The Shepherd of Hermas

[OrthodoxyUSA]

The Shepherd of Hermas

In the book On the Incarnation (c 376AD) http://home.comcast.net/~pasudduth/...Incarnation.pdf (http://home.comcast.net/~pasudduth/On_the_Incarnation.pdf) , St. Athanasius references another earlier (ancient in his day) Christian writing called "The Shepherd of Hermas" http://www.earlychristianwritings.c...-lightfoot.html (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/shepherd-lightfoot.html).

I had seen this book refered to in writings concerning the early Christian texts that were chosen to be included in the canon by the Church.

In fact it came to my attention that "The Shepherd" was widely used by many of the Early Church Fathers.

I was wondering how many people knew it existed, had read it and what your thoughts were on it?

Forgive me....:liturgy:

[88Devin07]

I read just the first part and it looked strange...

[OrthodoxyUSA]

From: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html


...one of the first written texts to become universally popular and an object of praise among Christians is none other than the book of Hermas, a.k.a. "The Sheppherd," an unusual (to us) collection of "visions, mandates, and similitudes" (the names of the three books that comprise it). This was written at some time in the 2nd century, and we have papyrus fragments from that very century to prove it (M 63-4). It may date even from the 1st century (cf. op. cit. n. 1 (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html#1)), but references inside and outside the text create likely dates ranging from 95 to 154 A.D. (both Origen and Jerome thought the author was the very Hermas known to Paul, i.e. Romans 16.14), but it is probably more likely later than earlier in that range. So popular the Sheppherd was that it was widely regarded as inspired--it was actually included, along with the Epistle of Barnabas, as the final book in the oldest NT codex that survives intact, the Codex Sinaiticus (c. 300 A.D.). But even the book of Hermas never names or quotes exactly any NT text. It contains many statements which resemble those in various NT books, but this could just as well reflect a common oral tradition. It is noteworthy that the only book actually named by Hermas is an apocryphal Jewish text, the Book of Eldad and Modat. In contrast, it is notable that none of the Gospels or canonical Epistles ever name any book of any kind apart from Jude--which cites another apocryphal text, the Book of Enoch (vv. 14-15).

~IMHO Richard Carrier, the author of this article is wrong about a great number of things where he gives his opinion but his research and date on these books are very useful.

Forgive me...

[HandmaidenOfGod]

Goodness, this is a lot to swallow.

I have to agree with Devin, at first glance, it is a bit strange. I'll have to read further, as I'm sure the Church Fathers would not have shared it, if it didn't serve a good purpose.

In XC,

Maureen

[xristos.anesti]

In order to understand Sheppherd one has to understand the formation of the NT and time of early Chrisianity (Ante Nicene and Nicene).

As did the old testament; the new testament, also, had its deuterocanonnical books [James, 2 and 3 John, Jude, Revelation, Shepperd, Didache, Ignatius (Epistles)...].

That is, the books that were not universally accepted, by the every local Church as a part of the primary canon..

In those days, every Church had its own canon that was jealously preserved. Churches used to swap Scriptures in order to make their collection bigger.

Soon, in the start of Christianity, some writings became universally accepted, some only locally.

Following the Ante Nicene and Nicene Fathers we can see which Scripture was used where and how.

Sheppherd and Didache, as well as other (non-gnostic) writings of the Church, are a wonderful example of the rich Tradition of our Church.



Lord have mercy.

[HandmaidenOfGod]

In order to understand Sheppherd one has to understand the formation of the NT and time of early Chrisianity (Ante Nicene and Nicene).

As did the old testament; the new testament, also, had its deuterocanonnical books [James, 2 and 3 John, Jude, Revelation, Shepperd, Didache, Ignatius (Epistles)...].

That is, the books that were not universally accepted, by the every local Church as a part of the primary canon..

In those days, every Church had its own canon that was jealously preserved. Churches used to swap Scriptures in order to make their collection bigger.

Soon, in the start of Christianity, some writings became universally accepted, some only locally.

Following the Ante Nicene and Nicene Fathers we can see which Scripture was used where and how.

Sheppherd and Didache, as well as other (non-gnostic) writings of the Church, are a wonderful example of the rich Tradition of our Church.



Lord have mercy.

Thank you xristos! As usual, your wisdom and insight are invaluable! :thumbsup:

In XC,

Maureen

[xristos.anesti]

I wish I live what I know.

[Prawnik]

To amplify Christos.Anesti's point, we know of a LOT of early Christian writings, whether in the form of whole or fragmentary manuscripts or as references contained in other works. These writings range from Orthodox works written by Orthodox saints to the downright weird.

You can get most of them at www.earlychristianwritings.org (http://www.earlychristianwritings.org) . The Shepherd is there, among other stuff.

As an aside, one reason I think that the Gnostics never had much of a chance vs. the Orthodox is that the Gnostics' "gospels" and writings are, frankly, boring. It's like reading upper-level Scientology babble, jargon-laden and unintelligible.

On the other hand, the Gospels and Acts tell a story, and any reader, whether or not one of the "initiated", can follow the narrative. A person can read Mark and say "I believe!" If someone were to read the entire "Sophia", they wouldn't know what they believed, even if they finished the thing.