A friend of mine passed along a link to a florilegium listing on churchfathers.org. For those who do not know, a florilegium is a list of excerpts from a variety of writers, usually surrounding a particular topic.
Now, florilegia have been used since the medieval era to make patristic figures say what they aren’t saying. This is actually one of the primary reasons why the turn back to the original sources in the Reformation yielded the insight that it did, because as Christian humanist scholars placed the quotes back into their original context it became clear that they were saying something very different than the school men were making them say. While an interesting story, that is for another day.
A few qualifiers:
First and foremost: Even if I were to grant the implicit argument of this listing and acknowledge that all of these quotes represent a very early representation of the cult of the saints, who cares? They aren’t Scripture, and in many cases they aren’t even reflections of Scripture. There is all sorts of wild stuff in the Antenicene era, even things that the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox would say is crazy. While there is some value in understanding how the earliest Christians understood the faith, “the supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.” (WCF 1.10) You are reasonable people, don’t just take my word for it. (1 Corinthians 10:15)
Second: The surviving documents of the first, second, and third centuries are just that… surviving documents. We have no way to know how many other documents that did not survive there were, nor what they included. Given the vast diversity that is present in the extant documents, it is reasonable to think that there was a similar diversity in the ones that did not survive. Anyone who makes a claim that all of the Early Church Fathers believed a certain thing is almost certainly wrong. Even in areas as significant as Christology or Trinitarian theology, there are outlier perspectives that are represented in these documents (Origen anyone?)
Third: I’m not denying that the cult of the saints existed very early in the Church. We have direct historical references both in favor and opposed to it as early as the 4th and 5th centuries. My approach here is not to disprove that such perspectives existed, but only to demonstrate that we have to do the hard work of putting sources in their contexts before we can really understand what is being said. Almost anyone can arrange a set of out of context quotes and make them seem to argue a given point. They do not, in fact, argue that point unless they do so in their proper and original context.
Fourth: I am not intending to be comprehensive in my approach here. My goal is to look at several of the quotes provided and demonstrate how they are taken out of context in such a way that the tacit argument being made is not supported by the quotes supplied. I leave it to my readers to dig in and draw their own conclusions. I am going to look at one quote per post over the next couple of weeks.
The Shepherd of Hermas
“[The Shepherd said:] ‘But those who are weak and slothful in prayer, hesitate to ask anything from the Lord; but the Lord is full of compassion, and gives without fail to all who ask him. But you, [Hermas,] having been strengthened by the holy angel [you saw], and having obtained from him such intercession, and not being slothful, why do not you ask of the Lord understanding, and receive it from him?’” (The Shepherd 3:5:4 [A.D. 80]).
Most Christians are not familiar with the Shepherd of Hermas. The date of this apocalyptic document is “likewise difficult to establish” (Michael Holmes, the Apostolic Fathers, 3rd Ed., 2007, 447.) Holmes notes that there is a reference to it around 175 by Irenaeus, and that the Muratorian Canon (ca. 170) notes that it was written “quite recently in our time.” Although he acknowledges that there are early dates proposed (as by our interlocutor), he seems to give the most weight to the idea that this is a composite document which was written in stages from the “early part of the second century” to the 170s as indicated by Irenaeus and the Muratorian Canon.
But what of this quote? In order to understand why this quote does not represent an early example of Christian’s praying to the saints, you have to understand a little bit about the content of this portion of the book as a whole.
The quote in question falls under the fifth and final vision. In this final vision, which constitutes the bulk of the book, the introduction of the Shepherd falls in chapter 25 (by Holmes’ numbering), separated from our quote by 33 chapters. So, we have to ask, who is this Shepherd who speaks this to Hermas?
I’m glad you asked.
In Chapter 25 (5.1 in the old numbering) the enigmatic figure appears. He is “a man glorious in appearance, dressed like a shepherd.” (Holmes, 501) He notes to Hermas that he was sent by “the most holy angel.” (Holmes 503) Hermas is suspicious and says “Well, who are you? For I know to whom I have been entrusted.” After asking Hermas if he recognized the Shepherd, and meeting negative reply, the Shepherd replies “‘I am,’ he said, ‘the shepherd to whom you were entrusted.”
Who does that sound like to you? Who else answers questions by saying “I am”?
After this exchange, Hermas notes “While he was still speaking, his appearance was changed, and I recognized him as the one to whom I was entrusted.” The Shepherd then says “Do not be confused but strengthen yourself in my commandments.”
How many angels do you see issuing their own commandments in the Bible? Yeah, me either.
While it is disputed, it seems clear to me that this figure is meant to be Jesus Christ. Compare with the first chapter of the Canonical Apocalypse in which John says that an angel was sent to him to make known the revelation of Jesus Christ, but then later in the same chapter it is made clear that this angel is Christ himself.
Finally, this brings us to the actual quote in question. The quote provided by churchfathers.org is truncated in such a way that it appears to be indicating that the “holy angel” which Hermas saw strengthened him. However, the holy angel which Hermas saw was Jesus. Beyond that, the whole point of this passage is that the strength which this holy angel gave to Hermas was to be used to pray to the Lord and receive understanding from him.
Further, and I’ll close with this, the quote provided is using an older translation that does not accurately represent the Greek text. It can be read to imply that Hermas received intercession from the angel, that is that the angel prayed for him. However, when translated accurately into contemporary English it is better understood as the angel giving Hermas the strength to pray. This makes much more sense in the context, as the immediate consequence of this strengthening is that Hermas should use this new strength to seek the Lord. (The literal translation is something like “but you having been empowered by the holy angel and having received from him this prayer.” It is clear to see that the empowering and receiving are parallel concepts, so it does not seem likely that what is being said is “the angel strengthened you and prayed for you.”)