The Setting of the Corinthian Dispute
Chapter Four 1 Clement The Setting of the Corinthian Dispute A satisfactory solution to the vexed problem of the precise nature of the dispute described by Clement in his letter to the Corinthians1 has eluded scholars for over a century.2 Most problematic, perhaps, in any attempt to determine the character of the Corinthian dispute is the correct interpretation of Clement's use of rhetorical examples and Pauline language to describe the Corinthian situation.3 While there has been a debate concerning how much Clement utilizes classical sources and ideas in his letter, and the degree to which his writing has parallels in Jewish and biblical writings,4 the consensus is that Clement has woven together hellenistic and biblical themes throughout his letter.5
But because of this interweaving it is especially difficult to determine the precise character of those who "removed some from the ministry" (44:6) of the Corinthian church. Some have suggested that Clement's use of traditional classical and biblical themes makes it impossible to gain an accurate picture of the Corinthian problem. Wrede argued that most of the passages in Î Clement, which had been interpreted by nineteenth-century scholars as descriptions of the Corinthian upstarts, were chosen by Clement more for their rhetorical and exhortatory effect than because they constituted an accurate description of the schismatics.6 Clement had only an indirect account of the problems plaguing the community and the document therefore is more important as evidence of the state of Christianity in Rome at the end of the first century than in Corinth.
Indeed, according to Wrede, so caught up in his rhetoric was Clement that he often forgot the reason why he set out to write the letter.7 Knopf agreed that Clement had only a hazy picture of the Corinthian dispute, but he argued that Clement's writing is a paraenetic homily, typical of Roman preaching at the end of the first century, which he developed into a letter, rather than an example of Clement's inability to keep to his topic.8
Knopf concluded that the letter is largely a sermon and that it is impossible to determine the character of the rebels from passages found within it.
Wrede and Knopf did not take full enough account of the references in i Clement where the writer complains about the report he has heard from Corinth and the danger it presents (47:6-7).9 In 7:1, Clement states that the "same struggle," i.e. "jealousy and strife" (cf, chapters 3-6), challenges his community,
Notes to this chapter appear on pp. 135-46.
The Social Setting of the Ministry which may suggest that Clement knew enough about the dispute to draw analogies with divisions in his own church. We discovered references to schism in the Shepherd and it is possible that Clement is here referring to similar problems. This would explain the reference to mutual admonition better than
Knopf's argument that the exhortation is a purely homiletic device without any necessary relation to the communities' problems.10 Finally, Ziegler has noted that the use of the middle voice of the verb πεποιήσθαι in 1:1 implies that Clement had a personal concern regarding the Corinthian dispute,11 and that the perfect form taken together with the report mentioned in 47:6 suggests that the letter has a pre-history of correspondence: it was preceded by some other form of correspondence from Corinth. Clement had begun to respond to the Corinthian church but was delayed because of "a series of misfortunes and accidents" (Grant's translation), and he now turns his attention again to complete what he had earlier started.12 These passages taken together provide reason to suspect that Clement had more than an indirect acquaintance with the Corinthian dispute. An alternative explanation to Wrede and Knopf's hypothesis is that ί Clement does not provide a later reader with precise information concerning the problems in Corinth because the substance of it was already common knowledge. As we shall see there are clues concerning the nature of the dispute in the community. The problem has been more that most scholars have not looked in the right place in the epistle for the dispute, than that Clement provides no substantial information about it.
But other scholars have been more sanguine regarding the possibility of reconstructing the nature of the Corinthian dispute from Clement's letter.
Bauer rejected Knopf's hypothesis that Clement was ignorant of the Corinthian dispute and contended that the inclusion "of so much that is quite unexpected" in 1 Clement means that it is imperative that "one proceed with special care in attempting to determine the letter's purpose, and not limit himself to considering only what appears on the surface."13 Thus, rather than focusing on the contents of the letter alone, Bauer attempted to place it in the context of the development of orthodoxy in the early church. He argued that the division described in ί Clement followed the lines seen in 1 Cor. 3:4f. By the beginning of the second century, according to Bauer, there were two types of Christianity in Corinth, one represented by Paul and Cephas, the other by Apollos. The latter form was a "gnosticizing" kind of Christianity which came to oppose the "orthodox" Pauline party,14 The Roman correspondence represents the attempt of "orthodox" Rome to extend her sphere of influence over the Corinthian church, important to the Roman church because it was the gateway to Asia
Minor and therefore necessary for her expansion of influence into the eastern empire.15
Bauer's creative attempt to place 1 Clement in a wider ecclesiastical setting fails because there is no clear evidence of gnosticism in Corinth at this date. Aside from the problem of determining whether Paul addressed Christians with gnostic tendencies in 1 Corinthians, it is impossible to reconstruct the Christianity of Apollos or the group presumably allied with him. Clement's language in 47:3-5 which distinguishes the present schismatics from those described in 1
Cor. 3:4 implies that the latter-day upstarts have little to do with those described
ί Clement
by Paul, Again, Bauer's citation of Irenaeus* reference to Clement's letter and bis argument that Irenaeus found in Clement's use of the Old Testament and praise of the creator God evidence against his gnostic opponents (AM.
3:3.3) does not show that Clement was writing against gnostics, only that Irenaeus was able to use i Clement as evidence for the "orthodox" character of what he argued was pre-gnostic Christianity. In fact, if Clement was writing against a gnostic faction it is odd that he does not cite passages in Paul's correspondence with the Corinthians which have been interpreted by scholars as being directed against supposed gnostic tendencies.16 Bauer's argument that the omission of specific traits of gnosis are passed over in silence by ί Clement because Rome was "in the extreme Christian West"17 (where he argues gnosticism had not yet spread) raises the question whether his interpretation of Clement's references to γνώσις in fact refer to an incipient form of gnosticism causing problems in Corinth.
Also, the correspondence of the Roman with the Corinthian church is better explained by the close ties which existed between Rome and its colony,18 or, alternatively, by a continuing relation between communities founded by Paul, than it is by an appeal to the attempts of the Roman church to expand its sphere of influence.
But if Bauer's attempt to incorporate 1 Clement into a larger scheme of emerging orthodoxy in the early church proves too ambitious, other scholars have been no less adventuresome in their attempts to reconstruct the character of the Corinthian problem. In a vein similar to Bauer, Meinhold argued that the conflict was between officials and "pneumatic" Christians, and was a continuation of the problems described in 1 Cor. 12 and 14,19 "Die spirituale Kirchenbegriff des Paulus steht letzlich hinter dem Vorgehen gegen das Amt in Korinth " 2 0 But if Clement was writing against those who were appealing to ecstatic manifestations to support their revolt against authority of a more official nature, it is odd that he did not appeal to Paul's directions concerning the use of spiritual gifts in 1 Cor. 14:6£ or his teaching concerning their relative importance in 1 Cor. 13:8f., especially when he does appeal to 1 Cor. 13 in 49:Iff.
Telfer also argued that problems arose in the community because of pneumatic Christians, this time, on the basis of 54:2, persons who had invaded the community from without.21 But Clement also seems to imply that the trouble-makers are to repent and remain in the community (57:1-2), and 54:2 may simply follow the logic of the theme of self-exile drawn from classical sources.22 If the rebels were wandering charismatics,23 it is odd that Clement does not exhort the Corinthians to withdraw hospitality from them and send them on their way.
Lietzmann argued in a different way when he suggested that the revolt was a movement of the young against the old.24 The motive of the rebellion was
"simply the desire for a new distribution of the positions of authority."25
Lietzmann found an analogy in the Roman collegia, where overseers were elected only for short periods of time. Certain elected leaders, he suggests, had refused to give up their offices and this resulted in a rebellion. But aside from certain terminological similarities, there is no evidence to suggest that, in this sphere, the early church patterned itself after the Roman club. While the collegia were ideally democratic institutions,26 there is no evidence that elected officials in the early church held their office for only a short period of time. The evi-
The Social Setting of the Ministry dence in Paul's writings points to appointed leaders in Paul's absence whose authority rests in part on their patronage, and there is no reason to suspect from the evidence found in the pseudonymous Pauline writings, roughly contemporary with 1 Clement, that officials were elected for short periods of time. By the middle of the second century there is a tradition of bishops who held office for life (H.E, 4:22). It is better to interpret the description and exhortation concerning obedience to "elders" (1:3; 21:6), to which Lietzmann appeals as evidence for a dispute between young and old, as general exhortations consonant with Clement's overall purpose in the composition of his epistle than to see them as specific descriptions of the rebellion. In Clement's view lack of respect for elders has helped to undermine the community's unity, but this is no more the cause of the split in the community than are the women's "factious preferences" (21:7, Lightfoot); they both point, in Clement's opinion, to the general causes of the church's problems, but not to the precise difficulty.
These attempts to identify the nature of the Corinthian dispute illustrate the difficulty of determining the correct interpretation of Clement's references to the division. The scholars discussed above have tended either to see in Clement's letter an exercise in rhetoric almost completely divorced from the Corinthian situation, or they have isolated certain passages which then connect the document to the problems described in 1 Corinthians. (Lietzmann avoids the difficulties which arise from these explanations by attempting to place certain passages in the letter in a more general social setting, but he also isolates passages which in our estimation do not point to the reason for the dispute.)
Those scholars who have argued that the division in Corinth was caused by gnostic or "pneumatic" Christians who, in their view, are similar to those described in 1 Corinthians, do not take sufficiently into account the way in which Clement used both themes he drew from the Old Testament and passages contained in Paul's letter to end the Corinthian schism. Proponents of this view have found their most direct support for a gnostic-inspired revolt in 48:5-6, where Clement writes, Let a man be faithful, let him have power to utter "knowledge" (γνώοις), let him be wise in the discernment of arguments, let him be pure in his deeds; for the more he seems to be great, the more ought he to be humble-minded
(ταπε ινοφρονε C ν), and to seek the common good of all and not his own benefit.
There is general agreement that Clement based his composition of this passage on 1 Cor. 12:8,9. Although the phraseology is different, the grouping together of the same qualities or gifts27 leads naturally to this conclusion.28 But it does not necessarily follow from this similarity that Clement is describing gnostic or pneumatic opponents. This passage must be placed in the broader context of Clement's argument in order to be interpreted properly. A clue concerning the connection between this section and Clement's more general case is provided in 48:6 where he describes humble-mindedness (ταπεινοφροσύνη) as an ideal virtue. Humble-mindedness is a central theme Clement develops to define the proper community ethos and he repeatedly uses the term ταπεινοφροσύνη and its cognates (e.g., 2:1; 13:13; 16:1,17; 19:1; 30:3; 38:2; 62:2) to describe the virtues necessary for a harmonious church. As we shall see in final section of this
ί Clement
chapter, the theme of humble-mindedness belongs, in turn, to a still more general argument concerning the ordering power of God in the world and in the church: the humble-minded Christian is the one who lives in obedience to the established rule of God. If we place 48:5-6 in this wider context, it is better to interpret Clement's use of 1 Cor. 12:8,9 as supportive of his more general argument than as a precise description of the Corinthian ringleaders. Further, the ending of 48:4, where Clement states that those who are in Christ accomplish all things "without disorder" (άταράχως) provides an interpretive framework for the passages borrowed from Paul in v. 5. Clement probably found in the apostle's argument in 1 Cor. 12 a concern that the community remain wellordered and therefore used it to support his own general case of the necessity of a well-ordered church. 37:5-38:1 is further evidence that Clement drew this conclusion from Paul's teaching in 1 Cor. 12. In this passage he develops the Pauline themes of χάρισμα and σώμα (cf. 1 Cor. 12:4f., 12fM 21) to exhort the Corinthians to be subject to one another. These examples illustrate both Clement's use of Paul as an authority for his teaching, and the importance of placing what appear to be direct descriptions of the opponents in the context of the whole letter. In the remaining part of this section we shall present our own account of the problem which arose in Corinth.
After rejecting Wrede's hypothesis that Clement's fetter had little application to the Corinthian dispute, Chadwick contends that "Clement's letter i s . . . drafted with the utmost subtlety. Every word is selected with care and with an eye to the maximum of effect."29 If Clement's examples and language drawn from the Old Testament and classical literature seem to us beside the point, this is because we have not fully understood the social setting of the writing nor have we appreciated the document as evidence of the institutionalizing forces within the Corinthian and Roman communities in the generation after Paul's death. While scholars have directed their attention to the fact that 1 Clement is a rhetorical letter, they have not concentrated fully enough on the nature of Clement's examples and their probable social effect. The misconceived attempts to find in Clement's writings references to "pneumatics," or "gnostics," or recalcitrant "charismatics" raise an important methodological issue in the interpretation of this letter. In the case of Paul's Corinthian correspondence, where the modern interpreter is provided with relatively straightforward polemical and descriptive statements, a scholar is in a better position to discover more direct correspondence between the apostle's descriptions of his opponents and the real problems facing the community. But 1 Clement is a document woven into the form of a highly stylized treatise, filled with apparent digressions and conflicting accounts concerning the character of the Corinthian rebels. The nature of this writing means that we must approach the text in a different manner. Ziegler correctly argues that not every reference which prima facie appears to describe those who upset the Corinthian church necessarily presents or was intended to present in a strict sense an accurate account of them,30
I Clement does provide some less indirect references concerning the nature of the Corinthian dispute. By putting these into a tentative framework we are able to provide a more satisfactory explanation for the Corinthian problem than those so far offered. Clement states that division in the community has arisen
The Social Setting of the Ministry because "one or two persons" (47:6) of the Corinthian church have "removed some from the ministry which they fulfilled blamelessly" (44:6). In 44:1 he argues that the apostles foresaw that there would be strife for the title of bishop, which implies that this is the problem which has arisen in the Corinthian church.31 These references allow us to infer that the problems Clement refers to originated from within the common life of the church. This interpretation is consonant with Clement's theme of repentance which recurs throughout the letter (7:4-7; 8:1-5; 9:1; 18:2-17; 57:1).
Chadwick has noted the significance of Clement's references to hospitality in 10:7, 11:1, and 12:1. Wrede similarly found in Clement's singling out of faith and hospitality in these Old Testament examples some important clues concerning the nature of the Corinthian dispute.
"Das Auftreten dieses Begriffpaares ist für den Leser immer wieder überraschend.... Man begreift nicht was für ein Interesse den Schreiber gerade auf jene spezialle Tugend bringt."32 Wrede argued that Clement highlights this virtue because he is following the Old Testament example. But this is not a virtue emphasized in the passages in question, nor does Wrede's explanation acknowledge the importance of hospitality in the early church. In addition to these passages which Chadwick singles out for comment, it is perhaps significant that in 35:5 inhospitality
(άφιλοξενία) 3 3 is added to the list of vices Clement recalls from Rom. l:29-32.34 Again, Clement commends the hospitality of the past Corinthian church in 1:2. Chadwick provides a tentative explanation for the reason of Clement's letter by arguing that the references to hospitality should be placed against a background of inhospitality toward Christian visitors, who would have relied upon the hospitality of the Corinthian Christians while they stayed in the great port city of Corinth. As a result of two rival groups of "clergy" within the Corinthian church visitors were confused about which group to associate with.
Chadwick goes on to argue, [S]ome visiting Christians at Corinth accepted hospitality from the old clergy rather than the new;... the old clergy had seen in this act of communion on the part of other churches a golden opportunity of reaffirming their position; . . . the visitors would have become the object of hostile comment from the rest of the church and therefore come away from Corinth with unfavourable impressions.35
Chadwick is correct to emphasize the importance of Clement's references to hospitality as clues to understanding the nature of the dispute in the Corinthian community. But his explanation is unsatisfactory because, aside perhaps from the reference in 1:2, there is no internal evidence to suggest that the hospitality described is to outsiders who lodge temporarily with the community. If the problems in the church included inhospitality to visitors, it is surprising that Clement does not develop this theme more fully in the context of his exhortations to repent. Further, he ignores an important opportunity to exhort the Corinthians to be hospitable when he recommends Claudius Ephebus, Valerius
Vito, and Fortunatus to their care (65:1; 63:3). Also, Chadwick's hypothesis that the division in the community was between two groups of clergy requires a more precise account than he has provided, because Clement does not write that all the older leaders were deposed, only that "some" (ε νιοι — 44:6) were.
ί Clement
A simpler explanation for the significance of Clement's references to hospitality in the passages cited above is to place them in the general setting of the church gathered in wealthier persons' homes.36 There is good warrant for looking in this direction, because we know from Paul's letters that the earlier Corinthian church met in the homes of wealthier members who acted as leaders
(Rom. 16:23; 1 Cor. 16:15) and we have argued that divisions in the earlier household communities may have followed household boundaries (Gal. 2:1; less certain 1 Cor. 1:12, cf. v. 1637). Also, we have found evidence in the Shepherd of Hermas, roughly contemporary with Î Clement, which suggests that the Roman church, of which Clement was a member, met in the homes of wealthier Christians who acted as the community's leaders. We argued in the last chapter that the ministry described in 1 Clement is similar to that described in the Shepherd?8 and this may also imply a similar social setting. Thus it is plausible to assume a situation in 1 Clement in which Christians meet in the homes of well-to-do leaders.39 A house church setting helps us to understand the setting of the dispute more fully, in 41.2 Clement argues, "Not everywhere, brethren, but in Jerusalem only are the perpetual sacrifices offered
" Again, in 40:1-2 he states we ought to do in order all those things the Master ordered us to perform at the appointed times. He has commanded sacrifices and services to be performed, not in a careless and haphazard way but at the designated seasons and hours. He himself has determined where and through whom he wishes them performed, to the intent that everything should be done religiously to his good pleasure and acceptably to his will. (Grant's translation)
Grant concludes correctly from these references that Clement here argues that "Christian worship cannot be conducted in private assemblies apart from the bishops, presbyters, and deacons whom he is about to discuss."40 Similarly,
Clarke, who notes the importance of well-to-do householders as the early church's possible candidates for leadership, argues that chapters 40-41 refer to an appointed house church.41 While these references do not show that it was wealthy members of the community who were the church's presbyter-bishops, this is not an unreasonable inference once the Corinthian church setting is placed in what we have seen to be the wider social setting of the early church.
What, then, was the nature of the Corinthian schism? We argued in the last chapter that divisions among patrons of house churches provide a plausible setting for the community divisions Hermas describes and that attempts to find in Clement's descriptions of the divisions within the Corinthian church a continuation of problems described in 1 Cor. are not satisfactory. We suggest, then, that the dispute which Clement describes as arising over the title of bishop is best understood as referring to a division within one or two of the Corinthian house churches which has resulted in the creation of an alternative meeting place, the exodus of members who are sympathetic with these persons and, presumably, the exclusion of members who are opposed to them. The precise reason why this dispute arose is not given. It is possible that the dispute arose independently of any particular theological dispute and that, as Harnack suggested, the division was merely between "personal cliques" ("persönliche Cliquenwirtschaft'') .42
We suggest that these groups collected around relatively wealthy householders