Notes
ί Clement
states that the proper cosmic (20:4; cf. 33:3) and the more general social order
(61.1) are divinely established. He further connects the themes of both concord (20:3-4; 21:1,4; 34:5,7) and humble-mindedness (56:1-2) to union with the will of God. When he states in 56:1 that "those who have fallen into any transgression,'1 i.e., the ringleaders of the so-called revolt (see chapters 54-55), are to submit themselves to the will of God, he has already established in 40:3 that God's will includes submission to the leaders these individuals have rejected. It is implicit in this way of treating the Corinthian dispute that the opposition to the established leaders in the community is presented not only as violation of a sacred order established by God, but also as opposition to God's will.
Clement's call to repentance, then, is an exhortation to live in accordance with reality — to act in ways consistent with the general beliefs of the group.
Clement's urging that the sedition come to an end is also a call for repentance (57:1), The catalogue of the great characters of the Old Testament who preached repentance (7:5-7), together with the recollection of the forgiveness of God (7:3-4; 8:1-5), help to enhance the themes of the rejection of the authority of the deposed presbyters as a violation of a sacred order.
Summary We have attempted in this section to show that Clement's epistle may be described sociologically as an attempt to legitimate a certain pattern of institutionalized leadership in the Corinthian church. Clement places the institutional structures of leadership in Corinth, together with what may have been widely held beliefs concerning their origin, in the context of the Corinthians' wider religious beliefs and thereby attempts to show how the group is committed to the support of these structures. The central ethical themes in this epistle of concord and sedition, humble-mindedness and arrogance, and obedience and disobedience are developed within the context of the group's world-view in order to show how a certain ethos follows from the group's beliefs. Clement makes support for institutionalized structures of leadership in Corinth part of the group's ethos and attempts to show how respect for those patterns is implied in their beliefs — their identity in Christ and their faith in a sovereign God. In this way he presents the institutions of leadership in Corinth as normative and subjectively plausible to his readers.
Notes 1 His epistle is dated by most scholars around A.D. 96, and we shall assume this date in the following discussion. Robinson, 1976, pp. 327-34, dates it c, A.D. 70. Here he follows Edmundson, 1913. (For criticism see Sturdy, 1979, pp. 255ΑΓ.) On the other side are scholars like Merrill, 1924, pp. 217ff., and Eggenberger, 1951, who date it f. A.D. 150. An earlier date seems to be excluded by the distinction Clement makes between the persecution at the time of the apostles (5:1-6:2) and the present struggle described in 7:1. The period of time described in 44:1-3 is most naturally interpreted as stretching over thirty to forty years.
2 Some earlier attempts are discussed in Knopf, 1899, pp. 156 fi.
3 For the use of rhetorical and classical devices in 1 Clement see Sanders, 1943;
Jaeger, 1961, pp. 12ff.; Bardy, 1922, pp. 73ff.
The Social Setting of the Ministry 4 Harnack, 1929, pp. 52ff.; Van Unnik, 1950, pp. 181ff.; Jaubert, 1971, pp 35ff.
5 Ibid., p. 39; Grant and Graham, 1965, pp. lOff, passim.
6 Wrede, 1891, pp. 54 f.
7 Ibid., p. 2.
8 Knopf, pp. 174 f.
9 Grant, op. cit., p. 79 follows Lightfoot, 1890, p. 145 and Knopf, 1920, p. 124 in arguing that the danger referred to is damnation, but the context of v. 7 suggests more than a spiritual danger. This interpretation is supported by the emphasis on στάσις and άπόνοια in the writing. Mikat, 1969, pp. 23ff., argues on the basis of these terms that Clement is afraid that the communities in Corinth and Rome will be charged with seditio, turba, or tumultus — charges brought against other feuding organizations of the period.
10 Knopf, 1899, p. 187.
11 Ziegler, 1958, pp. 125f. Ziegler argues that the middle voice may be interpreted as a dynamic middle in which case the verb has a meaning which implies personal interest in the matter (see also Blass and Debrunner, 1961, p. 166).
12 Ziegler, p. 127. But his argument (p. 129) that 39:1 refers to derision of Clement because of an earlier letter is unconvincing; this passage was probably intended in a more general sense than this.
13 Bauer, 1971, pp. 95-96.
14 Ibid., p. 99.
15 Ibid., pp. 101-2.
16 See Kümmel, 1975, p. 274 for further discussion and literature.
17 Bauer, p. 102.
18 For the political relationship between Rome and Corinth in the early empire see van Cauwelaert, 1935, pp. 267-306.
19 Meinhold, 1939, pp. lOOf.; similarly, Campenhausen, 1969, pp. 86f.; Gerke, 1931, pp. 34f. Beyschlag, 1966, p. 348, argues that the dispute arose from a continuation of the conflict described in 1 Cor. 1:1 Of. between those associated with Paul and those allied with Peter.
20 Meinhold, p. 100.
21 Telfer, 1962, pp. 57ff.
22 See Mikat, p. 32; Sanders, 1943, pp. 42-47; Knopf, 1929, pp. 131-32 for examples.
23 For discussion of this phenomenon in early Christianity see Theissen, 1978, pp.
8ff.
24 Lietzmann, 1961, Vol. l,pp. 192f.
25 Ibid., p. 192.
26 Lietzmann does not sufficiently take into account that officials of both collegia and synagogues were often re-elected and sometimes held appointments for life.
27 I.e., πιστός — π (στις; γνώσις —λόγος γνώσεως; σοφός έν διακρίσει λόγων — λόγος σοφίας.
28 For further discussion seef. The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, p. 42.
29 Chadwick, 1961, p. 285.
30 Ziegler, pp. Iff.
31 Cullmann, 1930, pp. 294ff, comes to similar conclusions but he presents an unconvincing line of argument when he draws them on the basis of the examples in chapters 4-6.
32 Op. cit., p. 2.
33 There are textual difficulties connected with this reading. The earliest reading
(Atexandrinus — φιλοξενία) seems unlikely given the context. The reading of the Latin version, inhumilitatem (trans, φιλοδοξίαν — Knopf, 1899, p. 123) preserves
ί Clement
the parallelism in the passage, but if the reading in Alexandrinus represents a simple emendation (thus, Lightfoot, Part 1 Vol. 1, p. 109), the weight of the manuscript evidence favours the reading άφιλοξε ν ία.
34 The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, 1905, pp. 37-38.
35 Op. cit., p. 284.
36 Similarly Lipsius, writing over a century ago, suggested this as a setting for the dispute, but he made too strong a case by reading too much into certain passages.
37 P. 63. n. 28.
38 For further discussion, contra Dix, 1946» pp. 253ff., see Jay, 1981, pp. 99, 133Γ.
39 Countryman, 1980, pp. 154f and notes, arrives at similar conclusions, but ί Clem.
3:1-3, part of the basis for his argument, cannot be used to support his case. There
Clement quotes Deuteronomy 32:15 ("My beloved ate and drank, and he was enlarged and waxed fat and kicked"). Countryman concludes that the difficulties in Corinth arose as a result of well-to-do householders asserting their rights of recognition over against local officials. He is correct to draw parallels between the situation which we are arguing is assumed in t Clement and the Shepherd and to point to the earlier Corinthian church for evidence of leadership by the relatively prosperous. But he overstates his argument by referring to 1 Clem. 3:1-3 for support. It is impossible to determine whether Clement's use of this Old Testament passage was intended as a reference to economically motivated unrest, and Countryman too quickly discounts the possibility of its use to describe spiritual prosperity and growth. In chapters 1-2 it is precisely such a state of spiritual wellbeing which is described. Countryman's argument that Clement "would hardly have considered an increase in spiritual well-being to be the prelude to spiritual disaster" ignores the possibility that Clement may have been linking confidence arising from spiritual blessing with self-reliance, arrogance, and competition.
40 Grant, op. cit., p. 70.
41 Clarke, 1937, pp. 25-26. He argues further that the emphasis on the appointment of places by the Lord for worship shows that the Corinthians needed one place of assembly governed by one bishop to ensure unity. There is a case for this especially in the light of Rom. 16:23 where Gaius is described as host of the whole church, but it is not necessarily the case that a single community eucharist continued, especially as the community grew in size. There is no evidence that there was one bishop at the head of the Corinthian church when Clement wrote his epistle. In our view, the references to a plurality of presbyter-bishops imply a plurality of house churches celebrating their own eucharists. See also Brown and Meier, 1983, pp.173f. for a discussion of house churches in Corinth and Rome in this period.
42 Harnack, 1929, p. 92; thus, also, Lightfoot, Part 1 Vol. 1, 1890, p. 82. Lightfoot suggests that a dispute arose over the resurrection, but the point of the references to the resurrection in chapters 23-27 occurs in 27:1 where the certainty of the resurrection is connected with God's coming judgment. Clement's purpose, then, is to admonish the schismatics to repent rather than to persuade them that there will be a resurrection. The quotation from an unknown source which describes those who doubt that the prophesied events will occur may be interpreted as a purely rhetorical caricature of the rebels as doubters in God's promises.
43 For a discussion of treatments of / Clement since Sohm, too numerous to include here, which place the Roman epistle in a schema of theological development, see
Fuellenhach, 1980.
44 Sohm, 1892, pp. 157ff.; for a shortened version of the argument see Sohm, 1895, pp.31-43.
The Social Setting of the Ministry 45 Sohm, 1892, p. 164.
46 For further references see introduction above.
47 Harnack's conception of the development of the early church's organization is summarized succinctly in History of Dogma, Vol. 1, pp. 209-20.
48 Harnack, 1929, p. 88.
49 Ibid., pp. 89-90.
50 Gerke, 1931, p. 59.
51 Ibid., p. 61.
52 Bultmann, 1951, Vol. 2, pp. 95ff. Bultmann sides with Harnack against Sohm because, he argues, Sohm is not justified in his opposition of the development of church order and office with the work of the Spirit, (p. 99) But he agrees with Sohm's famous dictum that "legal regulation contradicts the Church's nature" (p.
97 — his emphasis).
53 Ibid., p. 107.
54 Ibid.,p. Ill; Bultmann's emphasis.
55 Ibid., p. 116; Bultmann's emphasis.
56 Ibid., pp. 111-18.
57 Käsemann, 1969, pp. 237,236ff.
58 Idem., 1964, p. 91.
59 Idem., 1969, p. 247.
60 Idem., 1964, p. 87.
61 Ibid., pp. 86-87.
62 Campenhausen, 1969, pp. 55ff.
63 Ibid., pp. 76ff.
64 Ibid., pp. 107ff.
65 Ibid., p. 86.
66 Ibid., p. 92.
67 Fuellenbach, p. 28.
68 Kee, 1980, pp. 14-15, notes the influence of liberal idealism on Harnack's understanding of the development of early Christianity. See especially Harnack, 1904, pp. 90-127.
69 Brockhaus, 1975, p. 89, states that the idea of a charismatic church order or charismatic period of origin in Pauline communities is so commonly accepted among German-speaking scholars that one may speak of a consensus in this respect.
70 The relevant literature is cited by Holmberg, 1980b, pp. 192f. The formulation of the ministry in Pauline communities on the basis of Paul's epistles to the Corinthians is methodologically unsound because it appears that the problems described in these letters arising from some form of enthusiasm were endemic to Corinth.
We know about the organization in this community because Paul had to intervene there. There is no evidence from Paul's other letters that ecstatic spiritual manifestations threatened to divide the church and the Corinthian community may therefore have been atypical of Pauline churches. As Holmberg notes, "The very fact that the apostle a whole five years after the founding of this church has to intervene so emphatically against such a number of bad practices and deficiencies in the church's maturity makes it precarious to consider the church order in Corinth as a model one" (ibid., p. 192). Paul's theology of charisma is formulated not as the basis of a church order, as Sohm, Käsemann, and von Campenhausen argue, but as a theologically grounded "interpretive category" (ibid., p. 194) to be applied against the claims of enthusiastic or, to use Paul's language (cf. e.g. 1 Cor. 2:15;
3:1; 12:1; 14:37), "pneumatic" Christians in order to correct a development in the Corinthian community. It functions as "a theological-paraenetical creation, a uto-
ί Clement
pian model for Christian life in any congregation" (Holmberg, 1980a, p. 121), particularly in Corinth where a special and atypical structure of interaction is in need of correction, 71 Käsemann and von Campenhausen draw too firm conclusions from relatively scanty evidence for a Jewish presbyteral system; their distinction between a Pauline and a supposed Jewish-Christian organization is therefore unconvincing. As we saw above (p. 4, n. 21) it is not clear that πρεσβύτερος was a common designation for officials in Judaism of the early Christian era. We shall present an alternative account for the existence of presbyters below.
72 Bultmann, op. cit., pp. 111-12.
73 Schweizer, 1961, p. 7m.
74 Ibid., preface, p. 7 and p. la; my emphasis.
75 Holmberg, 1980a, pp. 201-3.
76 Ibid., pp. 201-2.
77 Ibid., p. 202.
78 See Gill, 1977, pp. 24,129f. for this phrase.
79 The phrase is taken from Scroggs, 1980, pp. 165-6.
80 Thus, e.g., Troeltsch, 1931, Vol. 1, pp. 62ff., 331ff.; Niebuhr, 1972, pp. 19-20;
Yinger, 1961, pp.l6fF.; Clark, 1947, pp. 16f.; Stark, 1967, Vol. 2, pp. 301f.; Wilson,
1959; 1961, pp. 2-3; 1967, pp. 22ff; 1970, pp. 233f.; 1973, pp. 35f.; 1982, pp. 96f.;
1984, pp. 371 f 81 Idem., 1984, p. 371.
82 Idem., 1982, p. 106.
83 Idem., 1967, pp. 33-35.
84 Stark, op. cit., pp. 306-7.
85 The sect-denomination dichotomy, while making some important distinctions for the analysis of contemporary sects, is roughly parallel to Troeltsch's sect-church typology (see Troeltsch, op. cit., pp. 33If.). Niebuhr, op. cit., argued that all sects become denominations, but Wilson has shown that this is true in only certain instances (e.g., 1967, pp. 22f). For a full presentation of the type see Wilson, 1959, pp. 4-5.
86 Wilson, 1967, pp. 33-34; Yinger, 1961, p. 22; also, Stork, op. cit., pp. 306-7.
87 Op. cit., pp. 89ff.
88 Ymger, op. cit., p. 38; cf. Troeltsch, op. cit., pp. 335-36. Yinger's church type is borrowed from Troeltsch and is similar to Wilson's denomination type.
89 This is particularly true of German scholarship. Recent French scholarship, however, has attempted to outline social factors which contributed to the rise of institutionalized authority (thus, e.g., Grelot, 1974, p. 45; Pesch, 1971, pp. 446f.; Budillon, 1971, p. 486).
90 Weingarten, 1881, pp. 444f.
91 Filson, 1939, p. 112; Brown and Meier, 1983, pp. 174-75; also, with reservations,
Hainz, 1972, pp. 202f.
92 Op. cit., p. 111.
93 See pp. 36f. above.
94 Holmberg, 1980a, p. 116; Pesch, op. cit., p. 446; Martin, 1972, pp. 29C; Schürmann, 1968, p. 331, f.n. 120; Goppelt, 1970, p. 92.
95 Wilson, 1927, pp. 21ff.; cf. Vis. 3:8.9-11.
96 See above, pp. 54ff.
97 See p. 37 above.
98 Meeks, 1983, p. 76.
99 Bauer, 1971, p. 102.
The Social Setting of the Ministry 100 Ibid., 1971, p. 96.
101 Ibid., p. 97.
102 Ibid., p. 102, 103 Ibid., p. 101.
104 Campenhausen, 1969, p. 91, agrees that Clement was not creating theories unknown either to the Corinthian or the Roman church.
105 It may be inferred from the letter of Dionysius of Corinth (fl. ca. A.D. 170) to Rome that Clement's letter accurately identified the ideals of a section of the community, for Dionysius' description of the letter seems to imply that it was an authoritative writing in the Corinthian church (Eus. H.E. 4:23.11). Bauer cites this as evidence of a Roman victory in Corinth, but he leaves unexplained how it came to be that a majority of gnostics were won over into the "catholic" camp. A better explanation of this evidence is that Clement's letter accurately represented the interests and beliefs of the majority of the Corinthians and so quickly gained prominence as an authoritative writing in the Corinthian community.
106 True, there is a tension between this passage (assuming that the reference to being found honourable "in the flock of Christ" in 57:2 refers to the Corinthian community) and his advice in Chapters 54-55, where he exhorts those who have caused the unrest to practise self-exile from the Corinthian church. But in our view the intention of this exhortation is rhetorical rather than prescriptive and, when read in the context of what follows, has the effect of an a fortiori argument:
Clement's desire is that the trouble-makers repent, his advice that they leave helps to underscore that primary objective; i.e. repent and go, but if you must stay, it behoves you all the more to repent. The inclusion of a theme of self-exile is best explained by Clement's desire to utilize examples (cf. 55:1-6; again, a common rhetorical ploy) to underscore and illustrate his more general ends.
107 This seems to be assumed in Schweizers (1961, p. 16a) argument that the dispute in Corinth was between an older pneumatic and more recent institutional form of Christianity. Similarities between descriptions of leadership structures in the Shepherd and 1 Clement permit us to assume that Clement's descriptions of leadership accurately reflect prevailing patterns in Rome.
108 It may be adduced from the movement of Prisca and Aquila from Rome to Corinth and back again (Rom. 16:3; Acts 18:2) that there were close links between these two churches forty to fifty years before Clement's letter.
109 The use of 1 Cor. in Clement's exhortations to Corinth indicates that Paul is an authority for both communities. Parallels between 1 Clement and 1 Cor. and other
Pauline letters are listed in The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, pp. 37f.
110 For further discussion of these passages and a possible pre-history of correspondence, see above, pp. 79ff.
111 We thus agree with those scholars who argue that the organization of Rome and Corinth was the same: Lightfoot, 1890, Vol. 1, Part 1, pp. 82-83; Clarke, 1937, p.
24; Streeter, 1929, p. 213; Harnack, 1929, p. 88; Jaubert, 1971, pp. 75f.
112 See above, pp. 79ff..
113 Campenhausen, 1969, pp. 84-85. Cf. Didascalia 57:1-58:6 which presents seating arrangements in a house church for laity, perhaps composed before A.D. 200
(Gamber, 1967, pp. 343-44). Ignatius Mag. 13:1 may describe a similar arrangement and Rev. 4:4 may also reflect liturgical organization. Streeter, 1929, p. 219 argues that Man. 11:1, which describes men seated on a bench, refers to the board of Elders. But w . 13-14 is suggestive of a different setting. Dix, 1978, p. 33, argues that the reference to "places" 1 Clem. 40:3 and 41:2 indicates "the semi-circle of seats around the throne" of the bishop, but it seems unlikely from the context of
ί Clement
the passage that Clement is here referring to seating arrangements.
114 Gerke, 1931, p. 133.
115 See Didache 14 where there is mention of a liturgical function and which in 15:1 is, according to the context of the passage, carried out by bishops and deacons. The phrase προσενεγκόντας χά δώρα in 44:4 has loose parallels in other passages which indicate a cultic function (40:2; 41:2) and Hippolytus uses the same phrase to describe a eucharist (Apostolic Tradition 3:4 ed. Dix). Dix, 1978, p. 102 finds MS support for a cultic reference at 41:1 where Codex Alexandnnus reads ευχάριστε ίτω instead of εύαρεστείτω (cf. Lightfoot, 1890, Part 1, Vol. 2, p. 124, n. 4), but even if one adopts this reading, it is not clear that the verb εύξαριστείν is employed here in a liturgical sense.
116 For further discussion of the use of these terms in other contexts in Clement's letter, see Gerke, 1931, pp. 117-22; Strathmann, 1967, pp. 228-29.
117 Dix, 1978, p. 1.
118 Turner, in Swete, 1921, p. 87.
119 Wilson, 1967, p. 33.
120 The term διάκονοι may be a general description of "ministers" and this translation has some support from Justin who comments that the president of the eucharist supervises the distribution of funds (Αροί 1:67) without mention of deacons, but in Hippolytus Apos. Trad. 9:3 and 30 (ed. Dix) deacons have the role of carrying out the bishop's commands and informing him of the needs of the community. These references together with Justin's description of the deacons' role of distribution of the eucharistie elements in Apol 1:65 make it reasonable to suggest that deacons had certain sacral and administrative functions from an early date,
121 A classic treatment is found in Campenhausen, 1969, pp. 76ff., esp. p. 107 (German edition pp. 82f.); British scholars as early as Lightfoot, 1888, have suggested a similar source for the early Christian presbyterate, some arguing that it was a later addition, others arguing that a presbyteral system borrowed from the synagogue was present from the start; see Introduction above.
122 Scholars who follow this interpretation are Grant and Graham, 1965, pp. 18, 46;
Gerke, 1931, pp. 33-34; cf. also Weingarten, 1881, p. 450; Campenhausen, 1969, p.
84 agrees that presbyters were elder members.
123 For πρεσβύτερος as a senior Christian in 1 Peter see Elliott, 1981, pp. 190f ; for a similar interpretation of the relevant passages in the Pastorals see MacDonald,
1986, pp. 300f.
124 Campenhausen, 1969, pp. 84-85f.; Schweizer, 1961, p. 16c; Käsemann, 1969, pp.
246-47; Bultmann, 1951, Vol. 2, pp. lOlf.
125 Campenhausen, 1969, p. 84, writes of the appearance of the titles of bishops and presbyters in the Shepherd and ί Clement, "The fusion [Verschmelzung] of the two titles, of which we have so far seen strong hints, is in Rome already an accomplished fact; and the presbyteral constitution has completely intermingled with elements of an episcopal system, which in Rome probably preceded it." He does not, however, provide an explanation of how it came to be that communities incorporated such structures, or how this "fusion" arose in apparently similar ways in communities across the Roman Empire (for example, in the communities represented by the Pastorals). This is a criticism which may be levelled more generally at those scholars who argue that writings such as 1 Clement represent a welding of a Jewish-Christian and Pauline form of church government.
126 Thus also Campenhausen, 1969, p. 84, but with conclusions which are unconvincing.
127 Harnack, 1929, pp. 89-90.
The Social Setting of the Ministry 128 For further discussion see chapter 4 above.
129 Jaubert, 1971, p. 81; Clarke, 1937, p. 26; Gerke, 1931, p. 74.
130 Grant and Graham, 1965, pp. 69-70.
131 Yinger, 1961, p. 22.
132 1 Clem. 1-2 and 21:6-9, especially the household rules in these passages, present ideals which emphasize devotion to the moral ideals of the sect and obedience to its leaders — rules indicative of the social control the sect exercises on the personal life of each member. The consciousness of being an elite group is evident especially from Clement's language of election (30:1; 36:1-4; 59:2,4; 64:1).
133 Wilson, 1984, p. 371.
134 Wengst, 1987, p. 107, notes that for Clement "obedience to God and obedience to rulers correspond. That means . . . that the latter is the specific form of the former in the political sphere." Again, he notes that Clement's prayer "closely reflects the structures of Pax Romana as subjection to Roman authority." But he overstates the point when he states that Clement's perception of and solution to the Corinthian conflict "are determined completely by his political attitude" (p. 113). As we will see, just the opposite is the case.
135 Ogletree, 1984, p. 166.
136 Campenhausen, 1969, p. 92; cf. similarly Schweizer, 1961, p. 16a, who states that 1
Clement is evidence of a "more far-reaching dispute in which the defenders of an older and freer order opposed the consolidation of the institutional Church."
137 Brunner, 1972, p. 158.
138 Campenhausen, 1969, p. 58.
139 Ibid., pp. 64-65.
140 Ibid., p. 69.
141 Ibid., p. 84.
142 Ibid., p. 85.
143 Ibid., pp. 79-80.
144 This is evident from the broader context of the passage cited in the previous note.
On p. 76 Campenhausen writes, "With the system of elders we move into the sphere of a fundamentally different way of thinking about the Church, which can only with difficulty be combined with the Pauline picture of the congregation, and certainly cannot be derived from it" (my emphasis). Where elders are mentioned,
Campenhausen writes on p. 78, "we may attempt to grasp the distinctive character of the concept of authority in the setting of the new 'patriarchal' overall vision of the Church" (my emphasis).
145 For example, the evidence of house-church leadership and Paul's concerns that members of the local community submit themselves to certain local leaders (e.g. 1
Cor. 16.15-16; 1 Thes. 5.12-13) who have important roles of governance while he is absent. For the misuse of 1 Cor. 12-14 and Rom. 12 as a "church order" see n.
70 above. Brockhaus, 1975, p. 24 n. 106, identifies five characteristics of "office" which helps us to determine to what degree we may speak of officials in the period of the apostle Paul. These are: 1) permanency; 2) recognition by the church; 3) a position of being set apart from the rest of the church; 4) a regular commission such as by the laying on of hands; 5) a legal element. Holmberg, 1980a, p. 110 argues convincingly that there is evidence of characteristics 1-3 in Paul's letters; characteristic 4 may be adduced from Acts 13:1-3; only characteristic 5 seems to be lacking in Paul's lifetime. Campenhausen's use of the term "office" seems to assume that only where characteristic number 5 is present can one legitimately speak of "office." But this is an unduly rigid conception of office and Brockhaus' analysis helps to bring out subtleties which Campenhausen ignores. The legal cat-
ί Clement
egory is an important one for a proper interpretation of 1 Clement; Campenhausen,
1969, p. 86 argues that Sohm. was correct to see 1 Clement as "the beginning of canon law in the Church." We shall argue that it is better to interpret 1 Clement as evidence of legitimation of institutions which arose when Paul was alive.
146 See also Eisenstadt, 1965a, pp. 32f.; 1968, p. 414, who prefers to speak of "the process of institutionalization" rather than of institutions as static phenomena.
147 Berger and Luckmann, 1971, p. 83.
148 Ibid., p. 114.
149 Ibid., p. 72.
150 Ibid., p. 221, n, 21.
151 Ibid., pp. 70-71.
152 Ibid., pp. 44f.
153 Ibid., p. 45.
154 Ibid., p. 90.
155 Ibid., p. 91.
156 Eisenstadt, 1965, pp. 31f. argues that roles are not static phenomena, but are subject in their expression to the interpretation of the occupant.
157 Berger and Luckmann, 1971, p. 72, 158 Ibid., p. 91.
159 Eisenstadt, 1965, p. 17.
160 Berger and Luckmann, 1967, p. 77, 161 Ibid., p. 76.
162 Ibid., ρ 77.
163 Ibid., p. 79.
164 Ibid.,p. 111.
165 Ibid., p. 79.
166 Ibid., p. 102.
167 Bultmann, 1951, Vol. 2, p. 97.
168 Käsemann, 1969, p. 242; Bultmann, op. cit., p. 112.
169 Holmberg, 1980a, p. 116.
170 Stark, 1969, Vol. 4, p. 84.
171 Pp. 300ff.
172 Holmberg, 1980a, p. 187; for further discussion of Paul as a charismatic authority see pp. 154f. In her recent doctoral dissertation Margaret MacDonald also identifies Paul as a charismatic leader; she writes (1986, p. 63), "Paul's authority may be described in the language of Weber as 'charismatic authority'; his powers and qualities are not regarded as accessible to everyone, but are viewed as stemming from divine origins." Paul obviously differs from Jesus, who more closely approximates
Weber's ideal type. Holmberg places Paul in a broader context of institutionalization after Jesus' death, but this is not to deny his charismatic qualities.
173 Weber, 1968, pp. 246f, 1121ff.
174 Weber is not always consistent concerning the role of the charismatic leader in routinization; in one passage (1968, p. 1121, also p. 452) he states that the leader has an active role in this transition; in another (ibid., p. 246) he argues that routinization occurs after the leader's death. For further discussion see Eisenstadt, 1968a, pp. xviiifF.
175 Holmberg, 1980a, p. 164.
176 Ibid., p. 170.
177 Ibid., p. 177.
178 Ibid., p. 178.
179 Stark, 1969, p. 86.
The Social Setting of the Ministry 180 Ibid.» pp. 173-74.
181 This interpretation is supported by the fact that Paul used similar terms to describe his own work and that of local leaders such as householders; see p. 78 n. 72.
182 Shilst 1965, p. 206. This quotation belongs to a general argument concerning
Weber's model of routinization. Shils (1965, 1968) argues that Weber contrasted too sharply between charisma and routinization. He argues that charisma exists not only in the pure form described by Weber, but also in those structures, rules, norms, and symbols which contribute to a society's interests and which embody its defining values. According to Shils, these phenomena are treated with reverence by the group which shares them because of their "awe-arousing centrality"
(1965, p. 201). He thus redefines charisma as "contact with, or embodiment of, something very 'serious'. .. which is thought to be, and therewith becomes, central or fundamental to man's existence" (ibid., p. 201). We agree with Wilson
(1975, pp. 4-13), however, that it is misleading to treat charisma as a phenomenon which pervades or permeates mundane social structures. But, in our opinion, Shils is right to note that those "rules, institutions, symbols and strata or aggregates of persons" (1965, p, 200) which most clearly embody or express what is central to a group's identity are perceived to possess a higher or enhanced status by the members of the society in which such phenomena find their meaning.
183 The pseudonymous Pauline epistles may also be interpreted as more direct evidence of this process, especially the Pastorals where a relatively advanced development of church structure is legitimated by connecting local institutions to the apostle's instructions.
184 Fuellenbach, 1980, shows that the majority of Protestant scholars, and several
Roman Catholic ones, regard these descriptions as purely fictional.
185 Similarly, Brown and Meier, 1983, pp. 174-75.
186 Campenhausen, 1969, p. 77-78.
187 Dobschütz, 1904, pp. 174-75; cf. also Gerke, 1931, pp. 33f.
188 Simmers (1955) theses are presented in point form by Coser, 1965, and then commented upon and further developed.
189 Coser, 1968, p. 232.
190 Coser, 1965, p. 127.
191 Ibid., p. 125.
192 Ibid., p. 126.
193 Hoebel, 1954; 1958.
194 Hoebel, 1954, p. 13; cf. also 1958, pp. 482,158f.
195 Eisenstadt, 1965, pp. 43f.
196 Ibid., p. 53.
197 Eisenstadt, 1968b, p. 413.
198 Campenhausen, 1969, p. 92; cf. p. 86.
199 Ibid., p. 89.
200 The eleventh century Latin MS L reads legem where Codex Alexandnnus reads έπινομήν and Codex Constantinopolitanus reads έπιδομήν; the consensus is to read έπινομήν although this reading is difficult to translate. We follow the majority of scholars who render it "codicil."
201 Schweizer, 1961, p. 16c similarly confuses these issues when he argues, "What we hear about its [the Corinthian church's] order fits in with the concept of the Church." Institutions are regarded as reflections of ideas and this results in obscuring the interaction between social structures and ideas. Holmberg, 1980a, p.
202 notes a similar confusion in the treatment by Campenhausen and others of the New Testament evidence.
ί Clement
202 Brunner, 1972, p. 26, η. 50.
203 Campenhausen, 1969, ρ. 91.
204 Berger and Luckmann, 1971, p. 72.
205 Gerke, 1931, p. 64, citing evidence in 3.3, argues that the division arose as a result of younger members revolting against the authority of elders, but this passage was probably intended to illustrate the more general character of the division and Gerke's argument is therefore unconvincing.
206 Berger and Luckmann, 1971, p. 79.
207 Ibid., p. 111.
208 Ibid., p. 125.
209 Ibid., pp. 112-13.
210 Ibid., ρ. 113. Berger and Luckmann understand symbols as phenomena which refer to realities other than those of everyday experience.
211 Bauer, 1971, p. 95.
212 Knopf, 1899, pp. 174-75; 1920, p. 42; Wrede, 1891, pp.1, 53f.; Harnack, 1929, p.
52; cf. Jaubert, 1971, pp. 23,28.
213 Harnack, 1929, p. 58.
214 Ibid., p. 102.
215 Jaubert, 1971, p. 28.
216 Berger and Luckmann, 1971, p. 111.
217 Campenhausen, 1 969, pp. 94-95.
218 Schweizer, 1961, p. 16b.
219 Sanders, 1943, especially pp. 143ff.
220 E.g. Beyschlag, 1966, pp. 16f., 339f.; Harnack, 1909, p. 76.
221 For comparison of Paul and Clement's uses of διά with the genitive, which differ slightly, see Grant and Graham, 1965, p. 58.
222 Blassand Debrunner, 1961,pp. 117-18.
223 Ibid., p. 119.
224 For discussion of Paul's usage see MacDonald, 1986, pp. 97f. The general shape of the following discussion of these phrases is in part derived from her discussion of Paul's usage.
225 Douglas, 1973, p. 11.
226 Harnack, 1909, p. 49.
227 Knopf, 1920, pp. 136f; Jaubert, 1971, pp. 39-40; Clarke, 1937, p. 106 argue that the prayer at the end of ί Clement is borrowed from the contemporary Roman liturgy but their arguments are unconvincing since there is no means of assessing whether this prayer is liturgical except by the use of documents which post-date this letter.
228 See Elliott, 1981, pp. 24f.; Lightfoot, 1890, Part 1 Vol. 2, pp. 5-6.
229 See also 1 Pet. l.:7; 2:11; similarly, Heb. 11:13.
230 We are following Codex A which is parallel with the end of 29:2.
231 Knopf, 1920, pp. 109-110; Jaeger, 1961, p. 22 notes the classical origins of the term συμπνεϊν and also notes that the body motif maintains its "mystic" application in Clement's usage (p. 19).
232 Jaubert, 1971, p. 72.
233 Knopf, 1920, p. 56; similarly, Clarke, 1937, p. 27; these writers incorrectly interpret certain passages without keeping Clement's over-all purpose in mind. On the basis of Clement's statement in 7:5, that repentance was offered to all generations, these writers criticize Clement's understanding of the atonement as being too universalistic, but Clement is presenting these themes in order to develop a theme consistent with his portrait of the persons causing problems in the Corinthian community as sinners, in order to show that they are in need of repentance. We
The Social Setting of the Ministry should not try to find a "theology of atonement" in these references, nor an abstract teaching on penance as Jaubert, 1971, pp. 50-52, does.
234 Knopf, 1920, p. 126; Harnack, 1929, pp. 117-18 argue that this verse refers to the eucharist but it is too general to be certain.
235 Knopf, 1920, p. 125.
236 Grant and Graham, 1965, pp. 63-64.
237 Lightfoot, 1890, Part 1, Vol. 2, p. 111.
238 Harnack, 1929, p. 70.
239 Jaubert, 1971, p. 73.
240 Lightfoot, 1890, Part 1, Vol. 2, p. 100; idem., Part 1, Vol 1, p. 96.
241 Knopf, 1920, p. 98.
242 Grant and Graham, 1965, p. 69.
243 E.g., 20:11; 24:5; 33:1; 36:2; 40:1; 49:6; 61:2.
244 Thus, e.g., van Unnik, 1950, pp. 181ff.; Sanders, 1943, pp. 109-30; Bardy, 1922, pp. 73-85.
245 Jaeger, 1961, pp. 116-18. As Grant and Graham, 1965, p. 97 argue, "Threskeia, at the beginning of the chapter (62:1), is more important than paideia at the end....
Like Judaism, Christianity was a cult before it was a philosophy,"
246 Grant and Graham, 1965, p. 89.
247 Jaeger, 1961, p. 18.
248 Eggenberger, 1951, p. 183.
249 Jaeger, 1961, pp. 19-23.
250 Ibid., p. 15.
251 Ibid., p. 113, n,2 notes that στάσις is one of the most discussed problems in Greek political thought.
252 Harnack, 1929, p. 70; see also Jaeger, 1961, p. 115, n. 13, who sees in I Clement's concern with obedience a Jewish soteriology.