A Topic With a Long History
Introduction A Topic With a Long History This essay is an attempt to provide an account of the origins and development of the ministry in the Christian communities represented by the writings of Hermas, Clement, and Ignatius. Although its approach is new, the topic has a long and distinguished if laboured history. From an early date there has been debate over the origins of the office of bishop and elder. Jerome contended that originally the titles of elder and bishop were interchangeable, and that only later did monarchical episcopacy arise.1 Theodore of Mopsuestia, however, argued for an original monarchical episcopate first occupied by apostles and later by appointees who distinguished themselves from elders.2
During the Middle Ages what has become the traditional Roman Catholic view emerged and was proclaimed as orthodoxy. Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-74) argued that the orders of bishop and presbyter were different from the start.3
Luther objected to this theory and cited Jerome in support of an original equivalence of bishops and elders.4 The Council of Trent declared those who argued for an original equivalence "anathema."5 The battle lines thus drawn, a war of words issued forth for over three centuries. In Britain, where Puritans were unhappy with the reconciliation of episcopal forms with Reformation ideals, the debate was especially vigorous. Others, such as Milton (1641), Blondel (1646),
Saumaise (1641, 1645), Vitringa (1696 English translation 1842), and Daillé (1661), argued for an original identity of bishops and presbyters. Alternatively,
British divines, such as Hall (1628, 1639, 1640, 1644), Ussher (1641, 1644), Hammond (1651), Pearson (1672), and Bingham (1708), pressed for a "monarchical! [itc] Reformation."6 Much of the debate centred on the trustworthiness of Ignatius' letters, an edition of which was published by Ussher in 1644. In the eighteenth century, these divisions continued on the Continent with little deviation. Böhmer (1711), for example, cited the arguments of Blondel and Saumaise for an original identity of presbyters and bishops.7 Thomassin (1703) and the Dominican Alexander (1762) defended the traditional Roman position.
Many nineteenth-ccntury scholars attempted to overcome this impasse. In 1803, Planck argued that bishops and elders were originally distinct but equal positions.8 And in 1837, Richard Rothe, a Lutheran, contended that after the destruction of Jerusalem the remaining apostles founded a new order of monarchical episcopacy in their respective imperial provinces.9 Vitringa's invcstigaNotes to the Introduction appear on pp. 11-14.
The Social Setting of the Ministry tion into the synagogue and his argument, that the church modelled itself after and derived the presbyterate from it, influenced many nineteen th-century scholars.10 Baur's theory of a Petrine-Jewish Christian thesis and Pauline-Gentile
Christian antithesis synthesized in second-century hierarchical Catholicism assumed that the office of elder was derived from the synagogue.11 Ritschl, after distancing himself from Baur his teacher, argued for an original Jewish-Christian and Gentile-Christian episcopate.12 The questioning of the reliability and authenticity of New Testament sources also provided impetus for reflection on the development of leadership in the early church. Holtzmann argued in his work on the Pastorals1* that an original Pauline charismatic church order was gradually replaced by a legalistic office structure derived from the synagogue.
This theory is similar to those put forward by twentieth-century German scholars such as von Campenhausen,14 Schweizer,15 and Käsemann.
Nineteenth-century study of Graeco-Roman clubs led Renan,17 then Weingarten18 and Heinrici19 to argue that the early church patterned itself after pagan associations. They claimed that there was not sufficient evidence to argue that the early church derived the office of presbyter from synagogues, a point repeated by Schürer20 (and restated by contemporary scholars21). In 1880,
Hatch argued that the titles and functions of the early Christian ministry must be seen in the same way as similar titles used in pagan collegia contemporary with the early church.22 The έπ ίσκοπος as financial overseer of the early church was especially important because of the great number of poor and destitute Christians. The presbyters, as in Palestinian synagogues and secular Graeco-Roman government, occupied their position in the community on the basis of their seniority. The distinction between presbyters and bishops was one of function and rank. While the bishops and deacons took an active role in the eucharistie celebration, the elders enjoyed a position of honour in the worship service without taking an active part in it. In the daily life of the community, these presbyters exercised discipline and jurisdiction in matters of dispute between Christians. Monarchical episcopacy did not emerge fully until the third century, although it began to develop from the time of Ignatius through the church's battle with gnosticism. The weak link in Hatch's argument, as Loening and Lietzmann pointed out,23 is his assumption that the office of επίσκοπος in Graeco-Roman collegia always denoted financial oversight. Recent scholars have pointed to collegia as more or less distant analogies for the early Christian church.24
Harnack embraced Hatch's theory, but expanded it slightly after the appearance of the Didache in 1883. In 1884,25 and again in 1886,26 Harnack put forward his theory of the twofold ministry of the church.27 He argued that there were two levels of government in the early church: rulership by wandering apostles, prophets, and teachers who were not tied to individual churches, and by congregationaliy elected bishops and deacons, responsible for the administrative and cultic leadership of the individual community. With the disappearance of charismatic itinerants, bishops and deacons took over their duties (pp. 58f.).
Επίσκοποι and πρεσβύτεροι were originally coterminous — one denoting administrative tasks, the other patriarchal. But when the duties of bishops became more important, as a result of taking over the functions of prophets and
Introduction
teachers, a distinction arose between them. Deacons became separate from presbyters through the deacon's role in taking care of the poor and assisting in worship (pp. 66-67). In England, Harnack's application of the Didache as the key to solving a centuries-old debate led Turner to observe that the able German had
"prophets on the brain."28
Rudolph Sohm was Harnack's central opponent in Germany.29 Denying his double organization, Sohm argued that the apostolic church was purely charismatic, ruled entirely by apostles, teachers, and prophets (pp. 28-51). As these charismatics disappeared, the threefold ministry arose in order to celebrate the eucharist (p. 68). Bishops and deacons were elected from the honoured members of the congregation (i.e., presbyters) for this task (pp. 108-13, 121-28), The monarchical episcopate arose as the result of the challenge presented by false prophets to administer the sacraments correctly (p. 38, ch. 2). This first occurred in Rome: through 1 Clement the church was brought to a new era in which a special priesthood took the place of the priesthood of all believers.
Sohm's theory of an original charismatic organization of the church influenced many German theologians including Bultmann (1948 English translation 1965),
Greeven (1952/53), Campenhausen (1953 English translation 1969), Schweizer (1959 English translation 1961), and Käsemann (1964, pp. 63ff>, 1969, pp.
236fF.).30
In England, Hatch's theories provoked a severe response from Charles Gore, who argued for the appointment of bishops by apostles.31 C.H, Turner presented similar views, as did all the essays in Swete's book in which Turner's essay appeared.33 Lightfoot (1888) argued that the threefold ministry developed out of the ministerial structures which the earliest church had in common with the Jewish synagogue. He argued that the original communities were synagogues with presbyters chosen to direct the church's religious life and administer its affairs (p. 191). Originally ruled by the Twelve, as the church expanded from Jerusalem, the office of presbyter emerged as a chief administrative position, and the first elders were joined to the apostles to form a hierarchy.
The title επίσκοπος was taken over by Gentile churches from the name of the directors of non-Christian collegia which, at the same time, maintained the older title πρεσβύτερος, joining the two titles synonymously (p. 193). An έπ(σκοπος acted as a president of a council of πρεσβύτεροι. In the Jerusalem Church,
James, the Lord's brother, was elevated from the presbytery to become the first monarchical bishop (p. 196). In other churches, the episcopal position was first occupied by apostles and then, apostolic delegates (p. 199). Towards the beginning of the second century, John and the remaining apostles divided the empire amongst themselves and travelled about establishing monarchical bishops (pp.
201f.). The view that the synagogue influenced the shape of the early ministry may be described as the consensus of British scholarship; it was reasserted by Dix34 and other contributors to Kirk's book of essays on the ministry in 1946,35 and most recently by Frend.36
All of these theories presume a relative degree of uniformity in earliest Christianity. But this view has been called increasingly into question. Streeter anticipated later scholars when he argued for varying forms of ministries in different areas of the Roman Empire, instead of a relatively straightforward development