Mark knew the Sheperd of Hermas therefore...

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Mark knew the Sheperd of Hermas therefore...

Post by DCHindley »

MrMacSon,

I tried to find a google books version with some sort of preview. One from 2001 was upside down but a 2009 paperback edition was searchable. I guess the Shepherd of Hermas was only mentioned in passing one time. I guess Sanders was only interested in the transmission of sayings of Jesus that were attributed to him, not parables that are similar to his but not attributed to him.

I think you were more interested in the topic involved (vineyard, master, son, faithful slave), but situations involving rich landlords and their estate slaves or tenants would have been familiar to at least half the population just about everywhere.

In Judea and Syria, elite estate owners hired tenants to farm the acreage, but the household servants and management would have been slaves and freedmen. I believe that in Rome most of the staff, farmers and servants, would be slaves.

The idea was, masters of households dangled the reward of freedom (manumission of some kind) before the slaves as an inducement to work hard and please their masters. For some it came true, but that would be true both in Rome as well as Palestine. I am just having a hard time imagining an elite master's son being OK with co-inheritance.

Meaning the slave would be manumitted with a legacy from the master's estate, which would require the master getting the OK from the so/heir (he has rights under Roman law), but this was not unusual in the upper echelons of Roman aristocracy.

The OK from the legal heir usually came with strings attached. Rich masters often owned several large gift estates, so this would be one of many.

The manumitted slave would become a freedman of the household, and in some households controlled large business enterprises for their former masters. The son would still be able to live luxuriously and the slave, as co-heir, continues to run the estate as he always did, but as a free man.

I don't think the master would normally be expected to adopt the manumitted slave, though.

DCH
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Mark knew the Sheperd of Hermas therefore...

Post by neilgodfrey »

Giuseppe wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 7:50 am Hermas is calling the Spirit as «beloved son» and «heir»

. . . . .

Please, note the difference: Hermas didn't know Mark, but Mark knew Hermas.

Hence Mark was written after Hermas.

The Muratorian Canon (44) states the Shepherd was written when Hermas’s brother, Pius (traditionally dated c. 140—c. 154 CE), was the bishop of Rome.

Therefore Mark was written after that time.
The term "beloved son" was effectively a technical term for a sacrificial in some Jewish circles: Again, see Jon D. Levenson, Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: https://vridar.org/series-index/death-a ... -levenson/

Both the Shepherd and "Mark" quite conceivably drew upon that other "tradition".
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Mark knew the Sheperd of Hermas therefore...

Post by MrMacSon »

Cheers DCH.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Mark knew the Sheperd of Hermas therefore...

Post by MrMacSon »

neilgodfrey wrote: Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:53 pm The term "beloved son" was effectively a technical term for a sacrificial in some Jewish circles: Again, see Jon D. Levenson, Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: https://vridar.org/series-index/death-a ... -levenson/
Did you mean to include a noun after sacrificial, Neil? eg. victim? entity? person?

As a reflection of Genesis 22?
Post Reply