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

[Sinouhe]

7949D69D-E4CF-484C-90C9-56E0247D6725.jpeg (1.63 MiB) Viewed 2039 times

7C5F1780-B35B-40E5-AD29-226A44ECF6C3.jpeg (2.59 MiB) Viewed 2039 times

684280F1-EFD0-4F7C-A7FD-AC4B4A14B347.jpeg (2.02 MiB) Viewed 2039 times

[Giuseppe]

What Winn has done is having Mark who derives the parable from Isaiah.

But in p. 34 Couchoud concedes that Mark was based also on Isaiah, just as he concedes that Hermas is based on Isaiah. Even so, Couchoud says that the similarities in details between the two parables are so striking that they can't be explained only by appealing to a common use of Isaiah. Hermas had to have read Mark, or Mark had to have read Hermas. A probabilistic approach gives finally the answer: Mark is based on Hermas because there is an evident accretion of titles for the son, whereas the contrary is surely less expected (that Hermas would have removed some divine titles from the parable as found in Mark, without a reason to do so).

[Sinouhe]

What Winn has done is having Mark who derives the parable from Isaiah.

But in p. 34 Couchoud concedes that Mark was based also on Isaiah, just as he concedes that Hermas is based on Isaiah. Even so, Couchoud says that the similarities in details between the two parables are so striking that they can't be explained only by appealing to a common use of Isaiah. Hermas had to have read Mark, or Mark had to have read Hermas. A probabilistic approach gives finally the answer: Mark is based on Hermas because there is an evident accretion of titles for the son, whereas the contrary is surely less expected (that Hermas would have removed some divine titles from the parable as found in Mark, without a reason to do so).

No, Adam Winn said Mark borrowed Isaiah but mostly the Book of Kings.

[Giuseppe]

No, Adam Winn said Mark borrowed Isaiah but mostly the Book of Kings.

the use of Jehu's rebellion in 2 Kings to explain the tragical death of the son in Mark is a mere corollary of Mark having well in the background the just happened destruction of Jerusalem, going to be compared to the rebellion of Jehu etc. Couchoud doesn't deny that if the parable has taken a different and more tragical final in Mark, then it is caused by the Mark's focus on the destruction of Jerusalem (which has moved Mark to use, Winn docet, also 2 Kings). Even so, Couchoud's point remains all: the similarities between the two parables impose a relation along the lines Hermas---> Mark and not vice versa.

[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.

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.

Yes that's the common answer regarding the connection with Amos. But these scholars, like Couchoud, seems to ignore another verse from the equation and the whole context of Amos 2 :

Capture d’écran 2022-05-01 à 12.06.21.png (65.22 KiB) Viewed 2015 times

Amos 2 is about YHWH being angry against Israel because of their iniquities (by example they sold the righteous for money).
Then, god promise to Israel that he will punish them.

We know that Mark borrowed the prophets to prove that Israel was punished and the temple destroyed because of their iniquities.
That's exactly what we find in Amos 2.

--> A righteous being sold for money is exactly what Judas did with Jesus the righteous one.
--> A brave flying naked is exactly what this young man did in Mark 14.

And of course, a pesher is not meant to have the exact same meaning or context in both texts. Mark actualize Amos 2 regarding his life of Jesus. That's exactly what Qumran did with the pesharim regarding the life of the teacher of Righteousness.

Moreover :

• The word ἀργυρίου only appear here in the whole Gospel of Mark.

• The word γυμνὸς only appear here in the whole Gospel of Mark.

-----------------------------------------

In addition, as you certainly already know it, we had in Amos 2:12 another probable connection with Mark's passion narrative :

Amos 2:12
"“But you made the Nazirites drink wine"

who refer likely to Mark 15:23

Mark 15:23
Then they offered him wine mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it.

+ Amos 8:9 a likely connection with the eclipse in Mark :

Amos 8:9
“In that day,” declares the Sovereign Lord,
“I will make the sun go down at noon and darken the earth in broad daylight"

Mark 15:33
At noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon.

[Sinouhe]

No, Adam Winn said Mark borrowed Isaiah but mostly the Book of Kings.

Even so, Couchoud's point remains all: the similarities between the two parables impose a relation along the lines Hermas---> Mark and not vice versa.

I agree with that and i have absolutely no problem to imagine that Mark borrowed Hermas, or Josephus.
The author of Hermas clearly didn't read the gospels.
But in my opinion, the connections between Mark and Hermas are too superficial.

[Giuseppe]

Mark 4:11-12, so a milestone for Mark, would be based on Hermas:

l’idée que les paraboles sont par elles-mêmes incompréhensibles et qu’elles ne sont expliquées qu’à des auditeurs choisis (Mc. iv. 10-12, 34). C’est l’idée même d’Hermas. Le prophète Hermas dit au Pasteur (Sim. v. 3,1) : “Je ne saisis pas ces paraboles et ne puis les comprendre si tu ne me les expliques pas (...).” Le Pasteur répond : “ Je t’expliquerai tout (...).” Marc de même dit que Jésus en particulier expliquait tout (...) à ses disciples.” Chez le prophète Hermas cette théorie des paraboles est fondamentale. Chez Marc, au contraire, elle parait empruntée, car elle n’est pas appliquée partout : la parabole des vignerons, par exemple, est laissée sans explication.
Si Marc a lu Hermas, il y a trouvé aussi l’expression : “ Je ne comprends rien et mon cœur est endurci (.... IV., 2, 1) ” qu'on retrouve chez Marc deux fois : “ Ils ne comprirent pas . . . mais leur cœur était endurci (...) ” (Mc. vi. 52) ; 44 Ne comprenez-vous pas ? Avez-vous le cœur endurci ?

The same Couchoud had found another explanation for Mark 4:11-12, as anti-marcionite secrecy:

The god of the Jews said, Aure audietis et non audietis (Is. vi. 9). Jesus, on the other hand, wishes all ears to be opened (Tertullian iv. 19). All should listen, since there is no longer anything hidden; everything is made clear.

(P.-L. Couchoud, Creation of Christ, p. 399)

But now I think that also in Hermas the secrecy is anti-marcionite in virtue of the same reason (secrecy being commanded by YHWH himself in Isaiah 6:9). Hermas insists on the flesh of the son even if Hermas doesn't know yet an earthly biography of the Son. Surely anti-docetism is in view here.

[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.

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.

Yes that's the common answer regarding the connection with Amos. But these scholars, like Couchoud, seems to ignore another verse from the equation and the whole context of Amos 2 :




Capture d’écran 2022-05-01 à 12.06.21.png




Amos 2 is about YHWH being angry against Israel because of their iniquities (by example they sold the righteous for money).
Then, god promise to Israel that he will punish them.

We know that Mark borrowed the prophets to prove that Israel was punished and the temple destroyed because of their iniquities.
That's exactly what we find in Amos 2.

--> A righteous being sold for money is exactly what Judas did with Jesus the righteous one.
--> A brave flying naked is exactly what this young man did in Mark 14.

And of course, a pesher is not meant to have the exact same meaning or context in both texts. Mark actualize Amos 2 regarding his life of Jesus. That's exactly what Qumran did with the pesharim regarding the life of the teacher of Righteousness.

Moreover :

• The word ἀργυρίου only appear here in the whole Gospel of Mark.

• The word γυμνὸς only appear here in the whole Gospel of Mark.

-----------------------------------------

In addition, as you certainly already know it, we had in Amos 2:12 another probable connection with Mark's passion narrative :

Amos 2:12
"“But you made the Nazirites drink wine"

who refer likely to Mark 15:23

Mark 15:23
Then they offered him wine mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it.

+ Amos 8:9 a likely connection with the eclipse in Mark :

Amos 8:9
“In that day,” declares the Sovereign Lord,
“I will make the sun go down at noon and darken the earth in broad daylight"

Mark 15:33
At noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon.

I want to add that in both Amos and Mark, Judas Iscariot and the sons of Juda are the ones being accused to sell the righteous for money :

Amos 2
4 This is what the Lord says:
“For three sins of Judah (Ιουδα), even for four, I will not relent.
Because they have rejected the law of the Lord
and have not kept his decrees, because they have been led astray by false gods,
5 I will send fire on Judah (Ιουδαν) that will consume the fortresses of Jerusalem.”
6 This is what the Lord says:
“For three sins of Israel, even for four, I will not relent.
They sell the innocent for silver,

Mark 14
10 Then Judas (Ἰούδας) Iscariot, one of the Twelve, went to the chief priests to betray Jesus to them.
11 They were delighted to hear this and promised to give him money.

-----> Judas Iscariot is the symbol of the wicked Jews in Mark 14.

+ if Mark didn't allude to Amos here, why Mark would tell us that a naked man fled away ?
It's so embarrassing that Luke and Matthew didn't reproduce the scene. It doesn't make sense except if you consider the Amos Pesher.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

VetteWritingWithScripture.jpg (240.18 KiB) Viewed 1979 times

I might also throw a snippet in here

[Sinouhe]

VetteWritingWithScripture.jpg

I might also throw a snippet in here

This book ?

951D67A5-9519-4A18-899F-5970DDE89C42.jpeg (30.85 KiB) Viewed 1971 times

I read the study that introduces the book, it was amazing. A real game changer.
But the book is unavailable here in France for the moment