RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Hermann Hermeneutic s
jono- — new severe persecutions and the end of the world are near. Logically the book falls into two parts, the first including Vis. i.-iv., Contents of two visions calling to repentance and the Book, two giving reasons for its necessity. Vis. v. is an introduction to the second part, which contains the twelve " Mandates " or commandments revealed to Hernias. They cover (1) faith in the one God; (2) simplicity and love of one's neighbor; (3) truth; (4) chastity; (5) patience and mercy; (6) good and evil angels; (7) the fear of God; (8) self-restraint; (9) trust in God; (10) sadness and joy; (11) false prophets; (12) combat with evil desires. The first eight " Similitudes " are also visions, proclaiming the approaching completion of the Church and the call to repentance. Sim. ix. is a sort of recapitulation, with some modifications, and Sim. x. is an epilogue to the whole work.
There is no agreement as to the identity of the
author or the date of composition. On the one
hand, the Muratorian fragment asserts
Author explicitly that the work was written
and Date, in the time of Pius I. (i.e., about 140)
by his brother; on the other, the book
contains indications of an earlier date, such as the
mention of Clement in Vis., II., iv. 3, which would
throw it back into the first century. There are
difficulties "in the acceptance of either of these
theories. There is much in the book which does
not fit the end of the first century. The Church
has already lost its first fervor; traitors, hypocrites,
and seekers of pleasure have crept in; and the
beginnings of Gnosticism are already visible.
If, however, the view of the majority (Ewald, Ritschl, Dorner, Heyne, Hilgenfeld, Harnack, etc.) be adopted and a date near the middle of the second century be assigned, other difficulties arise. The author knows nothing of a monarchical episcopate in Rome; the heads of the Gnostic party do not come in; there is no trace even of Marcion, who came to Rome in 138 or 139. The mention of Clement has not been satisfactorily explained away. And it is difficult to see how the book could have attained such universal prominence in the Church if it was so late a product. Irenseus cites it as Scripture, and so does the Pseudo-Cyprian (Adv. aleatores). Clement of Alexandria makes considerable use of it, and Origen holds it to be inspired.
Under these circumstances increasing regard has naturally been paid to the theory that it was not all composed at one time. The first attempts to divide the authorship— those of Thiersch (1858), De Champagny, (1863) and Gu^ranger (1874) — were not very successful. A more adequate hypothesis was offered by Hilgenfeld in 1881, assuming three authors, the Hermes pastoralis who produced the nucleus (Vis. v.-Sim. vii.); the Hermes Theories apocalypticus who wrote Vis. i.-iv.; of and the Hermes secundarius, who re-
Composite cast the whole into its present form. Authorship. This view did not find many followers. Link (1888) and Baumgartner (1889) firmly opposed any division of authorship, and may be considered to have proved their point. The latest view of Harnack assigns the whole work V.-16
to the same author, but regards it as having been a gradual growth, through successive revisions and additions, from a small beginning not later than 110 to about 140. External evidence is wholly lacking for such a purpose; but it solves some of the most difficult internal troubles.
The doctrinal standpoint of the book is not Judeo-Christian; to the author, Christianity is the one absolute and universal religion. Doctrinal Nor is he Pauline in his views. He Standpoint, is much more representative of the popular Roman Christianity of his epoch, still lacking sharp dogmatic precision. The conception of pardoning grace as a thing which dominates the whole life has retired into the background; sin is forgiven at baptism, but the baptized are bound to sin no more, and, if they do sin, forgiveness is to be hoped for only under exceptional circumstances. It is hard to define the christology of the book; Harnack considers it adoptionist, but his view that it identifies the Son with the Holy Ghost (hardly possible in view of the baptismal formula) is probably based on a misinterpretation of the phrase " Spirit of God " applied to Christ, in the sense of a holy spiritual being. The whole teaching on this point is vague, but not really different from that of the New Testament. It is noticeable that the religious element is already secondary to the ethical, and that the doctrine of works of supererogation makes its appearance.