Taking Issue with the Angelic Visitations in The Shepherd of Hermas: Apostolic Fathers #5
I’m still teaching my summer class on the Apostolic Fathers. We just had a discussion in class about the Shepherd of Hermas. Hermas claims to have had lots of visions and appearances of angels (one in the form of a shepherd—thus the name of the work) who tell him what to do and what messages he should deliver to others. This work was apparently valued by some second, third, and fourth century Christians. The immediate problem we faced in class is that in chapter 59 (Sim. 5.6), Hermas demonstrates that he believes in views of Christ and the incarnation that are incompatible with biblical Christianity. (He is an early proponent of the view later called “adoptionism.” You can look it up in a theological dictionary if you need to.) His understanding of grace is also incompatible with the New Testament’s teaching on grace. He touts many other unusual ideas, but the two doctrines that make his work most troubling to me are his Christology and doctrine of grace (or lack of it!).
So how should we evaluate a work like this? Did Hermas actually see these visions? Did he actually have these angelic visitations? As a class we came up with three options, all three of which are unacceptable in some way:
Option 1: Hermas actually saw these visions and was visited by angelic beings. But when he wrote down what he saw and heard, he inserted his own unorthodox interpretations.
Problem: Chapter 59 (Sim. 5.6) where his most troublesome Christology is found is relayed directly by an angel. How could false doctrine be communicated by a true angel of God?
Option 2: Hermas actually saw these visions and was visited by angelic beings, but these “angels” were actually demons.
Problem: This work was viewed positively by many early Christians who were concerned about demonic counterfeits, including Irenaeus, Tertullian (for a while), and Clement of Alexandria. Surprisingly, even Athanasius, the champion of orthodox Christology quoted parts of it approvingly. None of them seemed to entertain the idea that the sources of Hermas’s writings were demonic.
Option 3: Hermas didn’t actually see these visions and was not actually visited by either angels or demons. He had a message he wanted to deliver (about repentance), and decided to employ an apocalyptic genre when he wrote. Apocalyptic literature was common—even popular—in certain circles by this point in history, and Hermas thought it would be a good form to use to communicate his message.
Problem: This would be an acceptable explanation if it were known by his readers that he was simply using a standard literary convention. But Christians who followed him seemed to value his writings in large part because they thought he had actually been instructed by real angels.
So, which of these is correct? The class was split; each of the three options was defended by someone during our discussion. I’m not comfortable with any of these solutions, nor were most of the people in the class by the end of the discussion. Is there anyone out there reading this who can think of an acceptable solution to this problem?
Comments
Ryan Jul. 10, 2012 at 9:28 AM
Hermas is the Apostolic Father I understand the least, even less how to synthesize it with tradition.
Though I have never experienced visions of any sort, I wonder kit they are as lucid as we suppose. Since Hermia's is only tradition, could it be that Hermia's was mistaken abouthis own vision?
Tyler Jul. 23, 2012 at 3:54 PM
The problem you have given with Option 1 isn't really a problem since it contradicts Option 1 (if an unorthodox interpretation was added, then it didn't come from the angel by definition, it was Hermas' distortion of what the angel said). Therefore, unless you are able to come up with additional reasons for rejecting Option 1, there aren't any reasons. Inserting passages into the text that were not originally there (or adding interpretive glosses) occurred in the transmission of the New Testaments documents, so Option 1 is highly plausible (in addition, anyone who has read church history, including modern church history will find angelic visitations are not unusual).
Ken Berding Jul. 23, 2012 at 4:13 PM
Tyler,
Perhaps I wasn't entirely clear about what I meant by "problems." The "problems" with each of these is not that any of the three are historically implausible; any of the three could be an accurate description of what actually happened. The "problem" with each of the three options is why we should value this document for anything besides being an example of an early Christian gone astray. In other words, is there any positive value to us as Christians trying to live out our faith by reading Hermas apart from being warned of what not to do? Unless I can find another option besides the three listed above, I certainly won't be encouraging people to read this particular writing for edification (as I might Polycarp's letter or the account of Polycarp's martyrdom or the document called "To Diognetus").
Thanks for posting a comment!
Tyler Jul. 24, 2012 at 11:12 AM
Ken,
I see your point about whether the Christological issue reduces the value of the document for the general lay reader. I have found Hermas to be very valuable and the Christological issue your original post raised, while certainly the majority view among interpreters, should be examined more carefully before concluding that Hermas is teaching adoptionism. What do you think of the analysis of Bucur?
Bucur, Bogdan G. "The Son of God and the Angelomorphic Holy Spirit: A Rereading of the Shepherd's Christology," Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 98 (2007): 121–143;
Ken Berding Jul. 24, 2012 at 12:22 PM
I haven't read Bucur's article. I appreciate the heads-up on it, though, since I always am looking for a sympathetic reading of whatever author I am working with. Thanks for letting me know about it.
Jason Cox Jan. 4, 2013 at 1:17 AM
You would get a kick out of a one by the name Benjamin Cousijnsen. Google it. There is only one that the angels call God's only beloved end-time prophet... Oy!.... Careful...