...answers to this:
It is part and parcel of the non-sense of the life.
...answers to this:
It is part and parcel of the non-sense of the life.
Hermas could indeed support your datingGiuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 5:34 amok (for me Hermas is not only an old text, but even a text with mythicist evidence), but my point above is that Mark follows Hermas, accordingly Mark dates still to mid 2nd.davidmartin wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 5:08 am It probably contains material from the late 1st century to mid 2nd as an anthology
It is very hard to say what or whom Hermas knows:davidmartin wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:44 ambut Hermas lacks gospel information. it doesn't seem to know Mark or other gospels??? it knows Paul
It may be worth noting that, in Lecture VIII of his 1913 Bampton Lectures, published as The Church of Rome in the First Century, George Edmundson argued that the Shepherd "bears every mark from internal evidence of being a product of the Flavian age" (page 208 of the book). I think you would hate most of what Edmundson has to say about the Roman church in century I, honestly, but in this one respect perhaps you may find a measure of potential agreement.Hermas could indeed support your dating
Because i seriously doubt the mid 2nd century dating of it - i think it was in use a generation before and the church fathers are actually late-dating it in order to discount it (like with the Didache). they didn't want certain early documents to be preserved (along with Papias, Bel and the dragon, Preaching of peter and so on. And the Odes as well)
Andrew,andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 11:08 pm I've posted on this before. I accept the authenticity of the middle recension of Ignatius but I regard a date during the reign of Hadrian as more likely than that of Trajan.
Eusebius' dates for the early bishops of Antioch appear to be basically guesses.
Andrew Criddle
Sanhedrin 93b | Mark 14:65 |
Bar Koziba (Son of a Lie) reigned three and a half years, and then said to the Rabbis, 'I am the Messiah.' They answered, 'Of Messiah it is written that he smells and judges. Let us see whether he can do so.' When they saw that he was unable to judge by the scent, they slew him |
Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, “Prophesy!” And the guards took him and beat him |
Thankyou BenIt may be worth noting that, in Lecture VIII of his 1913 Bampton Lectures, published as The Church of Rome in the First Century, George Edmundson argued that the Shepherd "bears every mark from internal evidence of being a product of the Flavian age" (page 208 of the book). I think you would hate most of what Edmundson has to say about the Roman church in century I, honestly, but in this one respect perhaps you may find a measure of potential agreement.
Edmundson gives cause to doubt the report in the Muratorian Canon that "Hermas composed the Shepherd recently, in our own times, in the city of Rome, while his brother Pius the bishop was sitting in the chair of the city of Rome" (lines 74-76). He points out that, while the likes of the Liberian catalogue names the brother of Pius as Hermas/Hermes (frater eius Ermes), the Felician catalogue names his brother as Pastor (frater Pastoris). Now, given that the Latin title of the work is Liber Pastoris (= Book of Pastor = Book of the Shepherd), Edmundson suggests that the Latin title of the book was interpreted as naming its author instead of the angelic guide, and thus the author was thought to be Pastor, the brother of Pius. Hermas was also confused with the Shepherd, or Pastor, in pseudo-Tertullian, Carmen Adversus Marcionitas 3.387-389: "Then after him Pius, whose biological brother was Hermas, the angelic shepherd, because he spoke the words delivered to him (post hunc deinde Pius, Hermas cui germine frater angelicus pastor, quia tradita verba locutus).
While I'm personally happy with our host's estimated range, 65-80 CE, and within that range, not frightened off from the 60"s, I could see an argument for the mid-90's.What would be a likely late date or a late terminus ad quem? How far would you seriously go?
Inasmuch as I would like to contribute, I will not go near this can of worms.Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 10:55 am .
.
The starting point of my question is the dating probably prevailing among scholars, namely to the years 69/70.
--> What would be a likely late date or a late terminus ad quem? How far would you seriously go?
--> And what are your arguments? (Can you give another argument if your main argument would be the certainty that Mark was written after Marcion or after another „heretic“ of the second century and shows an anti-marcionite view.)