The Shepherd Of Hermas By Alvan Lamson 1865
For more Apocrypha see Over 100 Lost, Hidden, & Strange Books of the Bible on DVDROM, and Over 180 Forbidden & Lost Books of the Bible on CDROM
There is a Hermas mentioned by St. Paul (Romans xvi. 14), to whom this work has been attributed. It is undoubtedly an ancient writing. Eusebius speaks of it as publicly read in the churches, and Jerome tells us that it was read in some churches of Greece, that is, if we understand him, in his day, but that it was almost unknown to the Latins. Both name Hermas as the reputed author, but neither affirms that he was so. Both speak with hesitation and reserve. The work is also quoted or referred to by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen. Justin Martyr does not quote it. It has been ascribed to the end of the first century. But Mr. Norton, who discusses the question of its date with his usual acuteness and learning, concludes from evidence furnished by a "fragment" of Christian antiquity published by Muratori in 1740, that it was "not written till about the year 150." [Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. i., Additional Notes, p. ccxlviii., etc.]
Bunsen, who also uses the Muratorian fragment, attributed by him to Hegesippus, arrives at a conclusion not very dissimilar. He supposes that the "fragment" was written about the year 170. It says of the Shepherd of Hermas, that it was written at Rome very recently, in our own times, by Hermas; while his brother Pius occupied the episcopal chair. Now, according to the vulgar chronology, Pius became Bishop of Rome A.D. 142; Bunsen makes the time of his episcopate to extend from A. D. 132 or 133 to 157. Either chronology, Bunsen's or the vulgar, would authorize Mr. Norton's inference in regard to the time of the composition. Bunsen, however, thinks that he is able to show, "from the book itself," that it was written in 139 or 140. This, if it be so, does not conflict very materially with Mr. Norton's opinion. But whether Ave adopt the year 140 or 150 as the date, is of little importance so far as concerns our present inquiry. We may safely refer its origin to about the middle of the second century, or a little earlier. It was written in Greek, but the original was long supposed to be lost, with the exception of a few fragments preserved in quotations; and until lately we have possessed it only in an ancient Latin translation. [The Greek text was first published at Leipsic in 1856, or rather in December, 1855, by Rudolph Anger, with a preface by William Dindorf, and more accurately by Tischendorf in Dressel's edition of the Apostolic Fathers, Leipsic, 1857. These editions were founded on a manuscript of Hermas discovered by the notorious Constantine Simonides at Mount Athos, three leaves of which, with a copy of the rest, he sold to the University of Leipsic. The defects of that manuscript, which is of the fifteenth century, and presents a very corrupt text, have been partially supplied by Tischendorf's great discovery of the "Codex Sinaiticus," which he assigns to the middle of the fourth century.] This manuscript was found in the monastery of St. Catharine, on Mount Sinai, in 1859, and contains the greater part of the Old Testament (in Greek), and the whole of the New, together with the Epistle of Barnabas, and about one fourth of the Shepherd of Hermas, in the original Greek. The two latter books, when the manuscript was written, appear to hare been classed, in some churches, with the canonical writings of the New Testament; though as to the production of Hermas, Niebuhr, as Bunsen tells us, used to say that he "pitied the Athenian Christians for being obliged to hear it read in their assemblies."
The work consists of three books, — Visions, Commands, and Similitudes, the two latter being communicated to the writer, as he says, by an angel in the guise of a shepherd; hence the title of the work. It is a wild book. The writer seems to have been, in some sense, an imitator of St. John in the Revelation, at least to have read the Apocalypse; and in his visions and similitudes he gives great license to his imagination. Mr. Norton's comparison of the work to Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress" is suggestive and forcible.
In a writing of such a character we can hardly expect to find much which admits of quotation, relating to the doctrines of a speculative theology. It has a great deal to say of God, and "living to God," of allegorical personages and angels, and little, in comparison, of Jesus Christ. God appears in it, and God only, as the Supreme and Infinite One, the sole independent creator and governor of the universe, who alone is eternal. The first Command begins: "First of all believe that there is one God, who created and formed all things out of nothing. He comprehends all, and is alone immense; who can neither be defined by words, nor conceived by the mind."
Similar phraseology ascribing the act of creation directly to God repeatedly occurs. Thus, "God, who dwelleth in heaven, hath made all things out of nothing"; — "who by his invisible power and his excellent wisdom made the world"; — who "ruleth over all things and hath power over all his creatures." Thus he is supreme, sole maker and governor of the universe. True, in the Similitude just quoted, the writer, referring to the name of the Son of God, says the "whole world is supported by it." This, if it do not point to the new spiritual creation under Christ its head, seems to conflict with what is elsewhere asserted, that God created and governs all things by a direct act of his power. Possibly the writer may have believed, according to the doctrine about that time beginning to develop itself, that the Father made use of the Son as his instrument in creating and ruling the world, though the prevailing form of expression throughout the work implies the contrary. Martini ascribes this belief to him.
Throughout the work, however, the highest titles and epithets are applied to God, never to the Son, who is subject, and receives all from the Father. Thus in the fifth Similitude: "Having blotted out the sins of his people, he showed to them the paths of life, giving them the law which he had received of the Father He is Lord of his people, having received all power from his Father."
By the "first created Spirit," in the following passage, eminent critics, Martini and Bunsen among the number, suppose is meant Christ. This seems to us incontestable. The passage, according to the text adopted by Martini, reads thus: "That Holy Spirit, which was created first of all, God placed in a body in which it should dwell, in a chosen body, as it pleased him." [Sim. v.c.6.]Bunsen varies the punctuation somewhat in the latter part of the passage, giving what he calls a "reconstituted text," which, however, does not affect what is said of the Spirit as "created first of all," the reading which he adopts, and which Archbishop Wake also follows.
["Created" (creatus). There is here a difference of reading. In the text of some editions we have infusus instead of creatus. Creatus, we conceive, has the best manuscript authorities in its favor. Martini says, that the old manuscript authorities have creatus, and that infusus is a later interpolation. Bunsen adopts creatus on the authority of the Dresden and other manuscripts. The Lambeth, Carmelite, and Vatican have creatus; and thus from a collection of manuscripts and editions Grabe corrects the text. (This is also the reading of the independent Latin version contained in the Codex Palatinus; and Dressel, in his edition of the Apostolic Fathers, adopts it as genuine. The Greek text of the passage in the manuscript of Simonides is peculiar, and, when compared with the old Latin versions, leads one to suspect that the original has been altered on dogmatic grounds. It is as follows: to pneuma to hagion to proon, to ktisan pasan ten ktisin, katokisen, ho theos eis sarka en ebouleto "the preexisting holy spirit which created the whole creation God caused to dwell in a body which he chose." The Ethiopic version, which gives a very free rendering of the whole chapter, reads, "The holy spirit which created all things dwelt in a body which he chose." The fragment of Hermas contained in the Codex Sinaiticus does not include this passage. — Ed.) See Notes to the Amsterdam and recent Paris editions; also Bunsen, Christianity and Mankind, vol. i. pp.211, 212 (Hippolytus); Martini, Versuch, etc., p. 28. Archbishop Wake seems to have followed the Lambeth manuscript.]
The "Son of God," says Bunsen, "is the Holy Spirit." He claims that his explanation is neither Athanasian nor Arian; certainly it is not Athanasian. It savors strongly of Arianism, however, as it makes Christ a created being, and possibly this work, ascribed to Hermas, may have been one of the ancient writings referred to by the Arians, when they asserted that their doctrine was that of the old Christians. The early Fathers, it is to be observed, frequently confounded the Son with the Spirit.
The following passage, which affirms the preexistence of the Son, but not his eternity, the Arians might have used without scruple. "This rock and this gate are the Son of God. I replied, Sir, how can that be? seeing the rock is old, but the gate new....He answered, The Son of God is indeed more ancient than any creature, so that he was in counsel with his Father at the creation of all things. But the gate is therefore new because he appeared in the last days, even the fulness of time." The preexistence of the Son, which is not distinctly asserted in Clement's Epistle, no doubt an earlier writing, here clearly enough appears.
For more Apocrypha see Over 100 Lost, Hidden, & Strange Books of the Bible on DVDROM, and Over 180 Forbidden & Lost Books of the Bible on CDROM
There is a Hermas mentioned by St. Paul (Romans xvi. 14), to whom this work has been attributed. It is undoubtedly an ancient writing. Eusebius speaks of it as publicly read in the churches, and Jerome tells us that it was read in some churches of Greece, that is, if we understand him, in his day, but that it was almost unknown to the Latins. Both name Hermas as the reputed author, but neither affirms that he was so. Both speak with hesitation and reserve. The work is also quoted or referred to by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen. Justin Martyr does not quote it. It has been ascribed to the end of the first century. But Mr. Norton, who discusses the question of its date with his usual acuteness and learning, concludes from evidence furnished by a "fragment" of Christian antiquity published by Muratori in 1740, that it was "not written till about the year 150." [Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. i., Additional Notes, p. ccxlviii., etc.]
Bunsen, who also uses the Muratorian fragment, attributed by him to Hegesippus, arrives at a conclusion not very dissimilar. He supposes that the "fragment" was written about the year 170. It says of the Shepherd of Hermas, that it was written at Rome very recently, in our own times, by Hermas; while his brother Pius occupied the episcopal chair. Now, according to the vulgar chronology, Pius became Bishop of Rome A.D. 142; Bunsen makes the time of his episcopate to extend from A. D. 132 or 133 to 157. Either chronology, Bunsen's or the vulgar, would authorize Mr. Norton's inference in regard to the time of the composition. Bunsen, however, thinks that he is able to show, "from the book itself," that it was written in 139 or 140. This, if it be so, does not conflict very materially with Mr. Norton's opinion. But whether Ave adopt the year 140 or 150 as the date, is of little importance so far as concerns our present inquiry. We may safely refer its origin to about the middle of the second century, or a little earlier. It was written in Greek, but the original was long supposed to be lost, with the exception of a few fragments preserved in quotations; and until lately we have possessed it only in an ancient Latin translation. [The Greek text was first published at Leipsic in 1856, or rather in December, 1855, by Rudolph Anger, with a preface by William Dindorf, and more accurately by Tischendorf in Dressel's edition of the Apostolic Fathers, Leipsic, 1857. These editions were founded on a manuscript of Hermas discovered by the notorious Constantine Simonides at Mount Athos, three leaves of which, with a copy of the rest, he sold to the University of Leipsic. The defects of that manuscript, which is of the fifteenth century, and presents a very corrupt text, have been partially supplied by Tischendorf's great discovery of the "Codex Sinaiticus," which he assigns to the middle of the fourth century.] This manuscript was found in the monastery of St. Catharine, on Mount Sinai, in 1859, and contains the greater part of the Old Testament (in Greek), and the whole of the New, together with the Epistle of Barnabas, and about one fourth of the Shepherd of Hermas, in the original Greek. The two latter books, when the manuscript was written, appear to hare been classed, in some churches, with the canonical writings of the New Testament; though as to the production of Hermas, Niebuhr, as Bunsen tells us, used to say that he "pitied the Athenian Christians for being obliged to hear it read in their assemblies."
The work consists of three books, — Visions, Commands, and Similitudes, the two latter being communicated to the writer, as he says, by an angel in the guise of a shepherd; hence the title of the work. It is a wild book. The writer seems to have been, in some sense, an imitator of St. John in the Revelation, at least to have read the Apocalypse; and in his visions and similitudes he gives great license to his imagination. Mr. Norton's comparison of the work to Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress" is suggestive and forcible.
In a writing of such a character we can hardly expect to find much which admits of quotation, relating to the doctrines of a speculative theology. It has a great deal to say of God, and "living to God," of allegorical personages and angels, and little, in comparison, of Jesus Christ. God appears in it, and God only, as the Supreme and Infinite One, the sole independent creator and governor of the universe, who alone is eternal. The first Command begins: "First of all believe that there is one God, who created and formed all things out of nothing. He comprehends all, and is alone immense; who can neither be defined by words, nor conceived by the mind."
Similar phraseology ascribing the act of creation directly to God repeatedly occurs. Thus, "God, who dwelleth in heaven, hath made all things out of nothing"; — "who by his invisible power and his excellent wisdom made the world"; — who "ruleth over all things and hath power over all his creatures." Thus he is supreme, sole maker and governor of the universe. True, in the Similitude just quoted, the writer, referring to the name of the Son of God, says the "whole world is supported by it." This, if it do not point to the new spiritual creation under Christ its head, seems to conflict with what is elsewhere asserted, that God created and governs all things by a direct act of his power. Possibly the writer may have believed, according to the doctrine about that time beginning to develop itself, that the Father made use of the Son as his instrument in creating and ruling the world, though the prevailing form of expression throughout the work implies the contrary. Martini ascribes this belief to him.
Throughout the work, however, the highest titles and epithets are applied to God, never to the Son, who is subject, and receives all from the Father. Thus in the fifth Similitude: "Having blotted out the sins of his people, he showed to them the paths of life, giving them the law which he had received of the Father He is Lord of his people, having received all power from his Father."
By the "first created Spirit," in the following passage, eminent critics, Martini and Bunsen among the number, suppose is meant Christ. This seems to us incontestable. The passage, according to the text adopted by Martini, reads thus: "That Holy Spirit, which was created first of all, God placed in a body in which it should dwell, in a chosen body, as it pleased him." [Sim. v.c.6.]Bunsen varies the punctuation somewhat in the latter part of the passage, giving what he calls a "reconstituted text," which, however, does not affect what is said of the Spirit as "created first of all," the reading which he adopts, and which Archbishop Wake also follows.
["Created" (creatus). There is here a difference of reading. In the text of some editions we have infusus instead of creatus. Creatus, we conceive, has the best manuscript authorities in its favor. Martini says, that the old manuscript authorities have creatus, and that infusus is a later interpolation. Bunsen adopts creatus on the authority of the Dresden and other manuscripts. The Lambeth, Carmelite, and Vatican have creatus; and thus from a collection of manuscripts and editions Grabe corrects the text. (This is also the reading of the independent Latin version contained in the Codex Palatinus; and Dressel, in his edition of the Apostolic Fathers, adopts it as genuine. The Greek text of the passage in the manuscript of Simonides is peculiar, and, when compared with the old Latin versions, leads one to suspect that the original has been altered on dogmatic grounds. It is as follows: to pneuma to hagion to proon, to ktisan pasan ten ktisin, katokisen, ho theos eis sarka en ebouleto "the preexisting holy spirit which created the whole creation God caused to dwell in a body which he chose." The Ethiopic version, which gives a very free rendering of the whole chapter, reads, "The holy spirit which created all things dwelt in a body which he chose." The fragment of Hermas contained in the Codex Sinaiticus does not include this passage. — Ed.) See Notes to the Amsterdam and recent Paris editions; also Bunsen, Christianity and Mankind, vol. i. pp.211, 212 (Hippolytus); Martini, Versuch, etc., p. 28. Archbishop Wake seems to have followed the Lambeth manuscript.]
The "Son of God," says Bunsen, "is the Holy Spirit." He claims that his explanation is neither Athanasian nor Arian; certainly it is not Athanasian. It savors strongly of Arianism, however, as it makes Christ a created being, and possibly this work, ascribed to Hermas, may have been one of the ancient writings referred to by the Arians, when they asserted that their doctrine was that of the old Christians. The early Fathers, it is to be observed, frequently confounded the Son with the Spirit.
The following passage, which affirms the preexistence of the Son, but not his eternity, the Arians might have used without scruple. "This rock and this gate are the Son of God. I replied, Sir, how can that be? seeing the rock is old, but the gate new....He answered, The Son of God is indeed more ancient than any creature, so that he was in counsel with his Father at the creation of all things. But the gate is therefore new because he appeared in the last days, even the fulness of time." The preexistence of the Son, which is not distinctly asserted in Clement's Epistle, no doubt an earlier writing, here clearly enough appears.
No comments:
Post a Comment