So I have this 10 volume collection of writings by the Ante-Nicene Fathers (the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325) that I’ve been carrying around with me for several years. I bought them from a library that was about to discard them and over the years I have used them occasionally as I’ve studied and prepared for sermons. A couple of years ago I finally challenged myself to actually read through them all. I got through the first volume before we moved again, and so they went into boxes, were moved, were unpacked, and then placed on new shelves – and my challenge was, not quite forgotten, but put on hold. I’d lost my inertia.
But now I’m back to it, starting into volume 2 with The Shepherd of Hermas (or, as this particular translation titles
it The Pastor of Hermas – for the
word “pastor” means “shepherd”…) It is a weird and interesting book, divided
into three sections – 1) a series of 5 apocalyptic visions 2) a series of 12
commandments and 3) a collection of 10 Similitudes or ‘parables.’ The eponymous “Shepherd” (“Pastor”) is sent
to Hermas by “a most venerable angel” to stay with him and instruct him.
Hermas frequently frustrates his shepherd with an overwhelming number of
questions. Repeatedly the Shepherd
chides him and warns him about asking so many questions, but each time he
relents and answers them for Hermas.
And what I find fascinating to think about is how close The Shepherd of Hermas came to being included in our collection of
scripture. The Muratorian fragment (~ 3rd
century) – a copy of the oldest known list of the books of what is now called the
New Testament – included The Shepherd. It was
one of the most popular Christian writings between the 2nd and 4th
centuries - but, though popular and well received, not everyone accepted it as
divinely inspired. Origen described it
as “a work which seems to me very useful, and, as I believe, divinely inspired.”
(Comm. in Rom. 10.31, written about 244-6)
Tertullian rejected it with scorn as ‘apocryphal’.
But by the time that the Canon (as we have it today) was being formulated, The Shepherd of Hermas had fallen out of
favor somewhat. The Church historian, Eusebius,
listed three categories for Christian writings then in existence: 1) Those writings universally accepted without
dispute 2) those that are disputed and 3) those writings that are ‘spurious.’ Eusebius put The Shepherd in the third group. Though
it was widely read by Christians it failed to make the cut as scripture –
probably because it has no clear connection to any of the apostles.
But how different might Christianity have been had it been included in the
canon? Would children memorize its verses in Sunday School class? Imagine the kids squirming at the front of
the chapel as they recite together, “First
of all, believe that there is one God who created and finished all things, and
made all things out of nothing.” Would it be included in the lectionary
readings? Would preachers use it as the text for their sermons? Imagine the pastor expounding upon these
lines, “Fear the Lord, and keep His
commandments. For if you keep the commandments
of God you will be powerful in every action, and every one of your actions will
be incomparable. For, fearing the Lord,
you will do all things well.” Would the eschatological scaremongers like
Jack Van Impe and John Hagee have used its description of the tribulations to
come? “But the sun now shone out a little, and lo! I see a mighty beast like a
whale, and out of its mouth fiery locusts proceeded. But the size of that beast was about a
hundred feet, and it had a head like an urn.”
And how might our Christology have been affected? The
Shepherd of Hermas seems to have an “adoptionist” understanding of the
divine nature of Jesus – that is, that he was given the preexistent Holy Spirit
of God, and made co-heir with the Spirit, by God the Father because of his virtue
and obedience.
