Every now and then an academic comes along with some wild ass theories that don’t find wide acceptance. They’re either ridiculed or ignored and sometimes, sadly, die in obscurity. Yet later they are found to be totally vindicated.
Dr. Dennis R. McDonald of the Claremont School of Theology and the Claremont Graduate University feels like a candidate for this distinction. He’s been making his rounds recently discussing his solution to “Synoptic Problem”…or how the first three canonical gospels are related…which he calls the “Q+\Papias” hypothesis. My interest in this supposed “lost gospel” theory, referred by historians as “Q”, has waned. There’s just too many unknowns to say anything definitive about it. But the most widely accepted theory is the “two source solution” to the “synoptic problem”: where Matthew and Luke relied on two sources, Mark and “Q”, to compose their gospels. McDonald’s “Q+\Papias Hypothesis” muddies the waters a bit (and is WAY too complicated to go into detail here), but it has been positively received, though not widely accepted.
But that’s not what makes McDonald controversial. He has argued, at times vehemently, that the gospels…most notably Mark…are heavily influenced by Homer. And I must admit, I find that some of his explanations stretch credulity. BUT, McDonald poses an interesting question and solution: no serious academic would mistake the gospels as accurate history even if there are REAL historical kernels contained within them. So where did Mark and others find the inspiration to rearrange the story to fit their needs? Homer seems as good of a candidate as any given his wide influence over the Greek-speaking world. If Mark was written for a Gentile audience, it would make sense to add themes and motifs that are recognizable to the reader/listener.
So while I might not find McDonald’s specific examples all that convincing, I think he’s touching on something important here. As he explained, if we can identify these Homeric influences, it adds another layer that can be stripped away from the text. In doing so, we come closer to what this “Q source” looked like, and as a result, we have a much greater understanding of the historical Jesus (at least in theory).
The Internet Ruined Everything 