CHAPTER EIGHT THE EGYPTIAN HERMAS: THE SHEPHERD IN EGYPT BEFORE CONSTANTINE Malcolm Choat and Rachel Yuen-Collingridge In surveying non-scriptural Christian manuscripts of the time before Con- stantine, one work stands out, which is simply referred to as “The Shep- herd” (Ὁ Ποιμήν) by most ancient witnesses, and which is ascribed to a certain Hermas.1 It is by far the best-attested Christian work except those eventually established as canonical; indeed, in the first few centuries its attestation is considerably better than that of some of the canonical books. This contribution surveys the early manuscripts of Hermas and asks why it was so popular in the early Christian world. To ask whether Hermas was considered “canonical” in the early Church is the wrong question. This question cannot withstand methodological scrutiny, as the concept of canonicity is debatable and elastic. It is better to simply ask: why were the works of Hermas so popular? Actually, there should have never been any argument over whether or not the works of Hermas were canonical.2 Among our earliest securely dat- able external witnesses, Tertullian makes clear that the works of Hermas have not been judged canonical by meetings of Christians.3 The reasons 1 See in general the editions of M. Leutzsch, Papiasfragmente: Hirt des Hermas (Darm- stadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1998) and R. Joly, Hermas: Le Pasteur. Introduc- tion, texte critique, traduction et notes (SC 53; Paris: Cerf, 19682); and the commentaries and translations of C. Osiek and H. Koester, The Shepherd of Hermas: A Commentary (Minneap- olis: Fortress, 1999), and N. Brox, Der Hirt des Hermas (KAV 8; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991). The extensive work of A. Carlini over the last 25 years should also be noted; see Papyrus Bodmer XXXVIII. Erma: Il Pastore (Ia-IIIa visione) Cologny-Genève: Fondation Martin Bodmer, 1991) (= P.Bodmer 38), with his earlier contributions noted at 6. On the text see G. Lusini, “Nouvelles recherches sur le texte du Pasteur d’Hermas,” Apocrypha 12 (2001) 79–97. In general see A. Hilshorst, “Hermas,” RAC 14 (1988) 682–701. 2 See the discussion in J.C. Wilson, Five problems in the Interpretation of the Shepherd of Hermas: Authorship, Genre, Canonicity, Apocalyptic, and the Absence of the Name “Jesus Christ” (Lewiston: Mellen Press, 1995) 51–72; Osiek, Shepherd of Hermas, 4–7. 3 Rather, it had been “judged among the apocryphal and false (writings) by every council of Churches”, de pudicitia, 10.12; he was more charitable in his “Catholic” period, see below at n. 73. For “Gnostic” criticism of the work (if he is the Hermas, “first-born of unrighteousness”, in the Apoc. Peter [NHC VII.78.17–19]) see K. Koschorke, Die Pole- mik der Gnostiker gegen das kirchliche Christentum: Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der 192 malcolm choat and rachel yuen-collingridge for this determination are not difficult to see. Despite Origen’s attempts to ascribe the works to the Hermas who is sent greetings in Rom 16:14,4 it was well known that Hermas did not live in the apostolic period. The assertion of the compiler of the Muratorian Canon5 that Hermas was the brother of Pius, bishop of Rome, during whose episcopate (c. 130–150?) he wrote his work, surely cannot be correct; nevertheless, it seems certain that he was active in second century Rome.6 Yet, by early Christian writers7, such as Irenaeus,8 Clement of Alexandria,9 and Didymus the Blind,10 Hermas is used as if he had the authority of scrip- ture. All cite Hermas in this way; to others, such as Origen and Athanasius, it was at least useful.11 The volume of citations attests to the work’s popular- ity, which is something that the manuscript record reflects. Nag-Hammadi-Traktate “Apokalypse des Petrus” (NHC VII, 3) und “Testimonium Veritatis” (NHC IX, 3) (Leiden: Brill, 1978) 54–60. 4 Origen, Comm. in Rom. 10.31; cf. Eusebius HE III.3; Jerome, De vir. Illus., x. 5 See G.M. Hahneman, “The Muratorian Fragment and the Origins of the New Testa- ment Canon,” in The Canon Debate (ed. L.M. McDonald and J.A. Sanders; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002) 403–415, citing at 408 at the text and translation and discussing Her- mas in the Muratorian Fragment at 412; cf. the fuller discussion in idem, The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992) 34–72. The tradition is echoed in the “Chronography of 354 AD” (in the “Liberian Catalogue”, MGH IX, Chronica Minora I, ed. T. Mommsen [Berlin: Weidemann, 1892] 74), whence it enters the pontifical biographical tradition (see R. Davis, The Book of Pontiffs (Liber Pontificalis) [Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 20002] 5); see also the pseudo-Tertullianic Carmen adversus Marcionitas, 294–295, perhaps of the 5th century (see K. Pollmann, Das Carmen adversus Marcionitas [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991]). 6 He probably wrote in the first half of the century, although others favour a later date. We will not engage further with the question of when Hermas wrote, or who he was: on these questions see Joly, Hermas: Le Pasteur, 11–21; Osiek, Shepherd of Hermas, 18–28; J.C. Wilson, Toward a Reassessment of the Shepherd of Hermas: Its Date and Its Pneumatology (Lewiston: Mellen Biblical Press, 1993) 9–61; idem, Wilson, Five Problems in the Interpreta- tion of the Shepherd of Hermas, 3–37. 7 On the patristic witnesses to Hermas see Brox, Der Hirt des Hermas, 57–71. 8 Adversus Haereses 4.20.2, citing Mand. 1.1.1 as γραφή (cf. Brox, Der Hirt des Hermas, 57–61, inter alia discussing what Irenaeus meant by the term); see also Eusebius HE V.8.7. 9 Strom. I.17.85; I.29.181; II.1.3; VI.15.131; see Brox, Der Hirt des Hermas, 63–64. 10 See esp. Comm. Zach. 86:24–27, and at 4 other locations: see B.D. Ehrman, “The New Testament Canon of Didymus the Blind,” VigChr 37 (1983) 16 and 21 n. 16. 11 Origen, Comm. in Rom. 10.31: “a work which seems to me very useful, and, as I believe, divinely inspired”; he acknowledges contemporary adverse opinions (“seems to be despised by some”) at de princ. 4.2.4, 21. Athanasius calls it “a most profitable book” ὠφελιμωτάτης( βίβλου, de incarn., 3.1, ed. Kannengiesser), and he is happy to cite the work in support of his arguments while firmly asserting “it is not of the canon” μὴ( ὃν ἐκ τοῦ κανάνος, De decret. 18.3, ed. Opitz); on Athanasius’ opinions, along with those of Eusebius, cf. below, p. 202. .