Shepherd of Hermas/Introduction
From Saint Wiki
The Works of the Shepherd of Hermas
|
|---|
Introductory Note
[Translated by the Rev. F. Crombie, M.A.]
[AD 160.] The fragment known as the “Muratorian Canon” is the historic ground for the date I give to this author.[1] I desired to prefix The Shepherd to the writings of Irenæus, but the limits of the volume would not permit. The Shepherd attracted my attention, even in early youth, as a specimen of primitive romance; but of course it disappointed me, and excited repugnance. As to its form, it is even now distasteful. But more and more, as I have studied it, and cleared up the difficulties which surround it, and the questions it has started, it has become to me a most interesting and suggestive relic of the primitive age. Dr. Bunsen[2] calls it “a good but dull novel,” and reminds us of a saying of Niebuhr (Bunsen’s master), that “he pitied the Athenian[3] Christians for being obliged to hear it read in their assemblies.” A very natural, but a truly superficial, thought, as I trust I shall be able to show.
At first sight, Hermas might seem to have little in common
with Irenæus; and, on many accounts, it would be preferable to pair
him with Barnabas. But I feel sure that chronology forbids, and that
the age of Irenæus, and of the martyrs of Lyons and Vienne, is the
period which called for this work, and which accounts for its popularity
and its diffusion among the churches. Its pacific spirit in dealing
with a rising heresy, which at first was a puzzle to the Latins,[4]
which Pius was disposed to meet by this gentle antidote, with which
Eleutherus, in the spirit of a pacificator, tampered to his own hurt, and
by which Victor was temporarily compromised, met precisely what the case
seemed to demand in the judgment of Western Christians. They could not
foresee the results of Montanism: it was not yet a defined heresy. And
even the wise prudence of Irenæus shows anxiety not too hastily
to denounce it; “seeing,” as Eusebius affirms, “there
were many other wonderful powers of divine grace yet exhibited, even
at that time, in different churches.”
Bunsen pronounces magisterially on the Muratorian
fragment as an ill-translated excerpt from Hegesippus, written about
AD 165. This date may be
inaccurate, but the evidence is that of a contemporary on which we
may rely. “Very recently,” he says, “in our own
times, in the city of Rome, Hermas compiled The Shepherd; his
brother, Bishop Pius,[5] then sitting in the cathedra of the Roman Church.” With the
period thus assigned, the internal evidence agrees. It accounts for
the anti-Montanism of the whole allegory, and not less for the choice
of this non-controversial form of antidote. Montanism is not named;
but it is opposed by a reminder of better “prophesyings,”
and by setting the pure spirit of the apostolic age over against the
frenzied and pharisaical pretensions of the fanatics. The pacific
policy at first adopted by the Roman bishops, dictated, no doubt,
this effort of Hermas to produce such a refutation as his brother[6] might commend to the churches.
Let me present, in outline, the views which seem to me
necessary to a good understanding of the work; and as I am so
unfortunate as to differ with the Edinburgh editors, who are entitled,
primâ facie, to be supposed correct, I shall venture to apologize
for my own conceptions, by a few notes and elucidations.[7]
As Eusebius informs us, the charismata were
not extinct in the churches when the Phrygian imitations began to
puzzle the faithful. Bunsen considers its first propagators specimens
of the clairvoyant art, and pointedly cites the manipulations
they were said to practice (like persons playing on the harp), in proof
of this. We must place ourselves in those times to comprehend the
difficulties of early Christians in dealing with the
counterfeit. “Try the spirits,” said St. John; and St. Paul
had said more expressly, “Quench not the Spirit; despise
not prophesyings; prove all things,” etc. This very
expression suggests that there might often be something
despicable in the form and manner of uttering what was
excellent. To borrow a phrase of our days, “the human
element” was painfully predominant at times, even among those who
spoke by the Spirit. The smoke of personal infirmity discoloured
genuine scintillations from hearts in which still smouldered the fire
of Pentecostal gifts. The reticence of Irenæus is therefore not to be
marvelled at. He cautioned Eleutherus no doubt, but probably felt, with
him, that the rumours from Phrygia needed further examination. The
prophetic gifts were said to be lodged in men and women austere as John
the Baptist, and professing a mission to rebuke the carnal and
self-indulgent degeneracy of a generation that knew not the
apostles.
It would not be a very bold conjecture, that Hermas
and his brother were elderly grandchildren of the original Hermas,
the friend of St. Paul. The Shepherd, then, might be based upon
personal recollections, and upon the traditions of a family which
the spirit of prophecy had reproved, and who were monuments of its
power. The book supplies us with evidences of the awakened conscience
with which Hermas strove to “bless his household.” But,
be this as it may, this second Hermas, with his brother’s
approbation, undertakes to revive the memory of those primal days
portrayed in the Epistle to Diognetus, when Christians, though
sorrowful, were “always rejoicing.” He compiles
accordingly a non-metrical idyl; reproducing, no doubt, traditional
specimens of those “prophesyings,” on which St. Paul remarks.
Hence we infer, that such outpourings as became the subject of apostolic
censure, when they confused the order of the Corinthian Church,[8] were, in their
nobler examples, such “visions,” “mandates”
and “similitudes” as these; more or less human as to form,
but, in their moral teachings, an impressive testimony against heathen
oracles, and their obscene or blasphemous suggestions.
The permissive wisdom of the Spirit granting, while
restraining, such manifestations, is seen in thus counterbalancing
Sibylline and other ethnic utterances. (Acts xvi. 16–19.) With
this in view, Hermas makes his compilation. He casts it into an innocent
fiction, as Cowper wrote in the name of Alexander Selkirk, and introduces
Hermas and Clement to identify the times which are idealized in his
allegory. Very gently, but forcibly, therefore, he brings back the
original Christians as antagonists of the Montanistic opinions;
and so exclusively does this idea predominate in the whole work, as
Tertullian’s scornful comment implies, that one wonders to find
Wake, with other very learned men, conceding that the Pauline Hermas
was its actual author. Were it so, he must have been a prophet indeed.
No doubt those of the ancients who knew nothing of the origin of the
work, and accepted it as the production of the first Hermas, were
greatly influenced by this idea. It seemed to them a true oracle from
God, like those of the Apocalypse, though sadly inferior; preparing the
Church for one of its great trials and perils, and fulfilling, as did
the Revelation of St. John, that emphatic promise concerning the Spirit,
“He shall show you things to come.”
This view of the subject, moreover, explains historical
facts which have been so unaccountable to many critics; such as the
general credit it obtained, and that its influence was greater in the
East than among Latins. But once commended to the Asiatic churches by
Pius, as a useful instruction for the people, and a safeguard against
the Phrygian excesses, it would easily become current wherever the Greek
language prevailed. Very soon it would be popularly regarded as the work
of the Pauline Hermas, and as embodying genuine prophesyings of the
apostolic age. A qualified inspiration would thus be attributed to them,
precisely such as the guarded language of Origen[9] suggested
afterwards: hence the deutero-canonical repute of the book, read, like the
Apocrypha, for instruction and edification, but not cited to establish any
doctrine as of the faith.[10] It must be remembered, that,
although the Roman Church was at first a Grecian colony, and largely
composed of those Hellenistic Jews to whom St. Paul’s arguments
in his Epistle to the Romans were personally appropriate, yet in the
West, generally, it was not so: hence the greater diffusion of The
Shepherd written in Greek, through the Greek churches. There, too,
the Montanists were a raging pestilence long before the West really felt
the contagion through the influence of the brilliant Tertullian. These
facts account for the history of the book, its early currency and credit
in the Church. Nor must we fail to observe, that the tedious allegorizing
of Hermas, though not acceptable to us, was by no means displeasing
to Orientals. To this day, the common people, even with us, seem to be
greatly taken with story-telling and “similitudes,” especially
when there is an interpreter to give them point and application.
After reading Irenæus Against Heresies,
then, we may not inappropriately turn to this mild protest against the
most desolating and lasting delusion of primitive times. Most bitterly
this will be felt when we reach the great founder of “Latin
Christianity,” whose very ashes breathed contagion into the life
of such as handled his relics with affection, save only those, who,
like Cyprian, were gifted with a character as strong as his own. The
genius of Tertullian inspired his very insanity with power, and, to the
discipline of the Latin churches, he communicated something of the rigour
of Montanism, with the natural re-actionary relaxation of morals in actual
life. Of this, we shall learn enough when we come to read the fascinating
pages of that splendid but infatuated author. Montanism itself, and the
Encratite heresy which we are soon to consider in the melancholy case
of Tatian, were re-actions from those abominations of the heathen with
which Christians were daily forced to be conversant. These Fathers
erred through a temptation in which Satan was “transformed as an
angel of light.” Let us the more admire the penetrating foresight,
and the holy moderation, of Hermas. To our scornful age, indeed, glutted
with reading of every sort, and alike over-cultivated and superficial,
taking little time for thought, and almost as little for study, The
Shepherd can furnish nothing attractive. He who brings nothing to it,
gets nothing from it. But let the fastidious who desire at the same time
to be competent judges, put themselves into the times of the Antonines,
and make themselves, for the moment, Christians of that period, and they
will awaken to a new world of thought. Let such go into the assemblies of
the primitive faithful, in which it was evident that “not many wise
men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, were called.”
There they were, “as sheep appointed to be slain,” “dying daily,” and, like their
blessed Master, “the scorn of men, and outcast of the people,”
as they gathered on the day of the Lord to “eat of that bread, and
drink of that cup.” After the manner of the synagogue, there came a
moment when the “president” said, “Brethren, if ye have
any word of exhortation for the people, say on.” But the tongues
were ceasing, as the apostle foretold; and they who professed to speak by
the Spirit were beginning to be doubted. “Your fathers, where are
they? and the prophets, do they live forever?” It was gratifying to
the older men, and excited the curiosity of the young, when the reader
stood up, and said, “Hear, then, the words of Hermas.”
Blessed were the simple folk, those “lambs among wolves,”
who hungered and thirsted after righteousness, and who eagerly drank
in the pure and searching Scriptural morality of The Shepherd,
and then went forth to “shine as lights in the world,”
in holy contrast with the gross darkness that surrounded them.
It has been objected, indeed, that the morals of Hermas
have a legalizing tone. The same is said of St. James, and the Sermon
on the Mount. Most unjustly and cruelly is this objection made to The
Shepherd. Granted its language is not formulated after Augustine, as
it could not be: its text is St. James, but, like St. James, harmonized
always with St. Paul.[11] Faith
is always honoured in its primary place; and penitence, in its every
evangelical aspect, is thoroughly defined. He exposes the emptiness of
formal works, such as mere physical fastings, and the carnal observance
of set times and days. That in one instance he favours “works of
supererogation” is an entire mistake, made by reading into the
words of Hermas a heresy of which he never dreamed. His whole teaching
conflicts with such a thought. His orthodoxy in other respects, is
sustained by such masters as Pearson and Bull.[12] And then, the positive side of his teaching is a
precious testimony to the godly living exacted of believers in the second
century. How suitable to all times are the maxims he extracts from the New
Law. How searching his exposure of the perils of lax family discipline,
and of wealth unsanctified. What heavenly precepts of life he lays
down for all estates of men. To the clergy, what rules he prescribes
against ambition and detraction and worldly-mindedness. Surely such
reproofs glorify the epoch, when they who had cast off, so recently,
the lusts and passions of heathenism, were, as the general acceptance
of this book must lead us to suppose, eager to be fed with “truth,
severe in rugged fiction drest.”
But the reader will now be eager to examine the
following:
Introductory Notice of the Translator
The Pastor of Hermas was one of the most popular books, if not the most popular book, in the Christian Church during the second, third, and fourth centuries. It occupied a position analogous in some respects to that of Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress in modern times; and critics have frequently compared the two works.
In ancient times two opinions prevailed in regard
to the authorship. The most widely spread was, that the Pastor of
Hermas was the production of the Hermas mentioned in the Epistle to
the Romans. Origen[13] states this opinion distinctly,
and it is repeated by Eusebius[14] and Jerome.[15]
Those who believed the apostolic Hermas to be the author,
necessarily esteemed the book very highly; and there was much discussion
as to whether it was inspired or not. The early writers are of opinion
that it was really inspired. Irenæus quotes it as Scripture;[16] Clemens Alexandrinus speaks of it as making its statements
“divinely;”[17] and Origen, though a few of
his expressions are regarded by some as implying doubt, unquestionably
gives it as his opinion that it is “divinely inspired.”[18] Eusebius
mentions that difference of opinion prevailed in his day as to the
inspiration of the book, some opposing its claims, and others maintaining
its divine origin, especially because it formed an admirable introduction
to the Christian faith. For this latter reason it was read publicly,
he tells us, in the churches.
The only voice of antiquity decidedly opposed to
the claim is that of Tertullian. He designates it apocryphal,[19] and rejects it with scorn,
as favouring anti-Montanistic opinions. Even his words, however,
show that it was regarded in many churches as Scripture.
The second opinion as to the authorship is found in no
writer of any name. It occurs only in two places: a poem falsely ascribed
to Tertullian, and a fragment published by Muratori, on the Canon, the
authorship of which is unknown, and the original language of which is
still a matter of dispute.[20]
The fragment says, “The Pastor was written very lately in our
times, in the city of Rome, by Hermas, while Bishop Pius, his brother,
sat in the chair of the Church of the city of Rome.”
A third opinion has had advocates in modern times. The
Pastor of Hermas is regarded as a fiction, and the person Hermas, who
is the principal character, is, according to this opinion, merely the
invention of the fiction-writer.
Whatever opinion critics may have in regard to the
authorship, there can be but one opinion as to the date. The Pastor of
Hermas must have been written at an early period. The fact that it was
recognised by Irenæus as Scripture shows that it must have been
in circulation long before his time. The most probable date assigned to
its composition is the reign of Hadrian, or of Antoninus Pius.
The work is very important in many respects; but
especially as reflecting the tone and style of books which interested
and instructed the Christians of the second and third centuries.
The Pastor of Hermas was written in Greek. It was
well known in the Eastern Churches: it seems to have been but little
read in the Western. Yet the work bears traces of having been written
in Italy.
For a long time the Pastor of Hermas was known to
scholars only in a Latin version, occurring in several mss. with but slight vacations. But within
recent times the difficulty of settling the text has been increased by
the discovery of various MSS.
A Latin translation has been edited, widely differing from the common
version. Then a Greek MSS. was
said to have been found in Mount Athos, of which Simonides affirmed that
he brought away a portion of the original and a copy of the rest. Then a
MS. of the Pastor of Hermas was
found at the end of the Sinaitic Codex of Tischendorf. And in addition
to all these, there is an Æthiopic translation. The discussion of
the value of these discoveries is one of the most difficult that can
fall to the lot of critics; for it involves not merely an examination
of peculiar forms of words and similar criteria, but an investigation
into statements made by Simonides and Tischendorf respecting events
in their own lives. But whatever may be the conclusions at which the
critic arrives, the general reader does not gain or lose much. In all
the Greek and Latin forms the Pastor of Hermas is substantially the
same. There are many minute differences; but there are scarcely any of
importance,—perhaps we should say none.
In this translation the text of Hilgenfeld, which is
based on the Sinaitic Codex, has been followed.
The letters Vat. mean the Vatican
manuscript, the one from which the common or Vulgate version was usually
printed.
The letters Pal. mean the Palatine
manuscript edited by Dressel, which contains the Latin version, differing
considerably from the common version.
The letters Lips. refer to the Leipzig
manuscript, partly original and partly copied, furnished by Simonides from
Athos. The text of Anger and Dindorf (Lips., 1856) has been used, though
reference has also been made to the text of Tischendorf in Dressel.
The letters Sin. refer to the Sinaitic
Codex, as given in Dressel and in Hilgenfeld’s notes.
The letters Æth. refer to the
Æthiopic version, edited, with a Latin translation, by
Antonius D’Abbadie. Leipzig, 1860.
No attempt has been made to give even a tithe of the
various readings. Only the most important have been noted.
[It is but just to direct the reader’s attention
to an elaborate article of Dr. Donaldson, in the (London) Theological
Review, vol. xiv. p. 564; in which he very ingeniously supports
his opinions with regard to Hermas, and also touching the Muratorian
Canon. In one important particular he favours my own impression; viz.,
that The Shepherd is a compilation, traditional, or reproduced
from memory. He supposes its sentiments “must have been expressed
in innumerable oral communications delivered in the churches throughout
the world.”]
- ↑ To be found, with copious annotations, in Routh’s Reliquiæ, vol. i. pp. 389–434, Oxford, 1846. See also Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, Cambridge, 1855.
- ↑ Hippolytus and His Age, vol. i. p. 315.
- ↑ Why “Athenian”? It was read everywhere. But possibly this is a specification based on Acts xvii. 21. They may have welcomed it as a novel and a novelty.
- ↑ More of this in Athenagoras; but see Kaye’s Justin Martyr, p. 179, note 3, ed. 1853.
- ↑ Roman fabulists know all about Pius, of course, and give us this history: “He was a native of Aquileia, and was elected bishop on the 15th of January, AD 158 … He governed the Church nine years, five months, and twenty-seven days.” So affirms that favourite of Popes, Artaud de Montor (Histoire de Pie VIII., p. xi. Paris, 1830).
- ↑ The latest learned authority among Roman Catholics, a Benedictine, gives us the dates AD 142–156, respectively, as those of his election and decease. See Series Episcoporum, etc. P. B. Gams, Ratisbonæ, 1873.
- ↑ Relying upon the invaluable aid of Dr. Routh, I had not thought of looking into Westcott, till I had worked out my own conclusions. I am greatly strengthened by his elaborate and very able argument. See his work on the Canon, pp. 213–235.
- ↑ 1 Cor. xiv. The value of Hermas in helping us to comprehend this mysterious chapter appears to me very great. Celsus reproached Christians as Sibyllists. See Origen, Against Celsus, book v. cap. lxi.
- ↑ Westcott, p. 219. Ed. 1855, London.
- ↑ Hieron., tom. 1. p. 988, Benedictine ed.
- ↑ Bull (and Grabe), Harmonia Apostolica; Works, vol. iii.
- ↑ Pearson, Vindiciæ Ignat., i. cap. 4. Bull, Defens. Fid. Nicæn., 1. cap. 2. sec. 3; Works, vol. v. part i. p. 15.
- ↑ Comment. in Rom. xvi. 14, lib. x. 31. [But see Westcott’s fuller account of all this, pp. 219, 220.]
- ↑ Hist. Eccl. iii. 3.
- ↑ De Viris Illustribus, c. x.
- ↑ Contra Hæres., iv. 20, 2.
- ↑ Strom., i. xxi. p. 426.
- ↑ Ut supra.
- ↑ De Pudicitia, c. xx., also c. x.; De Oratione, c. xvi.
- ↑ [This statement should be compared with Westcott’s temperate and very full account of the Muratorian Fragment, pp. 235–245.]
