 |
“gnostic” elements. The vices and virtues. The dependence theory to be used with caution
|
|
|
|
“GNOSTIC” ELEMENTS
Moreover, “Hermas” is throughout strongly tinged with “Gnostic” elements. As I wrote in my last book, 3 it is practically one of the very numerous
p. 377
permutations and combinations of the Sophia-mythus—one of the many settings-forth of the mystic lore and love of the Christ and the Sophia, or Wisdom, of the Son of God and His spouse or sister, the Holy Spirit, of the King and Queen, of the Lord and the Virgin Church. In its most instructive series of visions are depicted the mystic scenes of the allegorical drama of man’s inner nature—the mystery-play of all time.
But when we say “Gnostic” we mean much that is also Hellenistic mysticism, and therefore much that is also “Hermetic, ” for in the Trismegistic literature there is set forth a Gnosis of a far simpler type than in any of the Christian systems technically called “Gnostic. ”
THE VICES AND VIRTUES
A striking example of the similarity of ideas of this nature is found in comparing the list of twelve vices and ten (seven and three) virtues, given in C. H., xiii. (xiv. ) 7-10, 1 with “Hermas, ” Sim. ix. 15, 1-3, where twelve “virgins, ” each bearing the name of a virtue, are set over against twelve “women clothed in black, ” each bearing the name of a vice; and with “Hermas, ” Vis. iii. 8, 7, where seven women, each in turn the mother of the other, are called by the names of seven virtues.
We need not, of course, necessarily suppose any direct contact in this case, though it is curious that the list of virtues occurs precisely in the sermon “On the Mountain”; but both writers clearly move in, or are influenced by, the same circle of ideas, and that, too, ideas of a very special nature.
The above points are sufficient for our purpose, and throw a most interesting light on one element in the
p. 378
composition of the very ancient Christian document whose exclusion from the canon, after enjoying for so many years practically canonical authority, is to be regretted.
THE EARLY DATE OF THE ORIGINAL “HERMAS”
Now, “Apocalyptic Hermas” is distinctly “anti-Pauline, ” and perhaps this more than anything else accounts for the final exclusion of the book from the canon; it is therefore in vain to seek in it quotations from any of the Pauline Letters. But what is still more remarkable, neither it nor the “Pastoral Hermas” quote from any of the Canonical Gospels. This argues a very early date.
If, then, we are inclined to accept the statement of the writer of the Muratorian Fragment (c. 170 A. D. ) that “Hermas” was written at Rome during the bishopric of Pius (140-c. 155 A. D. ), this must refer to the completed work of the last redactor who is held responsible for “Hermas iii., ” and who was acquainted with several books of the canon. The “Pastoral Hermas” may thus be fairly pushed back to the beginning of the first century.
We have also to remember—a point which Reitzenstein does not seem to have taken into consideration—not only that the Greek original of our form of “Hermas” is lost, but that the Old Latin version has also disappeared, and that we possess only a Greek retranslation from the Latin. 1 Under these circumstances, it is still more surprising that such strong traces of direct literary dependence on the original form of the “Pœ mandres” introduction should still remain in our “Hermas. ”
|
|
|
p. 379
THE DEPENDENCE THEORY TO BE USED WITH CAUTION
It would, however, in my opinion be a grave mistake to push the theory of literary dependence too far, and to seek to account for the main content of “Hermas” on any theory of direct borrowing from allied sources, or even solely of direct external conditioning by the mystical and theological ideas of the time. There is no a priori reason against the high probability that the original writer was recording some genuine inner experiences, however much, as was the fashion of the time, and of other times and climes, they may have been expanded, interpolated, and polished by literary art.
It is true that all such inner experiences would be strongly conditioned by the prior conceptions, thought-tone, and theological beliefs of the writer, and by the current and traditional types of such experiences known in his day. Indeed, it is very difficult anywhere to meet with the record of visions or apocalyptic utterances which are not so conditioned. The Buddhist seer, sees in the mode of traditional Buddhist conceptions of the unseen; the Hellenic mantis and sibyl find themselves in an invisible world of the familiar nature known to them from the mythologists, and poets, and mystery-traditions; the Egyptian prophet moves amid the familiar topography and schematology of the Amenti of his nation; even an Ezekiel sees in the symbols of the Babylonian cultus; while the Christian mystic invariably finds himself in the conventional heaven of the saints and the hell of the sinners.
It is not, therefore, necessary to follow Reitzenstein (pp. 8-11) in detail, when he seeks to show the strong influence of heathen mystical literature on the early
p. 380
[paragraph continues] Christian document we are discussing, and to point to striking parallels between the setting of the first four visions of “Hermas, ” and the visions of Zosimus, as preserved in the fragments of his “Acts, ” 1 or the “Visit to Hades” of Setme and Si-Osiri, and their passing through the Seven Halls, 2 as partially preserved in the Demotic “Tales of Khamuas. ” 3
It is true that Zosimus, who nourished towards the end of the third century, was a member of the Pœ mandres community, and, therefore, what he has to say is of great interest to us, for doubtless his visions were strongly conditioned by the Trismegistic tradition and especially by the Isis-type of its literature, and the cognate Egyptian “Books of Hermes”; but the points on which Reitzenstein lays stress seem somewhat too general to allow of our drawing any direct conclusion with regard to “Hermas” and “Hermes. ”
There is a certain similarity; but our information is too scanty to permit of any precise drawing of general conclusions. There is, however, a valuable piece of information which prevents us from attributing all the similarities which may be noticed purely to the general thought-atmosphere of the times. In one particular at least, we can be more definite.
|
|
|
