Chapter 2 Resurrection Belief

One of the most debated theological issues regarding Hermas concerns its views on the resurrection.1 This is part of the discussion on how Hermas fits in the context of divergent forms of Christian faith and practice at the time. Hermas is a Christian work even though the term “Christian”, the name “Jesus”, or the title “Christ” are absent in the text.2 It has been argued that the work belongs to the Christian tradition, but not to “the current” tradition.3 Others reject this view and think that “our notions of the Christian tradition need to be widened”.4 The question is whether there was in the late first or early second century something like “mainstream Christianity”, or whether there were just several currents running in various directions. All kinds of theories have been proposed. It has been contended that the church was at the time characterized by theological diversity and that the references in Hermas to “false, evil and would-be teachers”5 may reflect

1 An earlier version of this chapter was published as M. Grundeken, Resurrection of the Dead in the Shepherd of Hermas: A Matter of Dispute, in G. Van Oyen – T. Shepherd (eds.), Resurrection of the Dead: Biblical Traditions in Dialogue (BETL, 249), Leuven, Peeters, 2012, pp. 403–416. I thank Peeters for permission to include the article here. 2 See Chapter 1. 3 See Audet, Affinités (1953), p. 82: “Le Pasteur appartient à la tradition chrétienne, mais il n’est pas dans le courant”. 4 See Osiek, Shepherd, p. 38. See also G. La Piana, The Roman Church at the End of the Second Century, in HTR 18 (1925) 201–277, p. 203: “the history of the church of Rome of the first three centuries has a unique importance . . . the Christian community at Rome was not only one of the largest, but also was highly representative of the various currents of thought, tradition, and practice of the whole Christian church”; C. Osiek, The Second Century through the Eyes of Hermas: Continuity and Change, in BTB 20 (1990) 116–122, p. 117; and Bucur, Angelomorphic Holy Spirit, p. 141: “the Shepherd was very much part of mainstream Christian thought in the first three centuries”. 5 See esp. Vis. 3,7,1; Man. 11,1; Sim. 5,7,2; 8,6,5; 9,19,2–3; and 9,22,1. Vis. 3,7,1—“those who have believed, but because of their doubt leave their true road” (οἱ πεπιστευκότες μέν, ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς διψυχίας αὐτῶν ἀφίουσιν τὴν ὁδὸν αὐτῶν τὴν ἀληθινήν). Compare the interpretations of Dibelius, Hirt, p. 470: “ein . . . neue[s] nichtchristliche[s] Heils-Mysterium . . .”; Joly, Hermas, p. 117: a return to paganism, or joining some heretical movement; Brox, Hirt, p. 137: “ver- schiedene Formen philosophischer, kultischer, synkretistischer Frömmigkeit”; and Osiek, Shepherd, p. 74 with n. 43: “some form of heterodox belief or worship may be envisioned”, but probably not Gnosticism, because the believers leave the community, whereas in Hermas’

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/9789004299634_004 54 Chapter 2 tensions caused by figures like Valentinus, Cerdo, Marcion and Marcellina, though for Hermas “these theological disagreements were not at the cen- ter of concern”.6 Hermas has been designated by some as a Montanist, yet by others as an anti-Montanist.7 He has been labelled an ascetic or

time Gnostics were unlikely to be completely separate (see also Leutzsch, Wahrnehmung, p. 75). Man. 11,1—believers are in the company of a “false prophet” (ψευδοπροφήτης). Dibelius, Hirt, pp. 538–540, rejects the idea that the prophet is a pagan or Gnostic and interprets the passage in terms of a decline of prophecy in the early church. Snyder, Shepherd, pp. 86–87, takes the false prophet as a heretic. Brox, Hirt, pp. 263–264, argues that the issue is “Synkretismus im Christentum des 2. Jh.s, unter dessen Einfluß pagane Mantik in die Kirche . . . eingeschleust wurde”. Osiek, Shepherd, p. 142, sees the false prophet as a Christian and interprets the setting of Man. 11,1 (following D.E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1983, pp. 227, 413 n. 226) as “a gathering of clients of the Christian mantis for an oracular séance”. Sim. 5,7,2—the Shepherd tells Hermas not to think that his “flesh” (σάρξ) is perishable. L. Duchesne, Histoire ancienne de l’église. I, Paris, Fontemoing, 1907, pp. 188–189, thinks that the passage polemicizes against teachers like Marcion and Valentinus. Similarly, Dibelius, Hirt, pp. 574, 576, believes (with some reservations) that an anti-Gnostic polemic might be involved. Brox, Hirt, p. 326, rejects an anti-Gnostic, or anti-heretical reading; and Osiek, Shepherd, p. 182, is sceptical too. Sim. 8,6,5—“those who introduced other teachings (διδαχὰς ἑτέρας)”. Cf. Dibelius, Hirt, p. 596: “Das kann auf Gnostiker gehen”; Brox, Hirt, p. 370: “heretics” (whose exact heresies remain unknown); and Osiek, Shepherd, p. 207 with n. 65: “heterodox teachers” within the community. Sim. 9,19,2–3—διδάσκαλοι πονηρίας: either “teachers of (i.e., who teach) evil” (genitivus obiectivus, see, e.g. Joly, Hermas, p. 213), or “evil teachers” (genetivus qualitatis, see, e.g. Dibelius, Hirt, p. 628). Compare Dibelius, Hirt, pp. 628–629: “Die Irrlehrer rechnen sich selbst zu den Christen . . . man wird . . . mit Gnostikern zu tun haben”; Brox, Hirt, p. 445: “Ketzer”; and Osiek, Shepherd, p. 245: “not . . . formal heresy . . . but some [i.e., Christians] who get carried away with their own ideas”. Sim. 9,22,1—“those who want to know everything, but know nothing at all” (θέλοντες πάντα γινώσκειν καὶ οὐδὲν ὅλως γινώσκουσι). Compare Dibelius, Hirt, p. 630: “Aus der offenbaren Anspielung mit γινώσκειν ist als sicher zu erschließen, daß es sich um Gnostiker handelt”; Brox, Hirt, p. 447, who rejects the idea that Gnostics are meant and interprets them as false Christian teachers; and Osiek, Shepherd, p. 247, who argues that it may be “a bad caricature of Gnostics”, but that there is no sufficient evidence “to assume full-blown Gnosticism as the culprit”. 6 See Osiek, Shepherd, p. 22. 7 For the former, see already, e.g., R.A. Lipsius, Der Hirte des Hermas und der Montanismus in Rom, in ZWTh 8 (1865) 266–308, esp. p. 308. For the latter, J.-B. Cotelier, J.B. Cotelerii iudicium de S. Hermae Pastore, in Id. – J. le Clerc, SS. Patrum qui temporibus apostolicis floruerunt, Barnabae, Clementis, Hermae, Ignatii, Polycarpi [etc.]. I, Antwerp, Huguetani, 1698, pp. 73–74,