Talk:The Shepherd of Hermas

Comments from Wetman

I have been pretty bold in recasting this old-fashioned essay. Check History to see if I've dropped your favorite bit. I've removed this appreciation from Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, Cambridge, 1855. You may want it back in the entry:

His matter may be dull to us moderns, and the simplicity of his manner has been characterized as childish. But the admiration of Origen was not given to a work without depth or value; and, even with regard to the style, Westcott observes (On the Canon, pt. I, ch. ii): "The beauty of the language and conception in many parts has never been sufficiently appreciated. Much of it may be compared with the Pilgrim's Progress and higher praise than this cannot be given to a book of its kind."

More is needed on the cultural context of the Shepherd. At least there are references to Montanism and Docetism. --Wetman 07:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sources

In the 'Sources' section I have replaced the following unsourced text with the Carrier quote which says just about the exact opposite.

He shows acquaintance with one or another of the Synoptic Gospels, and, since he also uses the Gospel of John, he probably knew all four. He appears to employ Ephesians and other Epistles, including perhaps 1 Peter and Hebrews. But the books he most certainly and most often uses are the Epistle of James and the Book of Revelation.

If someone can find a sourced basis for the removed claims, then they can be reinserted beside the Carrier quote. B00P (talk) 10:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The connection between SoH has long been in doubt by Scholars. Osiek, who wrote the Hermeneia commentary on SoH sees links between it and a few specific texts, and Zellweger's work on SoH as homily has added the Kenosis hymn, but the relationship between SoH and the four gospels is on much shakier grounds. I would recommend rewriting this to comply with Osiek and Zellweger's findings (I may do so myself tomorrow...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.49.92.187 (talk) 04:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Divine?

The opening paragraph reads, "they did not consider the work to be on a par with those considered "divine" but rather apocryphal.[4]" It gives the Muratorian Fragment as its source for this information. However, there is no mention of whether or not "the Shepperd" or any other document is of "Divine" origin or quality but rather it merely excludes "the Shepherd" from liturgical readings on the basis of recent authorship. "But Hermas wrote The Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the chair of the church of the city of Rome. And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among the Prophets, whose number is complete, or among the Apostles, for it is after their time."

Furthermore, even were the Muratorian document to state such a thing it would merely be yet another non-authoritative early church text up against another non-authoritative early church text (those lists which include "the Shepperd").

I will delete the last sentence for now as it sounds more like Evangelical Apologetics based on speculation than actual history. Fimbrithel (talk) 13:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Adoptionism and WP:NOR

Please see discussion under Talk:Adoptionism#WP:NOR issues. Mangoe (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Biography?

The Sheherd of Hermas is not a Biography in any way, shape, or form. It is a text of early Christian visions. I removed the biography title in talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPSchneiderLC (talk • contribs) 08:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Anne Catherine Emmerich

If you want to WP:CITE her, then cite her under a section entitled Mysticism. But definitely not in a section about the Bible and definitely not in a section dealing with real-world history. Emmerich-Brentano did not write WP:SCHOLARSHIP, they wrote mysticism. As historiography and Bible scholarship it's just garbage. To put it otherwise, her writings are WP:RS for her own views only (and even that much has been challenged), but not for objective historical facts about the ancient history. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)