Date
Chapter Three The Shepherd of Hermas Date The dating of the Shepherd of Hermas is important not only for understanding the purpose of the writing but also the social situation which it describes. However, this issue is clouded because of an apparent inconsistency between internal and external evidence. The Muratorian Canon states, "Pastorem vero nuperrime ternporihus nostns in urbe Roma Hermas conscripsit sedente cathedra urbis Romae ecctesiae Pio episcopo fratre eius" (11. 73-77).1 If this is correct, the Shepherd was composed sometime between A.D. 139 and 154, the dates of Pius' episcopate. The internal evidence, however, seems to suggest an earlier date of composition. In Vision
2:4.3 Hermas is instructed to send a copy of the words that the old lady tells him to Clement, who "then shall send it to the cities abroad, for that is his duty " Most scholars identify this Clement with the author of the first letter to the Corinthians, which was composed in the last decade of the first century.2
In addition, there is no evidence in the document that monarchical episcopacy existed in Hermas' church. Hermas, indeed, seems to assume a presbyteral organization of the community (Vis. 2:4.3; 3:1.8), which is consistent with an earlier date. Finally, Vis. 3:5.1, with its reference to apostles, bishops, teachers and deacons, some of whom "have fallen asleep," but some of whom are still alive, suggests an earlier date than the mid-second century.
Recognizing this conflict of data, scholars have attempted to harmonize the evidence in two ways. Lightfoot suggested a pseudonymity theory and argued that "Hermas" was a nom de plume used by Pius* brother for the sake of an apology against Montanism.3 Nowhere, however, does pseudonymity emerge as an apologetic motif in this work. If the writer had been attempting to ground his composition in the apostolic past, one would have expected him to make far greater and clearer claims to the period he sought to evoke, rather than a single cryptic remark to Clement with no explicit reference to the persecutions in that period. The fact that Hermas alludes to persecutions without feeling the need to explain himself suggests that what he knows regarding past events is common living knowledge in the community. Furthermore, a theory which attempts to find in Hermas* writing an anti-rigorist polemic formulated against Montanism ignores the relationship of the writer's notions of penance and repentance with the social conditions presented in the writing and their connection with what
Notes to this chapter appear on pp. 78-86.
The Social Setting of the Ministry appear to be Hermas5 more pressing concerns.
The second and more frequent attempt to solve the dating problem is to postulate a long period of composition during which a series of authors composed different units of the received work.4 This has been suggested since the middle of the last century.5 Harnack argued for six periods of composition but stated that it is impossible to determine if the same author wrote the different sections.6 Joly states that Harnack's theory is "une de ces acrobaties gratuites dont est si friande l'érudition allemande.
But there can be little doubt that the Shepherd is composed of a number of smaller units written over a period of time. It is clear that Vis. 1 to 4 is a unit, and that Vis. 5 (see esp. 5:5) is an introduction to the Mandates. In Vis. 1 to 4 it is a woman who explains the meaning of Hermas' visions, but in Vis. 5 it is the Shepherd. Also, the similarity of Similitude 9:1.1 with Vis. 5:5 as introductions presenting new characters in Hermas' prophetic experience, the development in Sim. 9 of themes in Vis, 3, and the length of Sun. 9 compared with Sim. 8 and 10 suggest that Sim. 9 is a later addition to the parable section, a point which is further supported by manuscript evidence.8 This evidence has led several scholars to postulate multiple authorship,9 one writer suggesting as many as six different authors.10 The variety of theological notions present in the work has also suggested multiple authorship.
Giet argues not only on the basis of supposed linguistic and stylistic differences, but also on the basis of internal theological inconsistencies, that the Shepherd represents the work of three writers.11 Hi Ihorst, however, in a monograph devoted to Hermas* literary style, rejects an argument for multiple authorship made on literary grounds and argues, "Cette solution soulève plus de questions qu'elle n'en résout."12 Furthermore, Giet's argument that Sim. 9 represents the "orthodox" theology of the mid-second century, while the Mandates and Sim. 1 to 8 present a heterodox adoptionist Christology, poses the question of the appropriateness of speaking in terms of "orthodoxy" and "heresy" in this period. As Barnard suggests, it is entirely possible that what appear to be opposing Christological views in the twentieth century could have stood side by side in the second century. "[T]he Shepherd'9 he argues, is a rambling prophetic work which cannot easily be systematized. It may be that we should not expect to find a coherent theology running through it
Thus a Jewish-Christian Christology of an adoptionist tendency could be held side by side with a theologically more advanced Christology which asserted that the Son of God was older than creation. What to us seems a contradiction was not so thought of in an age when much fluidity in doctrine and practice prevailed.13
If this is true, the warrants for multiple authorship on the basis of internal theological diversity disappear.
But the issue of the purpose of the work, to be addressed in the following discussion, raises in a special way the unsatisfactory nature of solving the dating problem by reference to multiple authorship. Common to all the sections of the Shepherd regarded by scholars as units composed by different authors, is the concern with wealth and the problems it presents to Hermas' community.
Osiek admits that "no consistent patterns in the material about rich and poor can be correlated with any theory of composite authorship."14 It will be seen
The Shepherd of Herrn as
that the references to wealth and its problems, together with the solution to the difficulties riches present, can be more readily understood if one author was writing over a shorter period of time, rather than several authors over a span of some sixty years. With the exception of Osiek, the scholars who have argued for multiple authorship have been united in their interpretation of the document as a writing primarily concerned to produce theories of penitence. As we shall see, a better interpretation of the document is to argue that Hermas' statements about penitence arise from his primary concern with the purity of his church.
The references Hermas makes to penitence are motivated by specific social concerns arising from the misuse of wealth and property.
Since theories dealing with internal evidence do not offer convincing solutions to the dating problem, the evidence of the Muratorian Canon calls for closer attention. Any argument regarding the date of this document is hypothetical because of the fragmentary nature of the evidence.15 It is traditionally assumed that it was composed in Rome sometime between A.D. 150 and ca. A.D. 200 to 220.16 Koch, however, was an early scholar to question the Roman provenance of the writing by noting that the expressions "in urbe Roma" and "cathedra urbis
Romae ecclesiae" in 11. 73-77 are different from the typical Roman expression of the period "hie in urbe Roma"
Similarly, he questioned the assumption that the several instances of the term "catholica" in the fragment refer to Rome since other writers, such as Cyprian, also used the term to denote the church in places not necessarily confined to Rome.17
But the strongest linguistic argument for an early dating of the text rests on the proper interpretation of the superlative construction "nupemme"
Usually taken as a diminished superlative, the term is then interpreted as evidence that the Shepherd was written within the lifetime of the author of the fragment.
Sundberg, however, has correctly stated that this is not the only possible interpretation. If the superlative is translated "most recently" the term may not be a reference to the lifetime of the author, but it "may relate the time-comparison for the writing of the Shepherd of Hermas to the previously listed apostolic books... ."18
Similarly, the expression "temporibus nostris," usually taken to mean "within our lifetime" since it is thought to be connected with Pius, may also be interpreted as a differentiation between the apostolic and post-apostolic period.19 A passage found in Irenaeus (AH. 5:30.3; cf. Eusebius H.E. 5:8.6) suggests that the expression may refer to a period longer than a lifetime. There he uses the phrase έπΐ τής ήμέτερας γενεάς ("pern sub nostro saeculo") to denote a period of 100 years. Noting this usage in Irenaeus, Streeter argued that the phrase "in nostris temporibus" in the Muratorian fragment "cannot be pressed, as has been often done, to imply that the author lived near enough to the time of Pius to be well informed in the matter. In any case such language in early Christian usage allowed considerable elbowroom."20
Thus, the phrase "in nostris temporibus" and the term "nuperrime" may refer not to the lifetime of the author of the fragment, but to the post-apostolic period.
This would allow a much later date for the composition of the fragment than is traditionally assumed. Sundberg has shown that a later date of composition makes better sense of the references to the Wisdom of Solomon and the Apocalypse