Saturday, March 9, 2024

Lee Martin McDonald on the Shepherd of Hermas's Reception in Early Christianity

  

. . . Irenaeus, for example calls it “Scripture” (Haer. 4.20.2). Eusebius knew this and acknowledged Irenaeus’ reception of the Shepherd of Hermas stating: “And he [Irenaeus] not only knew but also received the writing of the Shepherd, saying, ‘Well did the Scripture say [καλως ουν η γραφη η λογουσα] “first of all believe that God is one who created and fitted together all things,” and so on.’ He also made some quotations all but verbally from the Wisdom of Solomon” (Hist. eccl. 5.8.7, LCL). What adds to a possible earlier dating of the Shepherd is its lack of citations of NT texts in an authoritative manner, something that developed later. He only cites the lost apocryphal Book of Eldad and Modat (Vis. 7; II.3). Recognition of the Shepherd of Hermas also comes from Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 1.1.1; 1.85.4; Ecoligae propheticae 45), who frequently quote the Shepherd of Hermas in the same manner that he quoted other Scriptures from both the Old and New Testament writings. IT would be strange indeed if Clement and Irenaeus accepted Shepherd as Scripture, but the M[uratorian]F[ragment] at the same time (late second century) rejected it and on the earliest known criterion of that age, namely its lack of apostolic origin and its date (lines 77-80). Tertullian also refers to the work probably as Scripture before his conversion to Montanism, and as noted above rejected it later. We also saw that the Shepherd of Hermas was included in Codex Sinaiticus and in the interested stichometry in Codex Claromontanus (even though in a secondary position). Eusebius appears to be the first church father to place the Shepherd of Hemas in a disputed category (Hist. eccl. 3.3.6), but the MF, if earlier, strangely rejects it as Scripture (=not “among the apostles”) and adds that it is not to be read publicly, but only privately. Eusebius recognizes its acceptance by Irenaeus given its widespread acceptance by well-known church fathers, and that it was still held in high esteem much later (Hist. eccl. 5.8.7). Eusebius himself placed it among the “spurious” (νοθος) books (3.25.1-5) Athanasius called the book “most edifying” (ωφελιμωτατες) in his earlier De incarnatione verbi (ca. 318), but changed his mind by the time of his famous Thirty-Ninth Festal Latter (367). Both Jerome (Prologue to Kings [Proglous Galeatus]; Illustrious Men 10) and Rufinus (Commentary on the Apostolic Creed 38) spoke respectfully of the book, even though they placed it in a secondary position, that is, not as a part of the NT canon. The relegation of the Shepherd of Hermas to a secondary position and not among the NT Scriptures (“not among the Apostles”) is more likely a fourth-century development and not a second-century notion. It appears that Origen, as in the case of 1 Enoch, accepted Shepherd as a part of his collection of Christian Scriptures, but later reversed his opinion. The inclusion of the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas in the fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus indicates that these books continued to be read as Scripture in some fourth-century churches even after others had excluded them. The fourth century is more likely the context for questioning the status of the Shepherd in the churches’ Scriptures. (Lee Martin McDonald, The Formation of the Biblical Canon, 2 vols. [London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017], 2:295-96)

 

Blog Archive