The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark: A Critical Review
This paper reviews Dennis McDonald's The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (2000), which argues that the author of the first gospel used Homer's Iliad and Odyssey as literary models — a claim that challenges orthodox Christian scholarship. The paper provides a detailed chapter-by-chapter summary of McDonald's thesis, tracing the parallels he draws between Jesus and figures such as Odysseus, Hector, and Achilles, and between the disciples and Odysseus's crew. It then offers a critical analysis, weighing the strengths and significant weaknesses of McDonald's argument, particularly the absence of direct evidence and the considerable differences between Homeric heroes and the figure of Jesus.
- Introduction to McDonald's Thesis: Overview of McDonald's hypotext argument and main claims
- Chapter-by-Chapter Summary of Key Parallels: Odyssey parallels to disciples, Temple rulers, and miracles
- The Passion Narrative and the Iliad: Hector's death and burial as model for the Passion
- The Resurrection and the Homeric Underworld: Empty tomb parallels to Hades and unrecognized returns
- Critical Analysis of McDonald's Argument: Weaknesses in evidence and limits of thematic comparison
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Provides thorough, chapter-by-chapter coverage of a complex scholarly monograph, giving readers a reliable roadmap through McDonald's argument.
- Balances neutral summary with pointed critical analysis, clearly distinguishing what McDonald claims from what the reviewer finds persuasive or unconvincing.
- Uses specific textual examples — the Legion exorcism, the Sons of Thunder, foot-anointing, and the Transfiguration — to ground abstract claims about literary borrowing in concrete evidence.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective scholarly book review structure: it first summarizes the source's argument faithfully before mounting a separate, clearly labeled critique. The critical analysis section identifies the core methodological weakness — absence of direct evidence and reliance on thematic similarity alone — without dismissing the thesis outright, showing intellectual balance appropriate to academic writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a concise statement of McDonald's central thesis and its significance, moves through a long chapter-by-chapter summary organized around Odyssey parallels and then Iliad parallels, and closes with a critical analysis section that evaluates the thesis on its own terms before identifying its limitations. The two-part structure (summary followed by analysis) is clearly signaled, making the argumentative flow easy to follow.
Introduction to McDonald's Thesis
Dennis McDonald's The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (2000) is a book that was always guaranteed to upset orthodox Christian theologians and biblical literalists everywhere, since its main thesis holds that the author of the first gospel used the Iliad and the Odyssey as literary models. McDonald compares Mark to the apocryphal Acts of Andrew, a Gnostic book, and describes it as a "hypotext" that "relies somehow on a written antecedent" (McDonald, p. 2). Specifically, he argues that Mark used Books 22 and 24 of the Iliad as models for the death and burial of Jesus — passages in which Achilles brutally kills Hector and then releases the body to his father, King Priam of Troy. Hector's soul went to Hades and never returned, but Jesus, of course, was resurrected on the third day, even if his rather dim disciples in Mark initially failed to recognize him.
The Iliad was one of the most familiar texts in the ancient world, at least among the educated elite, and McDonald attempts to make the case that Mark must have borrowed from it. He maintains, however, that the Odyssey was the more important model, with Jesus playing the role of King Odysseus and his disciples representing the frightened, confused, and not terribly bright crew of his ship. When Odysseus finally arrives home after many adventures in the Aegean Sea, he finds that the suitors of Penelope have been eating him out of house and home while he was off fighting the Trojan War. In Mark, these suitors represent the evil and corrupt Temple authorities in Jerusalem — the scribes, priests, and Pharisees who collaborate with the Romans and conspire with Pilate to have Jesus executed. Jesus takes direct action against them when he drives the moneychangers out of the Temple, though he naturally does not employ the same lethal force as Odysseus. Mark's Jesus is described as "more compassionate, powerful, noble, and inured to suffering" than the Greek warrior-king (McDonald, p. 6).
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.