The Social Setting of the lgnatian Epistles
Chapter Five Ignatius The Social Setting of the lgnatian Epistles In the following discussion we shall focus our attention on the evidence in Ignatius' letters concerning the social setting of the Asia Minor churches with which Ignatius was in contact. Recent attempts to reconstruct the setting of Christianity in Antioch contemporary with Ignatius1 rest on a high degree of speculation based on a very limited amount of evidence which can be legitimately interpreted in many different ways. In the case of Ignatius' letters, it is not evident that the problems in Asia Minor reflected those which presumably existed in Antioch. Corwin, for example, assumes too quickly that the opponents whom Ignatius addressed in Asia Minor were the same as those whom she supposes that he attacked in Antioch.2 In this chapter we shall assume that there was a connection between the opponents3 Ignatius described and the communities he addressed. The more general question of the relationship between these opponents and Ignatius' experiences in Antioch must be left open. Throughout our discussion we shall assume that the modern consensus — first suggested by Lightfoot and Zahn4 — regarding the letters of Ignatius contained in the so-called middle recension, is correct: namely, that the epistles written to Christians at Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, Rome, Philadelphia, and Smyrna as well as the epistle to Polycarp were composed by Ignatius some time between A.D. 100 and 113.5
In this section we shall briefly describe the divisions which confronted the Asia Minor churches addressed by Ignatius. Then we shall attempt to place these divisions in a more general social milieu by discussing evidence of the setting of documents before and after Ignatius' letters (2 and 3 John and the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles). After establishing a probable setting for these communities we shall attempt to fill out more fully the social setting of church divisions and meetings which Ignatius describes. By presenting the argument in this way we hope to show that a house-church setting provides a compelling setting for community division and meetings at the time of Ignatius.6 Finally, we shall argue that evidence regarding Polycarp supports our contention that wealthy members of the community were candidates for church leadership. It will be seen that this evidence also harmonizes with references to leadership by the Notes to this chapter appear on pp. 187-97.
The Social Setting of the Ministry well-to-do in the Apocryphal Acts and the profile of Diotrephes which certain scholars adduce from 3 John.
The Setting of the Community Divisions There is no direct mention in Ignatius' letters of household meetings. This is not surprising since both Ignatius and his readers would have taken for granted the prevailing patterns of social organization and their attendant problems. A problem arises when one attempts to establish what it was that both reader and writer assumed about the social context of community life in these churches.
Ignatius1 comments regarding the divisions he had knowledge of are often epigrammatic or elliptical. Whether this was the result of "great nervous strain,"7 or, more likely, a distinct rhetorical style,8 the consequence is that the modern reader must do a substantial amount of "unpacking" in order to determine what social milieu Ignatius was describing when he discussed problems upsetting the communities with which he corresponded. But, notwithstanding the difficulties of Ignatius' style, it is possible to establish the probable social setting of certain aspects of Ignatius' descriptions.
Several passages in Ignatius' letters either describe or assume some form of local division. In Eph. 5:2-3 he describes the person who does not join "the common assembly" ( ό μή έρχόμενος έπΐ xà αυτό) 9 but separates himself.
The description in Mag, 4:1 of those who "do not meet validly in accordance with the commandment" indicates that such separation included separate meetings.10 Ignatius is probably also referring to the separate meetings of these individuals when he exhorts his readers not to do anything apart from the bishop
(Mag. 7:1-2; Trat. 2:2; 7:2; Smyr. 9:1). The activities which Ignatius has in mind are enumerated in Smyr. 8:1-2: any eucharist, baptism, or agape meal not authorized by the bishop is not to be considered valid. It was probably the case, as Lightfoot suggested,11 that these members had their own form of eucharist.
In Smyr. 7:1 Ignatius states that these persons keep themselves away from (άπέχεσθαι) "eucharist and prayers" because of their beliefs. This passage may also provide a background for the admonition in Phld. 4:1 to celebrate one eucharist, which is connected with (cf. ούν) his warning in 3:3 regarding anyone who follows a schismatic. Some type of separate meeting taking place within the Philadelphian community seems to be assumed in these passages. We may gather from these references, then, that there was a series of rival meetings occurring in all of these churches — excluding Rome, of course, which is not referred to as suffering from division. How should one interpret these references to community divisions? Did Ignatius envisage a single community eucharist celebrated exclusively by one bishop or by an individual appointed by him in his absence (for example, when the bishop was away visiting him)? Are all gatherings in the absence of the bishop schismatic? Or was Ignatius somewhat more flexible: did he envision several smaller local groups meeting together with the approval of the bishop? In either case, where did these meeting? (both those approved and those unapproved by Ignatius) occur? By providing an answer to this final question we shall be in a better position to respond to the other ones.
The setting Ignatius assumes for the divisions and meetings he mentions is placed in higher relief by noting the presumed social background of the prob-
Ignatius
lems described in 2 and 3 John (documents which probably antedate the lgnatian corpus)12 and the setting presented in the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles
(writings which postdate it). This Johannine literature and many of the Apocryphal Acts are associated with Asia Minor. These documents are important for our discussion because they provide analogies between communities in some instances existing in the same geographical area and thereby help us to place the divisions Ignatius describes in a general social context.
The second and third epistles of John, probably composed in the vicinity of Ephesus13 (a city which Ignatius addressed), contain references to household hospitality which can shed light on Ignatius' letters. It is possible that they reflect a level of organization in a period shortly before Ignatius' correspondence. The passages in these letters which describe hospitality and inhospitality toward travellers (2 John 10; 3 John 5-10) are especially fecund for helping us to determine the setting of divisions within the churches Ignatius addressed.
In 2 John 10 the writer warns that anyone who comes (presumably from without into the community) and who does not bring the proper teaching is not to be received "into the house." Such a case of not welcoming travellers into the household seems to be behind much of 3 John. 3 John 5-10 should be understood in the context of a letter of recommendation for hospitality for Demetrius
(v. 12) (of a kind familiar in the ancient world14). We are given valuable clues regarding the importance of hospitality in the early church as well as hints concerning divisions which could arise from the offering of hospitality to travelling
Christians. The events which preceded the letter may be reconstructed from vs.
9-10 as follows: certain individuals ("the brethren"- v. 10) were sent to the church where Diotrephes, probably a leader of the community, presided.
Diotrephes "himself" (RSV) did not welcome (έπιδέχεσθαι) these travellers, i.e., did not offer them the hospitality of his own house (in letters of recommendation of the period compounds of the verb δέχεσθαι are used to express requests to extend hospitality).15 These travellers were then welcomed by other members of the church which Diotrephes led. The information which follows is especially significant. As a result of welcoming these travellers, again presumably into their homes (cf. έπιδέχεσθαι), Diotrephes "put them out of the church" (έκ της εκκλησίας έκβάλλει). The term έκβάλλειν has been interpreted by scholars as a reference to a formal act of excommunication,16 but the arguments put forward for this interpretation arc unconvincing. The same verb, it is true, is a technical term used for banning someone from a synagogue and on this basis scholars have found in Jn. 9:34f. an instance of the term used in this sense. But such a usage is not necessarily implied in this passage nor need the term imply official action against members of the community referred to in 3 John.
What gave Diotrephes the authority to exclude members from the fellowship? Many scholars answer this by stating that he was, or else arrogated to himself, the position of a monarchical bishop.17 But the participle φιλοπρωτεύων, used by the "elder" to describe Diotrephes, does not necessarily mean, as it is often interpreted, that Diotrephes is in fact in a first position: only that he is ambitious to be.18 It appears, then, that there is not sufficient evidence to justify accounting for his authority as based on a position of monarchical episcopacy. A
The Social Setting of the Ministry further clue is provided by the sequence of verbs in vs. 9 - 1 0 : , . . ε π ι δ έ χ ε τ α ι . . . ε π ι δ έ χ ε τ α ι . . . έκ βάλλε ι. Throughout this passage the writer is referring to events surrounding the offering or withholding of hospitality. If we interpret the verb έκβάλλειν in the light of this context, we may regard it as a further instance of an issue related to hospitality. Because members of the church which Diotrephes led welcomed those to whom he refused to offer hospitality, the leader withdrew his welcome to them also and thereby excluded them from the community. Given the probable household setting of these epistles, it seems likely that members were excluded from a household meeting. The verb έπιδέχεσθαι (along with λαμβάνειν —another verb used in contemporary letters to indicate hospitality — cf. 2 John 10) is best interpreted as an antonym for εκβάλλειν. This implies that έκβάλλειν here refers to inhospitality. We can account for the power which Diotrephes had in offering and withdrawing hospitality if, together with Malherbe,19 we see him as inviting the church into his own house.
The writer, therefore, relies upon the continued hospitality of Gaius to provide accommodation for Demetrius. It is possible, but purely a matter for speculation, that Gaius was a relatively wealthy host,20 and was attached to another house church maybe even meeting in his own home. There is no evidence of any animosity between Diotrephes and Gaius which may suggest that he was not involved in the earlier exclusion; if Gaius belonged to a separate house church (perhaps in a nearby city) contact between Diotrephes and him could have been minimal. This reconstruction can only be put forward as, at best, a plausible interpretation of the evidence. What does seem certain, however, is the adverse effect hospitality offered to travellers could have on a Christian community, and its importance as a factor in the maintenance of a harmonious community life.
The second body of evidence which helps us to shed light on the social setting of the Asia Minor communities Ignatius addressed is the literature known as the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles and parts of the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions. These documents, composed in the second and early third century, contain some valuable and much ignored information regarding the church in this early period. They also help us to shed some light on practices within the communities addressed by Ignatius. Commenting on the historical value of the Apocryphal Acts, Quasten writes,
They throw considerable light on the history of Christian worship in the second and third centuries; they describe the earliest forms of religious services in private homes; they contain hymns and prayers which constitute the beginnings of Christian poetry.21
Similarly, with respect to the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, Waitz argues that there is evidence contained within them which provides valuable information concerning the structure of the early church in Syria.22 Any further reconstruction of the structures in the churches addressed by Ignatius is hypothetical, but these documents help us to see how they may have appeared.
The late second or early third century apocryphal Acts, among which are included the Acts of John, Peter, Paul (and Thecla), and Andrew share a set of common literary characteristics which have led scholars to group them together. To
Ignatius
this list we may add what has been identified by some scholars as a source of the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, given the title Periodoi Petrou or Praxeis
Petrou, and which is distinct from, although perhaps partially dependent on, the Acts of Peter.23 The complex history of redaction of the Clementine literature falls outside the scope of this discussion,24 and we shall be concerned with this body of literature only insofar as the so-called Praxeis Petrou contained within it includes themes which are relevant.
The audience of most of the Acts probably belonged to Greece or Asia Minor,25 except for the Acts of Thomas which was most likely for a Syrian audience,26 and the Praxeis Petrou which may have been composed for an audience in Antioch.27 Tertullian (On Baptism 17) is the earliest writer to refer to one of these writings and he states that the A l s of Paul and Thecla was composed in Asia
Minor. Similarly, the Acts of John, probably the earliest of those documents to be written (c. 150-80) is also likely to have been composed in Asia Minor because it recounts the mission travels ofjohn throughout that area.28 The apocryphal Acts of Peter, dating from the end of the second century, probably build on the Acts of John.29 The Acts of Andrew are probably the latest of these Acts, composed c.
260.30 Various attempts have been made to argue for differing combinations of the dependence of these documents on one another, but it is difficult to distinguish between use of a document and utilization of a common tradition.31
The household is the primary setting of these Acts. There are numerous passages which describe the hospitality offered by a wealthy householder to the wandering apostle, worship services conducted by the apostle in a wealthy person's home, and even leadership arising from patronage.32 All of the passages which describe hospitality offered to an apostle present wealthy people who either become Christians or are attracted to the apostle in such a way that they invite him to lodge with them.33 This invariably results in the establishment of the wealthy person's home as a place of teaching and worship.
The Acts ofjohn recounts how John was invited with his companions to stay in the house of Lycomedes, praetor of Ephesus(19), and his wife Cleopatra (25).
Later in the same work it is in the house of Andronicus, a wealthy Ephesian Christian, that John both instructs Ephesian converts and leads worship (46).
James includes in his edition of this document a translation of an eleventh century manuscript which states that upon John's departure from Ephesus to Smyrna he left Bucolis, Polycarp, and Andronicus to preside over the district.34
Since it appears that the writer of this fragment assumed a high degree of church organization, one must be cautious of regarding it as a part of the original Acts ofjohn. Given the reference to Polycarp, the fragment may date sometime after 155 and the reference to presiding over the district seems to suggest some form of "chorepiscopacy." Also, the fact that this fragment is inconsistent with the reference to Andronicus travelling with John in chapter 59 indicates some other manuscript tradition which may post-date an earlier work.35 The reference to Andronicus, patron and leader of the church at Ephesus, must be treated with great caution. It is in his house, however, that the church continues to meet throughout the story (62; 86) 3 6
The Clementine Praxeis Petrou provides some more secure references to patrons of the church who were also its leaders. The stories contained in this
The Social Setting of the Ministry document probably included legends about the apostle Peter and his comrades, and his enemy Simon, all of whom relied upon the hospitality of generally well-to-do patrons. In the course of these legends, Peter meets with his converts in the house of his host, teaching and leading worship, and in certain passages he appoints his patron as bishop of the church which continues to meet in his house. In Ree. 3:65-67 (cf. Horn. 3:60-73), Zacchaeus, Peter's host and the host of those instructed by the apostle, is appointed bishop upon Peter's departure from Caesarea.37 Again, in Ree. 4:1-2 (Horn. 8:1), Peter stays with Maro
(Horn. = Maroones) who had invited him to hold his debate with Simon in the garden of his house (Ree. 4:6). In Ree. 6:15 (Horn. 11:36), the writer states that upon Peter's departure, Maro is ordained bishop along with twelve presbyters and deacons.38 Finally, in Ree. 10:71 the writer portrays Peter as teaching in Antioch and then recounts howTheophilus, "who was more exalted than all the men of power in that city" consecrated "the great palace of his house under the name of a church." It is not clear whether Theophilus is presented as a leader of the church, since the work probably originally ended at 10:72 with Peter in Antioch, but the passage is another instance of the organizational role wealthy patrons are made to play in this writing. The evidence of a single manuscript in 10:72 that Peter ordained one of his followers as bishop is probably a later addition to the text modelled after what seems to be the formulaic construction which occurs in Ree. 10:68 (Horn. 20:23) and which is similar to the construction which appears in passages in the Homilies to complete an episode (Horn.
7:5,8,12).
If we look behind the story of the wandering apostle who founds house churchcs and establishes his hosts as bishops and ask what social experience seems to be assumed by these documents, we may see evidence of a social setting of the second-century church in which an important leadership role is played by the relatively wealthy patron who invites the community to meet in his home. The presentation of this pattern without apology or explanation seems to indicate that the writers' audiences did not regard it as abnormal. In the case of the Theophilus episode in Ree. 10:71 we may even possess evidence of a transition to official buildings set aside strictly for meeting places.39 Any conclusions from this evidence must be drawn cautiously, but the descriptions of household leadership and house meetings may reflect the contemporary setting of the earlier Acts.
Both the Johannine letters and the Apocryphal Acts selected for comment here assume a household setting for the background of community worship, problems, and divisions. The house-church setting of these documents warrants the conclusion drawn by scholars that the household was the general setting of the meetings and divisions described by Ignatius. Commenting on Smyr. 7:1,
Schoedel notes that separate meetings in different houses were common in this period.40 Similarly, Corwin's reconstruction of the organization of the Asia
Minor churches addressed by Ignatius includes a household setting.41
But scholars have not drawn attention to other references which suggest that it may be a house setting which has contributed to division in the community.
Ignatius warns his readers not to receive (παραδέχεσθαι) certain persons in Smyr. 4:1. He writes in a similar way in Phld, 11:1 when he thanks the Philadel-
Ignatius
phians for "receiving" (δέχεσθαι) Philo and Rheus Agathopous. As we have already seen,42 the verb δέχεσθαι and its compounds occur in contemporary letters of recommendation to refer to hospitality. It is likely that Ignatius is here referring to hospitality offered to these deacons on their way to meet him and to their reception by certain members of the community. The offering of hospitality to visitors and messengers was a universally recognized duty of presbyters in the early church, especially since inns were few and uncomfortable.43 Ignatius is probably, therefore, referring in Smyr. 4:1 to the reception of certain members into the homes of presbyters. Further hints are provided in his letter to Ephesus. In Eph. 9:1 Ignatius states that certain persons, presumably his opponents, "have passed by on their way from there (έκείθεν) with evil teaching."44
Precisely where "there" refers to is not clear. But we may adduce from Eph. 7:1
(where Ignatius describes those to whom he is opposed as "carrying about the name'1) that these persons were some kind of travellers. The verb περιφέρειν is used by Ignatius in other passages in connection with travel (Eph. 11:2; Mag.
1:2; Trat. 12:2). These observations, taken together with Ignatius1 description in Eph. 9:1, indicate that Ignatius wishes to guard against travelling teachers who stay with the community, presumably to teach, draw members away from the common assembly, and establish rival meetings.45
Again, 2 and 3 John provide a possible analogy which helps us to understand Ignatius' concerns and strategy for curtailing the influence of his opponents.
Brown interprets Diotrephes' action as a caution against receiving those who come with false teaching such as the type referred to in 2 John 10 4 6 As in the case of Diotrephes, Ignatius recognized that the withdrawal of hospitality was an effective means of excluding undesirable influences from the community. A household setting provides a probable backdrop for the meetings of Ignatius' opponents.47
The Setting of the Common Assembly Can we be more precise about the assemblies which Ignatius recognized as valid? Ignatius' references to coming together to a common meeting (έπί τό α ν τ ό — Eph. 5:3; cf. 20:2) and his exhortations to "hurry together as to one temple of god, as to one altar, to one Jesus Christ" (Mag. 7:2 — trans. Schoedel) lead to the conclusion that there was a common meeting in the community where the eucharist was celebrated. Ignatius is concerned that the Philadelphia s should "celebrate one eucharist" (Phld. 4:1), an exhortation which may be interpreted as assuming one common meeting. Again, the language of being
"within the sanctuary", or "altar" (θυσιαστήριον) in Eph. 5:2 and Tral. 7:2 (cf.
Mag. 7:2; Phld. 4:1) probably reflects a setting of a common meeting. Further, the link between obedience to the bishop and presbyters and "breaking one bread" (Eph. 20:2), the instruction to do nothing apart from the bishops, presbyters, and deacons (Tral. 7:2), and the exhortation that wherever the bishop appears the congregation is to meet (Smyr. 8:2) all suggest a common meeting.
Ignatius' description of docetists as remaining aloof from "eucharist and prayers" (Swyr. 7:1) is best interpreted as referring to one common assembly rather than a variety of meetings regarded as valid.48 These references taken together make the postulation of a common meeting probable.
The Social Setting of the Ministry It seems unlikely that Ignatius viewed all other meetings apart from the bishop as schismatic. When he writes in Smyr. 8:2 that it is not lawful to baptize or hold an agape without the bishop he is probably not restricting those activities to only one assembly;49 in 8:1 he states that a eucharist is also valid when celebrated by one appointed by the bishop. This provision makes sense especially if agape meals included a eucharist.50 Thus, in other meetings Ignatius allows for eucharistie celebrations but he forbids them if they take place without the consent of the bishop, as presumably they did in circles where docetic teachers had gained some influence. The concern in 7:1 and 8:2 is to increase control and solidarity among the groups which constitute the community, rather than to prescribe a single valid meeting. Even if the community met for a common eucharist once a week, of a type described by Justin (Apology 1:67), this does not preclude the possibility of other meetings of smaller cells during the week. A morning hymn or common meal such as that described by Pliny (Ep. 10:98) need not have occurred in a plenary meeting; a member's household would have sufficed.51
It is probably significant, however, that the references to agapes without the knowledge of the bishop appear in the letter to the Smyrnaeans, as does the concern regarding meetings apart from the bishop's permission. For it seems likely that Ignatius' opponents enjoyed the support of some kind of local church leader. In Smyr. 6:1 Ignatius urges, "Let position (τόπος — Lake — "office") inflate no one; for faith and love are everything, to which nothing is preferable."
The noun τόπος is employed in a technical way in other early Christian literature (PoL 1:2; Pol. Phil. 11:1 — locum; Acts 1:25) to refer to a position of leadership in the community and it is likely that it is being used in that sense here.52
Bauer's inference from this passage that Ignatius' opponent was "something like a gnostic anti-bishop of Smyrna" exceeds the constraints of the evidence;53 if there had been an anti-bishop, Ignatius would probably have protested much more vigorously and clearly than in this one somewhat cryptic passage. It is more likely that the person in question was a presbyter.54 And it is very possible that he was behind the meetings implied in Smyr. 7:1 and 8:2. When Ignatius commands in 8:1 that only he who is appointed by the bishop is permitted to celebrate a eucharist, an instruction contained only in this letter, he may be referring to the practice of a high ranking member of the community who would be in a position to lead a eucharist if he had the bishop's consent.55 Given the likelihood that there was a person who, according to Ignatius' interpretation, abused his position to bring about meetings in separation from the rest of the community, and Ignatius' warning to the Smyrnaeans not to receive (παραδέχεσθαι) certain persons regarded as opponents (4:1), it is probable that these individuals were connected with each other. One possible reconstruction of the situation at Smyrna is that a presbyter welcomed certain teachers into his home and that this became a location for further meetings — perhaps even a base for activities in other households.56 This explains Ignatius' somewhat ambiguous presentation of his opponents as being both inside and outside the community (cf. 7:2; 9:1) better than Schoedel's impression from these passages that Ignatius wanted to think that "the docetists were the dupes of outside agitators."57 Such a tentative reconstruction also helps to make sense of Ignatius'
Ignatius
progression of thought from the references to abuse of office at the end of 6:1 to his description of his opponents' lack of love for widows, orphans, prisoners, and similarly needy people in v. 2.58 Ignatius is probably contrasting the collection which occurs in the general meeting with the absence of it in the smaller gatherings around his opponents. Both Justin (Apol 1:67) and Tertullian (Apol.
39) describe such collections for the disadvantaged: Justin states that it occurs during a common meeting on Sunday.
This reference to the abuse of position together with Ignatius' acknowledgement of the permissibility of a eucharist celebrated in the absence of the bishop allows us to speculate that there were a number of household meetings usually led by presbyters alongside the common assembly. Abuse of τόπος for Ignatius probably did not mean merely conducting smaller meetings, but doing so without the permission of the bishop. The "official" support of Ignatius' opponents perhaps only occurred in Smyrna (in the other letters there is no admonition concerning the abuse of positions of leadership), but what Ignatius would have regarded as legitimate household meetings in presbyters' homes of a sort separate from the common eucharist was probably common to all of these communities.
We can only speculate that the setting of the meetings regarded by Ignatius as legitimate was similar to that presented in the apocrypha! Acts and the early source(s) behind the Clementine literature. This hypothesis gains a small measure of extra support from the reconstruction presented above of the setting of the conflict described in 3 John. If our interpretation is correct, it is likely that the well-to-do played an important role in the community life of churches in at least one Asia Minor city. Again, in the Acts ofjohn there is great concern that the wealthy use their riches to care for the widows of the community (34-36; cf.
30). Although there is a long discourse against wealth contained within a Latin manuscript (14-18—James, pp. 257-62), the role the wealthy person plays in this writing in caring for the apostle and inviting members into his home probably indicates that wealth remained important in the church's common life. Evidence from the apocryphal source in the Clementine literature leads to a similar conclusion.59
Turning again to the evidence in the lgnatian letters, the evidence of Polycarp's social position is consonant with references to the wealth of leaders in this apocryphal literature. He is the only bishop referred to by Ignatius of whom we have information which can shed light on the social rank of leaders in the churches addressed by him. The Martyrdom of Polycarp provides some valuable information concerning the Smyrnaean bishop. This data must be interpreted cautiously since the writer of the martyrdom may have patterned his work after Christ's passion (cf. Mart. Pol. 1:1), inserting events or shaping his report to conform to this model.60 But it is significant that not all the historical details of the report are made to mirror the Passion.61 And it is more likely that certain historical events, such as the betrayal, called attention to Christ's death. There is no reason to doubt the overall accuracy of the document nor to regard it as anything other than it purports to be — a contemporary letter from the Smyrnaean church to Christians at Philomelium intended to describe events surrounding their bishop's martyrdom.62