the Bible
but it couldn’t be the Post-Ancient Greek Perspective of the Bible because Ancient Greek was not deciphered in the 19th century and there was no major find (like the Amarna Letters) in the 20th Century.
Dennis is saying from the 5th to the 8th century (Byzantine), people saw these parallels even in the Gospel of Nicodemus.
The Gospel of Nicodemus, also known as the Acts of Pilate, is an apocryphal gospel purporting to derived from an original work written by Nicodemus, who appears in the Gospel of John as an acquaintance of Jesus. The title “Gospel of Nicodemus” is medieval in origin. Wikipedia
In the Enlightenment period in the West, we tried to verify the the New Testament. This didn’t happen in the East.
Dennis:
In the East, there was an understanding of literature, paradox, and symbolism.
They didn’t care about as much about historical reliability and scientifically verifiable.
The Enlightenment has blinded us to the art of early Christian narrative.
@hallo23779
1 year ago (edited)
6:30 circe wasnt cannibal
Steefen
Well, let’s see if you are right.
ChatGPT,
Regarding Circe, in Greek Mythology, was Circe involved in cannibalism at any time?
ChatGPT:
No, Circe was not involved in cannibalism in Greek mythology. She was a powerful sorceress best known for her role in The Odyssey, where she transformed Odysseus’ men into pigs but did not eat them. While there are cannibalistic figures in Greek mythology, such as the Laestrygonians (who devoured Odysseus’ crew) and Cronus (who swallowed his children), Circe herself was not depicted as a cannibal. Her magic was primarily used for transformation rather than consuming human flesh.
Steefen
So, why did she turn Odysseus’ men into pigs. Who were going to eat them?
ChatGPT:
Circe turned Odysseus’ men into pigs as a display of her magical power and possibly as a form of punishment or control, but there is no indication in The Odyssey that she intended to eat them. In Odyssey Book 10, when Odysseus’ men arrive at her island, Aeaea, she welcomes them with a feast that includes drugged wine. Once they drink, she uses her magic to transform them into swine, though they retain their human minds.
Unlike the Laestrygonians, who are outright cannibals, Circe does not harm the men beyond their transformation. Instead, after Odysseus confronts her (with the help of Hermes, who gives him the moly herb to resist her magic), she agrees to turn his men back into humans. She even becomes Odysseus’ lover and aids him on his journey home.
Her act of turning men into animals may symbolize dominance, a test of Odysseus, or even a commentary on human nature. However, there is no suggestion in The Odyssey that she or anyone else planned to eat the transformed men.
I saw my name so some points to consider.
1. A literate pagan would have used Greek in their education but these were Koine speakers and writers. It’s an open question whether or not they would have received a formal classical Greek education.
2. Even if they knew Homer in their education it is a separate question if they used Homer as a model in gospel composition. Some of the analogies are quite stretched. The demons were not turned into swine, they were placed into the swine. This has more to do with Jewish apocalypticism than Homer. Demons must be embodied!
3. Second Temple Judaism was Hellenized but one of the things we know least about were pedagogical practices. Most of the surviving literature was produced by anti-Hellenists.
4. Mark’s soteriology was similar to Paul’s but his Christology was different. Influence? Maybe.
5. Many are speaking with a level of confidence not warranted by the large gaps in our knowledge. Makes a good YouTube video. However…
6. Such rigid distinctions between the literal and the figurative are modern. The ancients had no such binary demarcations or genre classifications.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)