the composition of Hermas. Closely connected with
this problem is that of the identification of the Son of God with an
angel who is sometimes described as "the most glorious angel" and
sometimes named as Michael. Did Hermas think that the Spirit who was
the Son is identical with Michael, or that Jesus became Michael, or in
what way are the facts to be explained? Finally, did Hermas think that
Christians became angels at their death?[11]

On what book did Hermas base his interpretation of Jesus? There is no
proof that he made use of any of our existing gospels, just as it is
very doubtful whether 1 Clement was acquainted with any of them. {116}

There is, indeed, in 1 Clement one passage referring to the words of
Jesus,[12] but it cannot be said that this is a quotation either from
Matthew or Luke. It has points of similarity to both, but agrees
completely with neither. No theory to explain the facts is convincing,
for three are possible. It may be a confused reminiscence of the
existing Gospels, or it may be the proof that a harmony was already in
existence, or it may be drawn from a document which was used by both
Matthew and Luke--in other words, the Q of the critics. Different
minds will see different grades of probability in these three
hypotheses. But there is no evidence to settle the question.

There is no satisfactory proof that the canonical gospels were known in
the Church of Rome until the time of Justin Martyr. If, however, the
question be discussed not on the basis of what gospel is quoted by
Hermas or Clement, for none of them are by either, but merely on the
ground of their doctrinal affinities, the gospel of Mark has the best
claim to consideration. According to the other gospels Jesus was the
Son of God from his birth, but, though Mark could be otherwise
interpreted, the most obvious meaning of the gospel as it stands is
that Jesus became Son of God at the baptism when the Spirit descended
upon him. {117} It can hardly be merely a coincidence that this gospel
is actually attributed by tradition[13] to a Church which was at first
adoptionist.

Sacramental adoptionist Christianity seems to be the nearest approach
to a complete transformation to a mystery religion with no philosophy,
which is found in the history of Christianity, but even here the basis
is Jewish.

This is plain in its treatment of conduct. It had apparently accepted
the sacramental remission of sins in baptism, and ther