The original author of the fragment is unknown. The text of the list itself is traditionally dated to the second half of the second century because the author refers to
Pius I,
bishop of Rome (140—155), as recent: But Hermas wrote
The Shepherd "most recently in our time", 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. Another reason suggesting a date toward the end of the second century is the concern with denouncing
Marcion, a Christian bishop whose influence was the strongest in the second century, as well as Gnostics, who were also more prominent in the 2nd century than at later dates. as has Charles E. Hill. A reason to suspect an origin in the Western church, other than the obvious of the manuscript being found in Italy, is the absence of the
Epistle to the Hebrews in the list, which appears to have been more widely accepted in the Greek-speaking east of the Roman Empire than in the Western, Roman church. In this interpretation, the reference to the Shepherd of Hermas merely meant "recently" in a broader sense of "not stretching all the way back to the 1st century", in this view. Another option propounded by Clare Rothschild is that the fragment was written in Latin originally in the 4th century, possibly even later, and the reason for the awful Latin style was not poor translation but rather the copyist being unfamiliar with the abbreviation style used in the older manuscript. Rothschild also sees the fragment as a forgery attempting to portray itself as being written in the 2nd century, to explain the reference to the Shepherd and Pius. As an example, most scholars do not believe the
Gelasian Decree to have been written by Pope Gelasius or even during his reign; similarly, it is possible that the writer was merely backdating their work by saying Pius was recent. The theories for a later composition date have in general not prevailed over the existing scholarly consensus suggesting a second century date as the most likely. == Contents ==