Mark knew the Sheperd of Hermas therefore...

[Secret Alias]

Why is the answer to my question - 7 paragraphs of gibbledy gook. Can't you just summarize your reasoning in a few lines or a paragraph? Advantage to getting a good education.

[Giuseppe]

Simple. There is no trace in the Sheperd of Hermas about a Gospel Jesus.

That Hermas talks about a beloved son and heir just as Mark does may be a coincidence.


That Hermas talks about a beloved son and heir just as Mark does, in a PARABLE, is not more a coincidence.

[Secret Alias]

That's a stupid argument. Most early citations of the gospel do not make clear they are citing from "a" or "the" gospel.

[Ben C. Smith]

Simple. There is no trace in the Sheperd of Hermas about a Gospel Jesus.

That Hermas talks about a beloved son and heir just as Mark does may be a coincidence.


That Hermas talks about a beloved son and heir just as Mark does, in a PARABLE, is not more a coincidence.

I think it is a mistake to assume that anyone who knew of an historical Jesus would necessarily lean into that historical figure and embrace him in his or her own texts.

The historical figure of Jesus can easily be seen as an early embarrassment for Christians, not a concept which an author might necessarily feel compelled to indulge in. I think that antiquity generally valued religions which were either (A) powerful in their own right or (B) of ancient origin. The Roman emperor cult was not ancient, but it revered the most powerful figure in the world, the ruler of land and sea across the Mediterranean basin. Judaism and other cults were not powerful in their own right, but they were (at least perceived to be) very ancient. Christianity was neither; it was a novelty on the world stage, and it revered some schmuck who got himself crucified in a backwater province. Christianity solved the first issue, its novelty, by claiming to be the legitimate heir of Judaism. It solved the second issue, its humble roots, by focusing on the current status of Jesus in the heavenly places, or as an angelic being, or as a preexistent god. The Shepherd may well do the latter; the Christian apologists of centuries II and III certainly did.

[Giuseppe]

I am talking about the GOSPEL Jesus as the thing being ignored, here. Not about a historical Jesus.

[Secret Alias]

You're not listening to what Ben is saying. This is typical of you as you want to limit what is possible in the interpretation of material for purely selfish reasons.

[MrMacSon]

That's a stupid argument. Most early citations of the gospel do not make clear they are citing from "a" or "the" gospel.

You're assuming the author of the Shepherd of Hermas was citing from a gospel, the gospel attributed to Mark (?)

There are indications Shepherd - well, at least Parable 5 - was a simpler series of narratives than the more elaborate or complicated gospel of Mark, as my first post on this thread suggests. Why would someone have deconstructed narratives about Jesus of Nazareth?

[Ben C. Smith]

There are indications Shepherd was a simpler series of narratives than the more elaborate or complicated gospel of Mark, as my first post on this thread suggests.

If you think that the degree of simplicity or complexity in a text is a good indicator of it being early or late, you will need to provide evidence for this supposition. E. P. Sanders tested several such proposed criteria (degree of detail, overall length, degree of Semitism, and so on) in The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition, and most of them did not hold up very well.

[Giuseppe]

You're not listening to what Ben is saying. This is typical of you as you want to limit what is possible in the interpretation of material for purely selfish reasons.

I am seeing that your role here, apart show usually a bit of contempt against my presumed arrogance, is to defend the credibility of Ben's comments as if Ben had need of an advocate or of an apologist.

[MrMacSon]

There are indications Shepherd - well, at least parable 5 - was a simpler series of narratives than the more elaborate or complicated gospel of Mark, as my first post on this thread suggests.

If you think that the degree of simplicity or complexity in a text is a good indicator of it being early or late, you will need to provide evidence for this supposition.

I'm not asserting 'the degree of simplicity or complexity in a text is a good indicator of it being early or late'. But I have compared Parable 5 of Shepherd of Hermas to Mark 12. See http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 06#p101006 on the previous first page of this thread.

E. P. Sanders tested several such proposed criteria (degree of detail, overall length, degree of Semitism, and so on) in The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition, and most of them did not hold up very well.

In what context did E. P. Sanders test several such proposed criteria (degree of detail, overall length, degree of Semitism, and so on) [in The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition]?