Ed Creedy takes a look at four compelling reasons why The Shepherd of Hermas isn’t included in the Bible and asks whether we can learn anything from it today

Love truth, and allow only truth to come from your mouth, in order that the spirit of God that lives in your body might prove to be true in the sight of all people; and thus will the Lord who lives in you be glorified. For the Lord is truthful in every word, and there is nothing false in Him” (28.1).

So speaks the prophetic angel in the second-century work, The Shepherd of Hermas.¹ One of the earliest non-canonical Christian texts, and immensely popular in the early church, The Shepherd is a fascinating window into the literary world of the earliest Christians. Though key figures in early Christianity such as Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Origen all lauded the text for its insight, it seems to have faded from use in the third and fourth centuries and is now largely forgotten. Writing on the work in the latter years of the nineteenth century, Charles Taylor, a Cambridge Hebrew scholar, suggested that “it has been undervalued because it has not been understood.”² Its often bizarre, fantastical content has led to the prevailing opinion that it is inaccessible at best and heretical at worst. Whilst I hope to show that we can indeed be confident in its omission from our Bibles, it is also worth asking the question of whether ancient Christian texts like The Shepherd can be of any use to us today.

Who was Hermas? 

Details around the origins of this text are notoriously hard to pin down. Surviving manuscripts and textual evidence suggest that the work was written in two or three sections, though probably over a short period of time. We don’t know if this indicates the influence of one, two or three contributors, but the idea that this was the work of a single author remains the favoured view. Who this author was, however, is a different question. The third-century theologian, Origen, suggested this Hermas was the same Hermas mentioned by Paul in Romans 16:14, but the date of the work makes such a suggestion improbable. The second-century Muratorian Canon (one of the very earliest detailed lists of New Testament books, c. AD 180) suggests Hermas was the brother of Pius, the then bishop of Rome, but aside from this reference we lack any firm evidence. As to the date, mentions in the work of the Greek Bishop Irenaeus (c. AD 180) and the Muratorian Canon indicate circulation in the late second century, and the link to Pius gives us a workable date between AD 140 and AD 154. Though some suggest dates as early as AD 70/80, the mid-second century seems most plausible. Despite little autobiographical information in The Shepherd itself, there is a clear link between the text and Rome. It’s apparent that the author lived and counted himself a member of the church there.

Reading The Shepherd 

The Shepherd is nearly twice the length of the Gospel of Luke (the longest New Testament book) and is split into three distinct sections. Hermas records five visions, followed by twelve commandments (or mandates) and ten parables (also called similitudes.) Visions One to Four are apocalyptic in theme. This culminates in the dramatic fourth vision, when Hermas sees a cloud of dust kicked up by something running towards him; as it grows closer he sees “a huge beast, like some sea monster, and from its mouth flaming locusts were pouring out. And the beast was about one hundred feet long, and it had a head like a ceramic jar” (22.6). Hermas cries out to God for rescue and is relieved when the beast lies down, puts its tongue out and lets him pass by unscathed. This final vision acts as an introduction to the rest of the work as the angelic figure of the Shepherd, after whom the book is now known, is introduced. The commandments are given to Hermas by the Shepherd and give instructions for the Christian life.  

The parables stylistically resemble those found in the Gospels, featuring the familiar images of vineyards, servants and masters, sheep and shepherds, whilst their allegorical focus reads more like works such as 1 Enoch, an older extra-canonical book written in ancient Hebrew. Thematically, the author explores big questions around the Christian life and relationship with God. The theme of sins committed after baptism, and whether forgiveness can be sought, also appears throughout. The personified figure of Wisdom plays a key role in the unfolding visions, and the pictures Hermas describes include dramatic construction projects and heavenly hosts in attendance. Amongst all of this God’s mercy is reiterated and the greatness of his character is explored.

The Shepherd’s popularity in the early church leaves us with one very significant question: should it be included in our Bibles? 

Rightly non-canonical?

The work was certainly popular in the churches of the second and third centuries. Take for example Irenaeus. In his theological text, Against Heresies, he quotes directly from The Shepherd, writing “Rightly, then, the Scripture says: ‘First of all, believe that God is one, who created and finished all things and made all things to exist out of what did not exist, and containing all things but alone is uncontained’.”³ Irenaeus’s word for what I have translated as “Scripture” here - ἡ γραφή - is used almost exclusively in his surviving writing to denote biblical texts, and the quote above is followed by passages from Malachi, Ephesians and Matthew. Whilst this is by no means conclusive as to whether Irenaeus considered The Shepherd to be canonical, it at the very least illustrates the respect this text commanded in his mind. The second-century theologian, Clement of Alexandria, is another to have held the work in high regard, repeatedly citing the “revelations” given to “the Shepherd” and offering loose quotations of the text.⁴ The Shepherd was clearly a significant work for many early Christians, but I believe we can be confident that our Bibles are not lacking from its omission. 

Let’s look at four reasons why The Shepherd didn’t make it into the Bible. 

1 

Early canonical lists omit it

The earliest surviving list of New Testament works does not include The Shepherd. The second-century Muratorian Canon does mention the work by name, but makes its view clear. “The Shepherd, moreover, did Hermas write very recently in our times in the city of Rome…therefore it ought to be read, but it cannot be made public in the Church to the people, nor placed among the prophets…nor among the apostles.” This early canon list holds to the view that The Shepherd was a helpful work, but a recent reflection on Scriptural truth, not Scripture itself. 

Origen, in his third-century discussion on canon in his commentary on Joshua made no mention of The Shepherd, even though he explicitly highlighted several works that were disputed by churches in his own day.⁵ Despite describing it elsewhere as “divinely inspired” he clearly sees a reason to exclude the work as extra-biblical and therefore not warranting a place in the discussion of the canon. Fourth-century Church historian, Eusebius likewise considered the work spurious. He listed it alongside the Didache, another early Christian text, and the Epistle of Barnabas as orthodox works, but outside of the canon, and repeated the idea that they ought not to be read in formal church meetings (echoing the Muratorian Canon).

2

The work was used to support early heretical teachings

Though orthodox in its theology, and with many helpful reflections on offer to the reader, the work was nonetheless linked to some early heretical movements. It soon became linked with the second-century heresy of adoptionism. Theodotus of Byzantium was a notable propagator of this heretical teaching at the end of the second century, instructing his followers that Jesus was born like any other man, before the “Christ” came upon him in the Spirit at his baptism. Leaning on misunderstandings of texts such as Hebrews 1:5, Theodotus’s view was popular among some early Christian groups. The Shepherd was a favourite work for the adoptionists, and they argued wrongly that it displayed a low view of Jesus which supported their teachings. The followers of Theodotus, and the popular gnostic teacher Valentinus, all looked to The Shepherd to support their heretical views, and this all contributed further to a negative view of the work.

3 

Questions around authorship challenged its place

The confusion around The Shepherd’s authorship is not a modern question. Eusebius’ designation of the work as fictitious reflected early concerns about the identity (or lack of one) of the author. Little is known about Hermas and his role in the life of the church in Rome and this ambiguity plagued the reception of the text. Though The Shepherd was for a long time considered a helpful, orthodox Christian work, the lack of confidence in its origins contributed to a lower view. Given apostolic authorship (or a close relationship with an apostle) became a criterion for canon inclusion, the work was always readily recognised as belonging to a different, lesser category.

4

Key figures in the early church considered it helpful but not authoritative

The Shepherd was widely read in the early church and extensively copied. We have a number of surviving early manuscripts, and with at least eleven fragmentary manuscripts from the second and third centuries, it is one of the most well attested early Christian texts. Indeed, the fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus, one of the oldest surviving and most complete early copies of the Bible includes The Shepherd as an additional work alongside the Epistle of Barnabas (not as canonical—but important enough to be included after the books of the New Testament). It was well respected, and yet early figures such as Clement and  Irenaeus give us little indication that they considered the work authoritative.

As we have explored already, Irenaeus’s use of γραφή in his introduction of a short quote from The Shepherd has led some to suggest he considered it Scripture, yet he offers no further indication in any of his works that it ought to be accorded this status, and this isolated use of the word offers little by way of conclusive proof. Clement, who used the work regularly in his surviving writings never labels it Scripture, and for a man who enjoyed quoting all manner of texts, his literary signposting is often incredibly revealing. 

For the vast majority of early Christian authors, the work was valuable but not authoritative. It was not recognised as having been written by an apostle or one of their close contacts, and it was known to have been written after the apostolic age. In other words, the early church recognised that it was a helpful work, and respected it, but did not recognise it as Scripture.

So how should we view The Shepherd?

Realistically, most Christians sitting in our churches on a Sunday morning won’t have read The Shepherd of Hermas (or perhaps Irenaeus or Clement either, but that’s a conversation for another day), so what should we do with this ancient text? Much like the writings of Clement, Tertullian or Justin Martyr, The Shepherd of Hermas never claims to be Scripture itself. This was another early Christian work seeking to help believers better understand the God of the Bible, but it didn’t claim to be a part of that Bible itself. Much like great works of theology or discipleship today, we enjoy and appreciate them, but don’t call for their inclusion in our Bibles.

We use and enjoy great hymns and spiritual songs, but don’t try to tack them on to the end of the Psalms. So it was with The Shepherd in the early church. The work was well respected from an early time, but it was, for the most part, recognised as being outside of the New Testament canon, and few seriously claimed that it ought to have been included. The evidence illustrates that it simply does not fit the criteria for inclusion in the canon. It fails to offer concrete authorship, making no claims to have been written by an apostle or one who knew the apostles well. It offers us comments on Scripture but is not Scripture.

Should we read The Shepherd today? It is certainly a confusing text, one that requires attention and at times, a fair amount of hard work. But it is equally rewarding. The author has much to say on the uniqueness and greatness of God, and on topics such as forgiveness and the challenge of living out the Christian life. Given the at times bizarre nature of Hermas’s visions and parables, perhaps the central section, the commandments, would be the best place to start (or at least to linger).

The Shepherd is not a perfect work, but it can be a helpful one. Reading it offers us valuable insight into the world of the early church. We see some of the theological questions, challenges and concerns these Christians would have faced, and the visual and literary imagery that pervaded their world. As with any early Christian text, it can require a bit of effort to work through, but it is part of a Christian historical tradition that at its best points us back to the God at the centre of that history.