JOHNSON UNIVERSITY

THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS A BEST SELLERS REJECTION FROM THE CANON

SUBMITTED TO DR. CARL BRIDGES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF BIBL 5102 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

BY TIMOTHY JENKINS OCTOBER 30, 2012

INTRODUCTION

The New Testament canon consists of twenty-seven books from the first century of Christianity, yet this canon was not established during the lifetime of its authors. The canonization process took place over centuries, and during that time, many first and second century Christian writings were considered for inclusion or exclusion from the New Testament canon. An example of one such writing is The Shepherd of Hermas. The book takes its name from the angelic interpreter who appears to Hermas as a shepherd and primarily addresses the issue of postbaptismal sin and repentance. Although it experienced widespread popularity during the second and third century, the book was eventually excluded from the New Testament canon based primarily upon concerns in regards to its date and authorship.

DATE

While the exact date of The Shepherd of Hermas is not known, external and internal information provides some evidence as to when it was most likely written. The Muratorian Fragment attributes The Shepherd to the brother of Pius, the bishop of Rome circa A.D. 140-154. However, Irenaeus mentions The Shepherd favorably in Against Heresy, written circa A.D. 175, so it would seem that the books writing should be considered earlier than the mid second century. Because connection the apostles was important in determining how the early church viewed religious writings, Irenaeus would

likely not look as favorably on The Shepherd in terms of canon if its date were known to be from significantly after the apostolic period.1 Hippolytus potentially references The Shepherd in his quarrel with Callistus, alluding to teachings on a second repentance. If that were in fact a reference to The Shepherd, then it could be dated around the turn of the first century.2 Some scholars have even proposed a date as early as the 70s or 80s, though there does not seem to be significant evidence for such an early date.3 Considering what external evidence is available, The Shepherd of Hermas can be firmly placed in the late first century to early second century. Several references within The Shepherd of Hermas give potential clues to its dating. In Vision 2, Hermas is instructed to write two books and send one to Clement and another to Grapte. The Clement mentioned may be Clement of Rome, a leader of the church in Rome in the late first century and early second century. He authored 1 Clement, a letter written to the church at Corinth, circa A.D. 96.4 Mention of the apostles throughout The Shepherd may also provide clues for a possible date. In Vision 3, while the angelic visitor describes the church as a tower, the apostles, bishops, teachers, and deacons of the church are compared to properly fitting white stones. Some are said to still be alive while others have fallen asleep. Later, in Similitude 9, the apostles appear to all have died. These passages might indicate that The Shepherd was written at the end of the

1 Michael W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations (3d ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 447. Geoffrey Mark Hahneman, The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 38.
3 2

Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 447. Ibid.

first century and into the second century during the transition into the post-apostolic age. 5 The difference between Vision 3 and Similitude 9, in regards to the state of the apostles, can be understood in two ways. First, they can be understood as in agreement; the apostles have all fallen asleep, and those that are still alive in Vision 3 should be understood as the bishops, teachers, and deacons. Second, the differences can be understood as indicating that parts of The Shepherd have been written at two different points in time. Some scholars, including Michael Holmes and Bruce Metzger, contend that it may be best to understand The Shepherd of Hermas 1-24 and 25-114 as having been written at two different times and circulated separately. 6 That the Michigan papyrus and the Sahidic Coptic versions both begin with Vision 5 could be evidence to a composite theory. Furthermore, Holmes cites discrepancies in numbering present in early copies as evidence, stating, "there are some discrepancies among the various versions in the numbering of the Parables and internal inconsistencies that indicate that Parables 9-10 are a later addition . . . added to unify and link the two separate sections."7 However, this is not an indication of multiple authors, but instead evidence that a single author wrote The Shepherd in stages.8 Metzger calls this composite theory the least unsatisfactory resolution of the apparent dating issues between the first and second half of The Shepherd. He envisions a possibility where Hermas was a younger contemporary of Clement and wrote the parts of The Shepherd over a period of time, which ended in his

Hahneman, Muratorian Fragment, 37-8. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 446-7. Ibid. Ibid.

gathering them as one volume in the middle of the second century. 9 Initially, it may be that The Shepherd circulated orally as opposed to in written form, which might also explain some of the discrepancies.10 Finally, it may be what The Shepherd lacks, as opposed to what it contains, that helps determine its dating. Clearly written to the Roman church, The Shepherd lacks any references to early documents written to the Roman church, namely the epistle to the Romans, the gospel of Mark, and the epistle of 1 Peter. If a failure to mention these documents can be considered an indication of writing date, then one could assume that The Shepherd of Hermas should not be considered a contemporary of the earlier documents. Furthermore, The Shepherd also lacks any references to prominent Roman teachers of the second century, namely Valentinus, Cerdo, Marcion, and Justin. Dating the book between the very late first century and early second century would create significant space between the early Roman Christian documents and the prominent Roman teachers, making the lack of references seem appropriate.11 In regards to available external evidence and internal evidence, the most probable date for The Shepherd of Hermas should be considered very late first century to early second century, placing The Shepherd firmly outside of the apostolic period and going into the post-apostolic period.

Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), 64.
10

Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 446. Hahneman, Muratorian Fragment, 39.

11

AUTHORSHIP

Autobiographically written, the author of The Shepherd of Hermas is identified simply as Hermas. This identification takes place in the opening vision of the book, Vision 1, when an old woman appears to Hermas and addresses him on behalf of God. The text describes Hermas as a freedman living in Rome. He was sold as a slave to a woman named Rhoda who later set him free. Other information regarding Hermas life detailed by The Shepherd include that he was married, acquired a fortune by the use of both lawful and unlawful means, was reduced to poverty, had children who apostatized from the Christian faith during persecution, and was betrayed by his children after their apostasy. 12 This internal information, however, does not suffice in identifying Hermas outside of The Shepherd of Hermas and within the world of the first and second century, and some speculate that the autobiographical information should be considered fictional. 13 However, because of support by many of the first and second century church fathers, the autobiographical details can be cautiously accepted as true. Tradition puts forth several theories as to the specific identity of Hermas, the author of The Shepherd. One theory, and the most unlikely theory, is that Paul authored The Shepherd. A transcriber of the Ethiopic version of The Shepherd makes this identification in a marginal note.14 This attribution is understood to be most likely due to Pauls comparison to the god Hermes in Acts 14:12.15 The theory of Pauline authorship

12

Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 446. Michael W. Holmes, Hermas, Shepherd of, DLNT. Hahneman, Muratorian Fragment, 46. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 446.

13

14

15

does not have a great deal of support in scholarship. Another theory regarding authorship, also sharing a connection to Paul, is that the author is the same Hermas addressed at the end of Rom 16:14. Origen is the earliest attributer of this theory, and his attribution is found in the Commentary on Pauls Epistle to the Romans.16 While Eusebius and Jerome both repeat this tradition, it is unlikely that the Hermas of Rom 16:14 is the same Hermas from The Shepherd. The dating of Romans is incompatible with the dating for The Shepherd of Hermas; the letter to the Romans is written too early, occurring around the mid first century. Moreover, the author makes no attempt to associate himself with the Hermas mentioned in Romans, and some scholars question whether the sixteenth chapter of Romans was even present in the original letter to the Romans. 17 As was previously mentioned, a third theory found in the Muratorian Fragment is that Hermas is the brother of Pius, bishop of Rome. Two other documents put forth the same attribution of Hermas as Pius brother, the Liberian Catalogue, an early list of popes up to Liberius, and an early Latin poem written against the Macionites, Carmen Adversus Marcionitas, which is attributed to Tertullian. 18 However, both of these documents are dated after the Muratorian Fragment and therefore should not be considered corroborating sources to the Muratorian Fragments proposed Hermas-Pius authorship theory. 19 Moreover, in addition to the absence of contemporary corroborating sources, there is likely no connection between the author and Pius based on many ill-fitting details present in the Muratorian Fragments proposed Hermas-Pius authorship theory. First, if the autobiographical details
16

Hahneman, Muratorian Fragment, 47. Ibid, 48. Ibid, 52. Ibid, 60.

17

18

19

can be believed, the slave Hermas family associations would not be known even to him, limiting the ability of the Muratorian Fragment to propose an association between Hermas and Pius. In addition, Geoffrey Hahneman also points out issues between the supposed brothers names, writing, Hermas is a Greek name, while Pius is Latin.20 Moreover, this theory suffers from an aforementioned dating issue, both external and internal information pointing to an earlier date than the time of Pius, bishop of Rome, and Vision 1 in The Shepherd of Hermas appears to describe a time before an established bishop in Rome.21 Some scholars have questioned if the attribution of Hermas as the brother of Pius, bishop of Rome, was in actuality a subtle attempt to discredit The Shepherd of Hermas.22 Unfortunately, the internal and external evidence relating to The Shepherd of Hermas ultimately only succeeds in eliminating the potential authors available, so the identity of Hermas cannot be conclusively stated. It appears that as early as the second century, if not before, the identity of The Shepherd of Hermas author is no longer known.

RECEPTION AND REJECTION

The Shepherd of Hermas was initially well received, experiencing wide popularity in the second and third century and producing more surviving copies of The Shepherd than many canonical writings.23 While only four incomplete manuscripts and several small fragments of the Greek text have been discovered, there are many copies of the text in
20

Hahneman, Muratorian Fragment, 52. Ibid, 38. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 447. Ibid, 442.

21

22

23

translations from a diverse group of regions. These copies include two Latin versions from the fourth and fifth century, respectively, two Coptic version, Sahidic and Achmimic, a periphrastic Ethiopic translation, and scraps in Middle Persian found among the Manichean texts from Turfan.24 Irenaeus, having the earliest known quotation of The Shepherd, places the quotation without citation among quotations from several New Testament books, and Clement of Alexandria, likewise, quotes The Shepherd in several works among quotes from New Testament books. 25 By Tertullians time, circa A.D. 160225, The Shepherd was translated into Latin, and Tertullian is first a proponent of the book until joining the Montanists, when he began criticizing it for a lax approach to repentance. 26 Tertullians rejection, however, should not be considered indication of widespread rejection, because The Shepherd continued to experience popularity and, as Jlicher notes, was treated by practically all the Greek theologians of the third century who had occasion to use it as a canonical document.27 Yet, widespread popularity does not equate canonization, and as the New Testament canon began to organically form, The Shepherd was repeatedly relegated to a lower status. Origens initial recognition of and eventual hesitation toward The Shepherd of Hermas serves as a better indicator of acceptance and rejection over Tertullians sectarian influenced rejection. Origens early writings indicate that he considered The Shepherd as

24

Metzger, Canon, 63. Hahneman, Muratorian Fragment, 61. Michael W. Holmes, Hermas, Shepherd of, DLNT. Adolf Jlicher, An Introduction to the New Testament (London: Smith, Elder, & Co., 1904),

25

26

27

521.

scripture, explicitly stating it as divinely inspired while noting that others despised it.28 However, by the time of his Homilies on Numbers, circa A.D. 246-54, and Homily I on Psalm 38, circa A.D. 247, he speaks, while still approvingly, with more hesitation. 29 Eusebius of Caesarea, circa A.D. 260-340, in Church History, documents the changing attitude toward The Shepherd. He designates the book to his third category of disputed books, and within that category, he relegates The Shepherd to a subcategory of books he considered not to be genuine. Other books in the group include the Acts of Paul, Apocalypse of Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, and the Didache.30 Other teachers and early documents seemed to have shared this hesitant attitude and relegation to secondary status. Some have interpreted the gap of nearly two columns in the Codex Sinaiticus, where The Shepherd follows the New Testament books as well as the Epistle of Barnabas, as suggesting secondary status, though others would argue that a similar gap after Acts disproves this theory.31 The Muratorian Canon lists the book as accepted for private reading but not for public reading, indicating that such a designation was due to its recent composition, which proved a lack of apostolic authorship.32 Athanasius, in the fourth century, shares a similar trajectory as Origen in regards to The Shepherd, first quoting it as canonical and then later tempering his opinion, stating that while The Shepherd is

28

Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 444. Hahneman, Muratorian Fragment, 65.

29

D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 734.
31

30

Hahneman, Muratorian Fragment, 67. Carson and Moo, Introduction, 736.

32

recommended for catechumens, it is not in the canon.33 This declining favor of The Shepherd of Hermas was owed entirely to its late writing date and ongoing questions regarding authorship. While The Shepherd enjoyed favor in regards to its theology and devotional worth, its lack of apostolicity could not be overcome. As theories of Pauline authorship gave way to other theories of authorship, The Shepherds lack of connection to the apostles became apparent. With ongoing relegation to secondary status, due to its relatively late writing date and questions regarding authorship, The Shepherd of Hermas was rejected from the canon of the New Testament, and experienced continual decline in popularity as history progressed.

CONCLUSION

The Shepherd of Hermas, written in the very late first century to very early second century, experienced wide success in the early years of the Christian faith. Even into the fourth century, copies of the book were being written, read, and studied in the Western, Eastern, and North African Church, and its passages are quoted in the works of early Christian church fathers alongside passages from New Testament books. However, in spite of this popularity, The Shepherd of Hermas was ultimately rejected from the New Testament canon. The reason for its rejection is tied to its date and authorship. Having been written at the earliest in the transitional period between the apostolic and postapostolic period, and lacking clear authorship identity, The Shepherd of Hermas was not viewed as trustworthy enough to ultimately be considered as canon alongside works with clear apostolic connection. Although this did not stop The Shepherd from being recommended for devotional and catechetical use, its relegation to secondary status
33

Metzger, Canon, 65.

10

limited The Shepherds widespread usage and led to its decline in popularity, eventually ending in relative obscurity. Considering the questions regarding authorship, in addition to its late dating, relative to the other New Testament writings, its rejection from the canon seems appropriately fitting.

11

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Carson, D.A., and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005. Charweis, D.D., A.H. Canonicity: A Collection of Early Testimonies to the Canonical Books of the New Testament. Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, 1880. Ehrman, Bart D. Lost Scriptures: Books That Did Not Make It Into the New Testament. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament and Other Early Christian Writings: A Read. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Farmer, William R., and Denis M. Farkasfalvy. The Formation of the New Testament Canon: An Ecumenical Approach. Ramsey, N.J.: Paulist Press, 1983. Hahneman, Geoffrey Mark. The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Holmes, Michael W. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. 3d ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Jlicher, Adolf. An Introduction to the New Testament. London: Smith, Elder, & Co., 1904. Martin, Ralph P., and Peter H. Davids, eds. Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments. Electronic ed. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000. Metzger, Bruce M. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987. Myers, Allen C. Hermas, Shepherd of Page 481 of The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.

12