Landmarks in the History of Early Christianity Part 7

[7] The justification for a.s.suming that the Church at Rome probably had Adoptionist proclivities is the undeniable fact that early in the second century Hermas held this view, and there is no evidence that he was an innovator.

[8] _Eprepen gar auto di on ta panta ka di ou ta panta pollous vious eis doxan agagonta tn archegon tes sotepias auton dia pethematon teleiosai._ The English translators take _agagonta_ as referring to the same person as _auto_, but it seems grammatically preferable to construe it as a qualification of _archegon_.

[9] Though, if the late date for 1 Peter be accepted, 1 Clement is the earlier doc.u.ment. But the chronology of 1 Clement seems to me less certain than it is usually held to be. It depends on two factors, both doubtful: (1) the chronology of the list of Roman bishops in Eusebius and in the _Liber Pontificalis_; (2) the supposed reference in the epistle to the alleged persecution under Domitian. Against these is the reference to Clement in _The Shepherd_ of Hermas, and the apparently clear testimony of the Canon of Muratori that _The Shepherd_ was written about A.D. 140.

[10] Cf. Sim. ix. 1: "For that Spirit is the Son of G.o.d," and the Latin (Vulgate) text of Sim. v. 5. 1, which adds to the explanation of the Parable the exact statement, "Now the Son is the Holy Spirit." It is uncertain whether this is the true text or merely correct explanation, but in general the Latin text is better than that of the Athos MS.,--the only Greek evidence at this point.

[11] See Appendix on pp. 137 ff.

[12] "Especially remembering the words of the Lord Jesus which he spoke when he was teaching gentleness and long-suffering. For he spoke thus: 'Be merciful, that ye may obtain mercy. Forgive, that ye may be forgiven. As ye do, so shall it be done unto you. As ye give, so shall it be given unto you. As ye judge, so shall ye be judged. As ye are kind, so shall kindness be shewn you. With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you.'"

[13] There is no entirely convincing evidence in favour of this tradition. See, however, B. W. Bacon, "The Roman Origin of the Gospel of Mark," in _Harvard Theological Studies_, vii.

[14] "I answered then and said, This is my first and last saying, that it had been better not to have given the earth unto Adam: or else when it was given him, to have restrained him from sinning. For what profit is it for men now in this present time to live in heaviness, and after death to look for punishment? O thou Adam, what hast thou done? for though it was thou that sinned, thou art not fallen alone, but we all that come of thee. For what profit is it unto us, if there be promised us an immortal time, whereas we have done the works that bring death?

And that there is promised us an everlasting hope, whereas ourselves being most wicked are made vain? And that there are laid up for us dwellings of health and safety, whereas we have lived wickedly? And that the glory of the Most High is kept to defend them which have led a wary life, whereas we have walked in the most wicked ways of all? And that there should be shewed a paradise whose fruit endureth for ever, wherein is security and medicine, since we shall not enter into it?

For we have walked in unpleasant places. And that the faces of them which have used abstinence shall shine above the stars, whereas our faces shall be blacker than darkness? For while we lived and committed iniquity, we considered not that we should begin to suffer for it after death" (4 Ezra vii. 46-56).

[15] I have at present no clear opinion on the problem, except that I am strongly disinclined to accept the rather popular view which receives Colossians as Pauline and rejects Ephesians. Unless some theory similar to Holtzmann's be accepted, I think that Colossians and Ephesians stand or fall together. The popular distinction is partly due to the fact that Protestant scholarship is more sensitive to the un-Pauline ecclesiology of Ephesians, which it repudiates, than to the un-Pauline Christology of Colossians, to which it adheres.

[16] _Tunchanei de Ermes ho logos, on apesteilan prs hemas ex ouranou oi theoi_. Cornutus, _De Natura Deorum_, xvi.

[17] The Leucian Acts of John and Andrew, which seem to have a real connection with the Johannine tradition, represent this Docetic tendency.

[18] I must emphasise the speculative nature of this suggestion. So far as I know, there is not any evidence that Pantaenus was in Rome, or that Clement was influenced by Roman thought. But--merely as a guess--the idea appeals to me as probable in itself.

[19] The address in Rome which Justin gives is obscure, but it is supposed to be the same as the bath called Novation's on the Via Viminalis. See Otto's note on the subject.

[20] _Roustiks eparchos eipe; Pou synerchesthe? Iustinos eipen; Entha hekasto proairesis ka dynamis esti; pantos gar nomixeis ep t aut synerchesthai hemas pantas? ouch outos de; dioti ho theos ton Christianon topo ou perigraphetai alla aoratos on ourann ka ten gen pleroi ka pantachou hup ton piston prosuneitai kai doxetai.

Roustiks eparchos eipen; Eipe, pou synerchesthe e eis poion topon athroixeis tous mathetas sou; Ioustinos eipen; Ego epano meno tins Martinou tou Timothinou balaneiou, ka para panta tn chronon touton (epedemesa de te Romaion polei touto deuteron) kai ou ginosko allen tina suneleusin ei ne ten ekeiou. ka ei tis ebouleto aphikneisthai par emoi, ekoinonoun auto ton tes aletheias gogon._

[21] The elements of multiplicity, he thinks, are contained in the Logos, which is therefore secondary to the Father.

[22] Perhaps the most significant difference between Jesus and Origen is that Origen was inclined to find the concrete expression of the Purpose of Life in self-realisation--he was in the best sense a Gnostic--while Jesus found it in the service of the weak, ignorant, and sinful, rather than merely in loyal obedience to the strong, wise, and righteous. The two are complementary, not contradictory--but they are not identical.

{137}

APPENDIX

THE INTERPRETATION OF _THE SHEPHERD_ OF HERMAS

I am glad to be allowed to quote on this subject from a letter by my friend and former pupil, Dr. F. S. Mackenzie of Montreal, who has spent much time on the study of Hermas. He says:

"In several pa.s.sages Hermas speaks of a small circle of six superior angels. It is legitimate to look for a reason for his choice of this particular number, and there can be little doubt that the reason may be discovered in Sim. ix., where the Son of G.o.d, who appears as lord of the tower, is clearly thought of as the seventh angel, superior to the six who accompany him and who have charge of the building of the tower, as they in turn are superior to all lesser angels and men. Thus the number of the archangels is made complete, according to prevailing apocalyptic enumeration. The contention of some scholars, among whom Zahn is the most outstanding, that Hermas makes a fundamental distinction between the Son of G.o.d and all angels, cannot be made good.

The lord of the tower in Sim. ix. is not different in kind from the six angels who accompany him in his inspection of the tower. While he is, indeed, much more glorious than the others, nevertheless he and they alike appear as 'glorious men.' They all are angels (Sim. ix. 12.

7-8). Moreover, this angelic Son of G.o.d is called Michael in Sim.

viii., and is obviously identical with the most revered or glorious angel (_semnotatos aggelos_) referred to in other places. He is supreme in the angel world. He has all authority over both {138} angels and men. He is lord of the Church, and judge of its members.

"Why is the Son of G.o.d, the Christian archangel, called Michael?

Michael was one of the seven Jewish archangels; and to him, according to Dan. xii. 1, was to be committed the judgement of the people of G.o.d.

There are indications in apocalyptic literature that he was regarded as supreme in this angelic circle. Hermas apparently has carried over the name of this Jewish angel, and used it to designate the archangel of the Christians, who are for him, of course, the true Israel. The position of supremacy in the angel world, a.s.signed by pre-Christian righteous men to Michael, is really held by the Son of G.o.d. He is in fact the true Michael; and in him all that is foretold of Michael in valid prophecy will be fulfilled. If Hermas regarded the prediction of Dan. xii. 1 as authoritative at all, he must obviously have seen in it a reference to the Christian judgement to be executed by the Son of G.o.d. And I consider it highly probable that this may explain the apparent identification of the Son of G.o.d with the Jewish angel.

Hermas has simply made use of the name to connect his ideas with the Danielic prophecy, and to show how, in his opinion, that prophecy is to be fulfilled. If this be so, then the Son of G.o.d is not, strictly speaking, identified with the Jewish Michael, but he may nevertheless be given the name on occasion, because of the fact that in him all that the prophets foretold of the archangel of the people of G.o.d will come to pa.s.s.

"The term Son of G.o.d is used by Hermas in a double sense. On the one hand, it is used of the pre-existent counsellor of G.o.d, who may also be called the Holy Spirit, and on the other of the glorified and exalted Jesus, the elect servant, who _became_ the Son of G.o.d (Sim. v. 6), or in whom, as is said in Sim. ix. 12, the pre-existent Son became manifest. Because Jesus alone of all men preserved the indwelling Spirit pure, therefore he is the only perfect manifestation of the Spirit or Son of G.o.d. And he was rewarded for his fidelity by being adopted into the family of G.o.d as joint heir with the Son. {139} Nevertheless he is not, and never can be, one with the pre-existent Son or Spirit.

"One is tempted to argue that this distinction is observed in Similitudes v., viii., and ix., and that the Son of the master of the vineyard, the great spreading tree, and the ancient rock respectively represent the pre-existent Son, while the elect servant, the angel Michael, and the lord of the tower represent the exalted Jesus. Thus all the angelic representations of the Son of G.o.d would refer only to the latter. Moreover, there are features in the angelology of Hermas which strengthen such an argument. From Vis. ii. 2. 7, Sim. ix. 24. 4, 25. 2, 27. 3, it seems clear that Christians are believed to become angels at their death. Their rank, however, in the angel world will not be uniform, but will vary according to the excellence of their life on earth. Jesus therefore, because of his unique purity of life, must necessarily be the most highly exalted of all such angels. And so, in point of fact, he is. Of all angels, only he has ever been admitted to a position of co-equality with the pre-existent Son.

"On the other hand, it must be remembered that Hermas at times seems to think of the pre-existent Son or Spirit as an angel (Mand. vi. 2, xi.

9). Moreover, in his representation as the son of the master in the parable of Sim. v., he stands in very much the same relation to the first-created angels as does the lord of the tower in Sim. ix. And finally, there is an undoubted difficulty in supposing that the six archangels are thought of as being obliged to wait from the beginning of time until the exaltation of Jesus for their number to be completed.

It still remains an open question whether the Christian archangel, the lord and judge of the Church, is the eternal or the adopted Son of G.o.d; and with the uncertainty and obscurity of the data, it may be doubted whether a final judgement in the matter can be given. Hermas does not, in fact, preserve any clear distinction between spirits and angels. He reveals throughout an undoubted fondness for hypostatisation. Even virtues and vices, emotions and pa.s.sions, are described as spirits or demons as the case may be, and spoken of as if they {140} were possessed of personality. And certainly some allowance ought to be made for this tendency of the author, in the matter of determining his conception of spirits in general, and in particular of the Holy Spirit, who besides having an eternal existence with G.o.d, dwells also in every man."

{141}

ADDITIONAL NOTE TO PAGE 96

After this pa.s.sage was ready for the press my friend, Mr. Robert P.

Casey, sent me the following criticism: "It can hardly be said that 'we' gain through the loss of our personalities, since 'we' (a personal p.r.o.noun) _are_ our personalities. On the other hand, it is quite conceivable that that Immaterial Purpose, which works in and through our personal life, or at least some parts of it, gains by rejecting us after our usefulness is past, seeking its further completion in those who come after us, and thus maintaining a unified and eternal Life through a multiplicity and diversity of lives. That this process is a gain from the point of view of history is apparent, yet it can hardly be said to be 'our' gain if 'we' are destroyed in the process.

"Furthermore, is the archipelago a fair a.n.a.logy? In the sentence 'If those islands could have thought and spoken...' the fact that they cannot destroys the a.n.a.logy at its most important point. The allegory fits admirably the relation of the individual life and Immaterial Reality as a whole, but the crux of the problem of immortality from the point of the individual is the relation between (1) the unity established between the intellectual and moral elements (but not many other elements, e.g. evil) of his personal life and the sum total of Immaterial Reality, and (2) the equally real and more obvious unity presented by his own personality, including all his conscious experiences regardless of their value.

"The first unity is, if not everlasting, at least as permanent as history itself, and is by its nature eternal and immaterial. The second unity is apparently transitory, being dependent physically on the brain and nervous system, psychically on the persistence of memory.

Thus, to say a man has eternal life is simply to mean that certain of his activities or experiences have the attribute of eternal or immaterial. It, however, leaves untouched the question whether the 'ego' which is conscious of these activities continues after death."

{142}

The point seems to me to be well taken, and to express a widely spread and possibly correct opinion; yet I cannot but feel that Mr. Casey is a little too much influenced by the exigencies of language. Of course in all the ordinary dealings of life that which makes me "me" is a number of factors, which, taken together, may be called personality, but the real point at issue is whether in the last a.n.a.lysis these factors are part of "me," or are instruments which "I" use and circ.u.mstances under which "I" live. For myself I see no reason to doubt that most of them come to an end with death. But behind all this there seems to me to be something in "me" which is Immaterial, and therefore eternal, and I believe that it is this, not that which now makes up my personality, which really makes me "me."

THE END