Quels livres Marc a-t-il lus? in The Hibbert Journal, april 1932.

[Giuseppe]

[Giuseppe]

[Giuseppe]

[Giuseppe]

[Giuseppe]

So Mark is based on Hermas, too.

Sic stantibus rebus, to move Mark after the 135 CE, there is not even need of assuming *Ev priority.

Hermas is a 'mythicist' text, by logical implication.

This Couchoud's argument corroborates what we already know thanks to Earl Doherty (Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, pages 270-272):

For all its length, the names of Jesus and Christ are never used. (The sole appearance of "Christ" in one manuscript is thought to be an emendation of "Lord," meaning God, which appears in other manuscripts.) The writer refers to a "Son of God" who is a highly mystical figure devoid of human features. Sometimes the Son is equated with the Holy Spirit or the Jewish Law. There is no sense of a Son with a distinct personality, biography or role separate from longstanding ways of thinking about God's dealings with the world. He is part of the paraphernalia of Heaven, the way Wisdom is portrayed in broader circles of Jewish expression. He is older than all creation, the Father's counselor (Parable 9, 12:1). He "supports the whole world" (14:5). Parable 9 tells of the building of a heavenly tower representing the church. The Son is the foundation rock and the gate; one cannot enter this tower, this Kingdom of God, except through his Son. All this is a reflection of that underlying concept encountered at every turn throughout the early Christian period: that God is known and accessible only through his emanations, through the intermediary Son. Salvation comes to those who are "called through his Son" (Parable 8, 11:1). Of a death and resurrection there is not a whisper in the entire document.

Hermas treats the "church," the body of believers, as a mystical entity. It is God himself who has created the church (Vision 1, 1:6), including its pre-existent prototype in heaven. There is constant reference to the "elect of God," with no tradition about a church established by Jesus. Nothing which could fit the Gospel ministry is referred to. The writer can speak of "apostles" but never associate them with an historical figure who appointed them; there is no tradition of anything going back to such a figure. Instead, "apostles and teachers preach the name of the Son of God" (Parable 9, 16:5), in the same way that Paul and other Christian prophets preach the divine Christ.

The central section of the Shepherd discusses a great list of moral rules, some resembling the teachings of the Gospels, but no attribution is made to Jesus. A passage in the Fifth Parable (6:3) has the Son "cleansing the sins of the people," but this precedes his "showing them the ways of life and giving them the Law," and the former is never presented in terms of sacrifice or atonement. The 'giving of the Law' is through spiritual channels, for a later Parable states that the angel Michael (who in Parable 9 is yet another figure equated with the Son of God) has "put the Law into the hearts of those who believe." There is no preaching by an historical Son in evidence anywhere in this work.

In the same Fifth Parable, scholars think to find a reference to incarnation (verses 5-7) by making a link between the Son and "the Holy Spirit (which) God made to dwell in the flesh which he willed." But this link is not an obvious one, and in fact the text shows that the "flesh" in which the Spirit was sent to dwell does not refer to the Son, but to believers, who do not defile the Spirit while it dwells in them; that "flesh" is given a reward in heaven ("all flesh in which the Holy Spirit has dwelt shall receive a reward if it be found undefiled and spotless"), which is hardly a reference to the Son himself.

This writer is rooted in Hellenistic-Jewish mythology with its picture of a heaven in which different forces form part of the workings of divinity. The Son is one of many figures in a class photo which includes the Holy Spirit and angels of several ranks, and these are occasionally allowed to merge into one another. As Charles Talbert puts it (op.cit., p.432), "the Savior is described basically in terms of an angelology which has coalesced with the categories of Son and Spirit." The word "category" is apt, for Hermas is dealing with philosophical concepts here, not an historical figure who was God's incarnation. Had he possessed any idea of the Son as a human personality who had walked the earth in recent memory, suffered and died and resurrected outside Jerusalem to redeem humanity, he could never have buried him in this densely obscure heavenly construct and allowed the entire picture 'recorded' in the Gospels to evaporate into the mystical wind.

(my bold)

[Sinouhe]

I don’t see a real connection between the parable of Mark and the parabole of Hermas. I think Adam Winn Is right when he says that it was a rewriting of a passage from the book of Kings. I can privide you his explanation if you want.

I also disagree with his explanation of the young man running away naked. It is clearly a pesher of Amos 2 since in Mark 14, we find 2 striking parallels with 2 verses of the same chapter of Amos.

[Giuseppe]

Adam Winn Is right when he says that it was a rewriting of a passage from the book of Kings. I can provide you his explanation if you want.

can you quote him? Thanks. A comparison would be useful, along the probabilistic approach tempted by Couchoud.

In whiletime, I note that in Hermas too there is adoptionism. Mere coincidence?

[neilgodfrey]

I don’t see a real connection between the parable of Mark and the parabole of Hermas. I think Adam Winn Is right when he says that it was a rewriting of a passage from the book of Kings. I can privide you his explanation if you want.

I also disagree with his explanation of the young man running away naked. It is clearly a pesher of Amos 2 since in Mark 14, we find 2 striking parallels with 2 verses of the same chapter of Amos.

That was my first reaction, too. But Couchoud does have a reply:

The prophecy of Amos has no application here. It does not fit the text well, for in Mark the young man is not "the bravest" (he is not the one who struck the sword) and in Amos it is not said that the warrior "gives up" a garment.

translated from

La prophétie d’Amos n’a pas ici d’application. Elle s’adapte mal d’ailleurs, au texte car dans Marc le jeune homme n’est pas “ le plus courageux ” (ce n’est pas lui quia donné le coup d’épée) et dans Amos il n’est pas dit que le guerrier “ abandonne ” un vêtement.

[Sinouhe]

Adam Winn Is right when he says that it was a rewriting of a passage from the book of Kings. I can provide you his explanation if you want.

can you quote him? Thanks. A comparison would be useful, along the probabilistic approach tempted by Couchoud.

In whiletime, I note that in Hermas too there is adoptionism. Mere coincidence?

5E34BB2F-378B-4EBC-97E1-4CCAD8CBEDC6.jpeg (1.39 MiB) Viewed 1237 times

1A3434AD-5F77-4DF9-B95C-1A39510F654B.jpeg (2.19 MiB) Viewed 1237 times

A2A1923A-D76C-4694-9A9F-07B8613D55A9.jpeg (1.97 MiB) Viewed 1237 times

[Sinouhe]

4B05C60C-E0C3-4286-839B-D76A9ACFA751.jpeg (3.13 MiB) Viewed 1237 times

349CCFF7-49FF-4877-8E86-EAC356B4C188.jpeg (2.21 MiB) Viewed 1237 times

89A93CAC-DC59-4376-9A08-ADF12DAD8889.jpeg (2.24 MiB) Viewed 1237 times