by Adolph (von)
Harnack
translated and edited by James Moffatt
Second, enlarged and revised English edition;
Theological
Translation Library, volumes 19-20
From
the German, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den
ersten drei
Jahrhunderten (1902, revised 1906, 1915, and finally 1924)
Book 3 (scanned by Moises
Bassand and
Amna Khwar; part edited by Liz Rosado; further editing by
Amna
Khwar, October 2004, and Chris Segal, Spring 2006)
BOOK
3
THE
MISSIONARIES: THE METHODS OF THE
COUNTER-MOVEMENTS
CHAPTER I
THE CHRISTIAN MISSIONARIES
(APOSTLES,
EVANGELISTS,
AND PROPHETS OR TEACHERS: THE INFORMAL MISSIONARIES)
I
BEFORE entering upon
the subject
proper, let us briefly survey the usage of the term “apostle,” in its
wider and
narrower senses, throughout the primitive Christian writings.\1/
\1/
Though it is only apostles of Christ who are to be considered, it may
be
observed that Paul spoke (2 Cor. 8.23) of ἀπόστολοι ἐκκλησιῶν,
and applied the title “apostle of the
Philippians” to Epaphroditus, who had conveyed to him a donation from
that
church (Philip. 2.25). In Heb. 3.1 Jesus is called “the apostle and
high-priest
of our confession.” But in John 13.16 “apostle” is merely used as an
illustration: οὐκ ἔστι δοῦλος μείζων τοῦ κυρίου αὐτοῦ,
οὐδὲ ἀρόστολος μείζων τοῦ πέμψαντος αὐτόν.
For the literature on this subject,
see my edition of the Didachê (Texte u.
Untersuchungen, vol. 2, 1884) and my Dogmengeschichte
I.3 (1894), pp. 153 f. [
1. In Matthew,
Mark, and John, “apostle” is not a special and distinctive name for the
inner
circle of the disciples of Jesus. These are almost invariably described
as “the
twelve,”\2/ or the [[320]]
twelve
disciples.\3/ As may be inferred from Matt. 19.28, the choice of this
number
probably referred to the twelve tribes of Israel.\4/ In my opinion the
fact of
their selection is historical, as is also the tradition that even
during his
lifetime Jesus once dispatched them to preach the gospel, and selected
them
with that end in view. At the same time, the primitive church honored
them
pre-eminently not as apostles but as the twelve disciples (chosen by
Jesus). In
John they are never called the apostles;\5/ in Matthew they are
apparently
called “the twelve apostles” (10.2) once,\6/ but this reading is a
correction,
Syr. Sin. giving “disciples.” At one place Mark writes “the apostles”
(6.30),
but this refers to their temporary missionary labors during the life of
Jesus.
All three evangelists are thus ignorant of “apostle” as a designation
of the
twelve: there is but one instance
where the term is applied to them ad hoc.\7/
\2/
Matt. 10.5, 20.17, 26.14, 47; Mark (3.14), 4.10,
6.7, 9.35, 10.32, 11.11, 14.10, 17, 20, 43; John 6.67, 70, 71, 20.24.
\3/ Matt. 10.1, 11.1, 26.20. -- Add further the instances in which they
are
called “the eleven” (Mark 16.14) or “the eleven disciples” (Matt.
28.16).
\4/
This is explicitly stated in Barn. 8: oὖσιν δεκαδύο εἰς μαρτύριον τῶν φυλῶν ὕτι ιβ’
αἱ φυλαὶ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ
(“They are twelve for a testimony to the tribes, for
there are twelve tribes in
\5/
This is a remarkable fact. In the Johannine epistles “apostle”
never occurs at all. Yet these letters were composed by a man who,
whatever he
may have been, claimed and exercised apostolic authority over a large
number of
the churches, as is plain from the third epistle (see my study of it in
the
fifteenth volume of the Texte and
Unlersuchungen, part 3). More on this point afterwards.
\6/ Not “the twelve” pure and simple. Elsewhere the term, “the twelve
apostles,”
occurs only in Apoc. 21.14, and there the “twelve” is not superfluous,
as the
Apocalypse uses “apostle” in a more general sense (see below).
\7/ The phrasing of Mark 3.14 (ἐποίησεν
δώδεκα, ἵνα
ὦσιν μετ’ αὐτοῦ
καὶ ἵνα ἀποστέλλῃ
αὐτοὺς
κηρύσσειν καὶ
ἔχειν ἐξουσίαν ἐκβάλλειν
τὰ δαιμόνια)
corresponds to
the original facts of the case. The mission (within
2. With Paul it is
quite otherwise. He never employs
the term “the twelve” (for in 1 Cor. 15.5 he is repeating a formula of
the
primitive church),\8/ but confines himself to the idea of “apostles.”
His
terminology, however, is not unambiguous on this point. [[321]]
\8/
From the absence of the term “twelve” in Paul, one might infer (despite
the
gospels) that it did not arise till later; 1 Cor. 15.5, however, proves
the
reverse.
(a) He calls
himself an apostle of Jesus Christ, and lays the greatest stress upon
this
fact.\9/ He became an apostle, as alone one could, through God (or
Christ); God
called him and gave him his apostleship,\10/ and his apostleship was
proved by
the work he did and by the way in which he did it.\11/
\9/
See the opening of all the Pauline epistles, except 1 and 2 Thess.,
Philippians
and Philemon; also Rom. 1.5, 11.13, 1 Cor. 4.9, 9.1 f., 15.9 f., 2 Cor.
12.12,
Gal. 1.17 (2.8). It may be doubted whether, in 1 Cor. 4.9 (δοκῶ, ὁ θεὸς ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀποστόλους ἐσχάτους ἀπέδειξεν ὡς ἐπιθανατίους), ἐσχάτους is to be taken as an
attribute of ἀποστόλους or as a predicative. I
prefer the
former construction (see 1 Cor. 15.8 f.), and it seems to me
therefore
probable that the first person plural here is an epistolary plural.
\10/ Gal. 1.1 f., Rom. 1.5 (ἐλάβομεν
χάριν καὶ ἀποστολήν). It is hard to say whether
ἐλάβομεν is a real plural, and, if
so, what
apostles are here associated with Paul.
\11/ 1 Cor. 9.1, 2, 15.9 f., 2 Cor. 12.12, Gal. 1.2.
(b) His fellow-missionaries -- e.g., Barnabas
and Silvanus -- are also apostles; not so, however, his assistants and
pupils,
such as Timothy and Sosthenes.\12/
\12/ 1 Cor. 9.4 f. and Gal. 2.9 prove that Barnabas was an apostle,
whilst 1
Thess. 2.7 makes it very probable that Silvanus was one also. In the
greetings
of the Thessalonian and Philippian epistles Paul does not call himself
an
apostle, since he is associating himself with Timothy, who is never
given this
title (1 Thess. 2.7 need not be taken as referring to him). It is
therefore
quite correct to ascribe to him (as in 2 Tim. 4.5) the work of an
evangelist.
Apollos, too [see p. 79], is never called an apostle. As for εὐαγγελιστής, it is to be noted that,
apart from 2
Timothy, it occurs twice in the New Testament; namely, in the
We-journal in
Acts (21.8, as a title of Philip, one of the seven), and in Ephes.
4.11, where
the reason for evangelists being mentioned side by side with apostles
is that
the epistle is addressed to churches which had been founded by
nonapostolic
missionaries, and not by Paul himself -- just as the term οἱ ἀκούσαντες (sc. τὸν κύριον) is substituted for
“apostles” in Heb.
2.3, because the readers for whom the epistle was originally designed
had not
received their Christianity from apostles.
(c) Others also -- probably, e.g.,
Andronicus and Junias\13/ -- are apostles. In fact, the term
cannot be sharply
restricted at all; for as God appoints prophets and teachers “in the
church,”
so also does he appoint apostles to be the front rank [[322]]
therein,\14/ and since such charismatic callings depend upon the
church's
needs, which are known to God alone, their numbers are not fixed. To
the
apostleship belong (in addition to the above mentioned call of God
or Christ)
the wonderful deeds which accredit it (2 Cor. 12.12) and a work of its
own (1
Cor. 9.1-2), in addition to special rights.\15/ He who can point to
such is an
apostle. The very polemic against false apostles (2 Cor. 11.13) and
“super-apostles”
(2 Cor. 11.5, 12.11) proves that Paul did not regard the conception of
“apostle”
as implying any fixed number of persons, otherwise the polemic would
have been
differently put. Finally, a comparison of 1 Cor. 15.7 with verse 5 of
the same
chapter shows, with the utmost clearness, that Paul distinguished a
circle of
apostles which was wider than the twelve -- a distinction, moreover,
which
prevailed during the earliest period of the church and within
Palestine.\16/
\13/ Rom. 16.7 (ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις, οἳ καὶ πρὸ ἐμοῦ γέγοναν ἐν Χριστῷ); ἐν is probably (with Lightfoot,
as against Zahn) to be
translated “among” rather than “by,” since the latter would render the
additional phrase rather superfluous and leave the precise scope of ἀπόστολοι unintelligible. If ἐν means “by,” this passage is
to be correlated
with those which use οἱ
ἀπόστολοι for the
original apostles, since in the present case this gives the simplest
meaning
to the words. At any rate, the οἳ
refers to Andronicus and Junias, not to ἀποστόλοις. [Add
note on
Junias/Julia.]
\14/
1 Cor. 12.28 f; Eph. 4.11. Even Eph. 2.20 and 3.5 could not be
understood to
refer exclusively to the so-called “original apostles,” otherwise Paul
would
simply be disavowing his own position.
\15/
It cannot be proved -- at least not with any great degree of
probability --
from 1 Cor. 9.1 that one must have
seen the Lord in order to be able to come forward as an apostle. The
four
statements are an ascending series (οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐλεύθερος; οὐκ εἰμὶ ἀπόστολος; οὐχὶ Ἰησοῦν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν ἑόρακα; οὐ τὸ ἔργον μου ὑμεῖς ἐστε ἐν κυρίῳ), as is proved by the
relation of the
second to the first. It is clear that the third and fourth statements
are meant
to attest the second, but it is doubtful if they contain an attestation
which
is absolutely necessary.
\16/ Cp. Origen,
Hom. in
Num., 27.11 (vol. 10 p. 353, ed. Lommatzsch):
“In quo apostolus ostendit [sc. 1 Cor. 15.7) esse et alios apostolos
exceptis
illis duodecim.”
(d)
But in a further, strict, sense of the
term, “apostle” is reserved for those with whom he himself works,\17/
and here
some significance attaches to the very chronological succession of
those who
were called to the apostleship (Rom. 16.7). The twelve who were called
during
the lifetime of Jesus fall to be considered as the oldest apostles;\18/
with their qualities and functions they [[323]] form the pattern and
standard for all
subsequent apostles. Thus the twelve, and
(what is more) the twelve as apostles, come to the front. As
apostles Paul
put them in front; in order to set the dignity of his own office in its
true
light, he embraced the twelve under the category of the original
apostolate (thereby allowing their personal discipleship
to fall into the background, in his terminology), and thus raised them
above
all other apostles, although not higher than the level which he claimed
to
occupy himself. That the twelve henceforth rank in history as the
twelve
apostles, and in fact as the
apostles, was a result brought about by Paul; and, paradoxically
enough, this
was brought about by him in his very effort to fix the value of his own
apostleship. He certainly did not work out this conception, for he
neither
could nor would give up the more general conception of the apostleship.
Thus
the term “apostle” is confined to the twelve only twice in Paul,\19/
and even
in these passages the reference is not absolutely certain. They occur
in the
first chapter of Galatians and in 1 Cor. 9.5. Gal. 1.17 speaks of oἱ πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἀπόστολοι (“those who were apostles
before me”), where in all likelihood
the twelve are alone to be understood. Yet the subsequent remark in
verse 19 (ἕτερον τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου) shows that it was of no
moment to
Paul to restrict the conception rigidly. In 1 Cor 9.5 we read, μὴ οὐκ ἔχομεν ἐξουσίαν ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα περιάγειν, ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ Κηφᾶς; the collocation of λοιπῶν ἀποστολῶν with the Lord's brothers
renders it
very probable that Paul here is thinking of the twelve exclusively, and
not of
all the existing apostles, when he mentions “the apostles.” To sum up
our
results: Paul holds fast to the wider conception of the apostolate, but
the
twelve disciples form in his view its original nucleus.
\17/
1 Cor. 9.2 and Gal. 9 (a Jewish and a Gentile apostolate); cp. also
Rom. 11.13,
ἐθνῶν ἀπόστολος. Peter (Gal. 2.8) has the ἀποστολὴ τ. περιτομῆς. Viewed ideally, there is
only one apostolate, since there is only one
church; but the concrete duties of
the apostles vary.
\18/
The apostolate is the highest rank (1 Cor. 12.28); it follows that the
main
thing even about the twelve is the fact of their being apostles.
\19/
Apart from 1 Cor. 15.7 (cp. verse 5), where the twelve appear as the
original
nucleus of the apostles; probably also apart from Rom. 16.7 (cp. p.
321, note)
and 1.5.
3. The
terminology of Luke is determined as much by that of the primitive age
(the
Synoptic tradition) as by the post-Pauline. Following the former,
he calls the
chosen disciples of [[324]]
Jesus “the
twelve,”\20/ or “the eleven;”\21/ but he reproduces the latter in
describing
these disciples almost invariably throughout Acts as simply “ the
apostles” --
just as though there were no other\22/ apostles at all -- and in
relating, in
his gospel, how Jesus himself called them apostles (6.13). Accordingly,
even in
the gospel he occasionally calls them “the apostles.”\23/ This would
incline
one to assert that Luke either knew, or wished to know, of no apostles
save the
twelve; but the verdict would be precipitate, for in Acts 14.4, 14, he
describes not merely Paul but also Barnabas as an apostle.\24/
Obviously, the
terminology was not yet fixed by any means. Nevertheless it is
surprising that
Paul is only described as an “apostle” upon one occasion in the whole
course of
the book. He does not come\25/ under the description of the qualities
requisite
for the apostleship which Luke has in view in Acts 1.21 f., a
description which
became more and more normative for the next age. Consequently he cannot
have
been an apostle for Luke, except in the wider sense of the term.
\20/
Luke 8.1, 9.1, 12, 18.31, 22.3, 47; Acts 6.2. Only once, then, are they
called
by this title in Acts, and that in a place where Luke seems to me to be
following a special source.
\21/
Luke 24.9, 33 (cp. Acts 2.14, Πέτρος
σὺν τοῖς ἕνδεκα).
\22/
Acts 1.2, 2.37, 42-43, 4.33, 35, 36, 37, 5.2, 12, 18, 29, 40, 6.6, 8.1,
14.18,
9.27, 11.1, 15.2, 4, 6, 22, 23, 16.4. In the later chapters “apostle”
no longer
occurs at all. Once we find the expression of οἱ ἕνδεκα ὰπόστολοι (Acts 1.26).
\23/
Luke 9.10, 17.5, 22.14, 24.10. The gospel of Peter is more cautious; it
speaks
of μαθηταί (30), or of οἱ δώδεκα μαθηταί (59), but never of ἀπόστολοι. Similarly, the apocalypse
of Peter
(5) writes, ἡμεῖς
οἱ δώδεκα μαθηταί.
\24/
With both Paul (see above) and Luke, then, the apostolic dignity of
Barnabas is
well established. -- In regard to the Seventy disciples Luke does speak
of an ἀποστέλλειν and calls them “seventy
other”
apostles, in allusion to the twelve. Yet he does not call them
explicitly
apostles. Irenaeus (2.21.1), Tertullian (adv.
Marc. 4.24), Origen (on Rom. 16.7), and other writers, however,
describe
them as apostles, and people who were conjectured to have belonged to
the
Seventy were also named apostles by a later age.
\25/
The apostle to be elected must have companied with Jesus from the date
of
John's baptism until the ascension; he must also have been a witness of
the
resurrection (cp. also Luke 14.48, Acts 1.8). (Paul simply requires an
apostle
to have “seen” the Lord.) This conception of the apostolate gradually
displaced
the original conception entirely, although Paul still retained his
apostolic
dignity as an exception to the rule.
4. The
apocalypse of John mentions those who call themselves [[325]]
apostles and are not (2.2),\26/ which implies that they might be
apostles.
Obviously the writer is following the wider and original conception of
the
apostolate, The reference in 18.20 does not at least contradict
this,\27/ any
more than 21.14 (see above), although only the twelve are named here
“apostles,”
while the statement with its symbolic character has certainly
contributed
largely to win the victory for the narrower sense of the term.
\26/
Cp. (above) Paul's judgment on the false apostles.
\27/
Εὺφραίνου οὐρανὲ καὶ οἱ ἀποστόλοι καὶ οἱ προφῆται. For the collocation of the
Old
Testament prophets, cp. also Luke 11.49, 2 Pet. 3.2. But in our
passage, as in
Eph. 3.20, 3.5, 4.11, the writer very possibly means Christian prophets.
5. In First
Peter and Second Peter (1.1), Peter is called an apostle of Jesus
Christ. As
for Jud. 17 and 2 Peter 3.2 (τὰ
ῥήματα τὰ προειρημένα ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰηστοῦ Χριστοῦ, τὰ προειρημένα ῥήματα ὑπὸ τῶν ἁγίων προφητῶν καὶ ἡ τῶν ἀποστόλων ὑμῶν ἐντολὴ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος), in the first passage it
is certain,
and in the second very likely, that only the twelve disciples are to be
understood.
6. That the
epistle of Clement uses “apostles” merely to denote the original
apostles and
Paul, is perfectly clear from 42.1 f. (the apostles chosen previous to
the
resurrection) and 47.4 (where Apollos, as ἀνὴρ δεδοκιμάσμενος παρ’ ἀποστόλοις, a man approved by the
apostles, is
definitely distinguished from the apostles); cp. also 5.3 and 44.1. For
Clement's conception of the apostolate, see below. The epistle of
Barnabas
(5.9) speaks of the Lord's choice of his own apostles (ἴδιοι ἀπόστολοι), and therefore seems to
know of some
other apostles; in 8.3 the author only mentions the twelve “who
preached to us
the gospel of the forgiveness of sins\28/ and were empowered to preach
the
gospel,” without calling them expressly” apostles.”\29/ As the
Preaching of
Peter professes to be an actual composition of [[326]]
Peter, it is self-evident that whenever it speaks of apostles, the
twelve are
alone in view.\30/
\28/
Of οἱ ῥαντίζοντες παῖδες οἱ εὐαγγελισάμενοι ἡμῖν τὴν ἄφεσιν ᾀμαρτιῶν καὶ τὸν ἁγνισμὸν τῆς καρδίας, οἷς ἔδωκεν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τὴν ἐξουσίαν – οὖσιν
δεκαδύο εἰς μαρτύριον τῶν φυλῶν, ὅτι δεκαδύο φυλαὶ τοῦ Ἰσραή’—εἰς τὸ κηρύδσσειν (“The children who sprinkle
are those
who preached to us the gospel of the forgiveness of sins and
purification of
heart; those whom he empowered to preach the gospel, being twelve in
number for
a testimony to the tribes -- since there are twelve tribes in Israel”).
\29/
As 5.9 shows, this is merely accidental.
\30/ See von
Dobschütz
in Texte u. Unters. 9.1. Jesus says in this Preaching:
Ἐξελεξάμην ὑμᾶς δώδεκα μαθητὰς κρίνας ἀξίους ἔμοῦ καὶ ἀποστόλους πιστοὺς ἡγησάμενος εἶναι, πέμπων ἐπὶ τὸν κόσμον εὐαγγελίσασθαι τοὺς κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην ἀνθρώπους, κ.τ.λ. (“I have
chosen you twelve disciples, judging
you to be worthy of me and esteeming you to be faithful apostles,
sending you out into the world to preach the gospel to
all its inhabitants,” etc.).
7. The passage
in Sim. 9.17.1 leaves it ambiguous
whether Hermas meant by “apostles” the twelve or some wider circle. But
the
other four passages in which the apostles emerge (Vis.
3.5.1; Sim. 9.15.4,
16.5, 25.2) make it perfectly clear that the author had in view a
wider,
although apparently a definite, circle of persons, and that he
consequently
paid no special attention to the twelve (see below, Sect. 3, for a
discussion
upon this point and upon the collocation of apostles, bishops, and
teachers, or
of apostles and teachers). Similarly, the Didachê contemplates
nothing but a
wider circle of apostles. It certainly avows itself to be, as the title
suggests, a διδαχὴ
κυρίου διὰ τῶν ιβ’ ἀποστόλων (an instruction of the Lord
given
through the twelve apostles), but the very addition of the number in
this title
is enough to show that the book knew of other apostles as well, and
11.3-6
takes apostles exclusively in the wider sense of the term (details of
this in a
later section).
8. In the dozen
or so passages where the word “apostle” occurs in Ignatius, there is
not a
single one which renders it probable that the word is used in its wider
sense.
On the contrary, there are several in which the only possible
allusion is to
the primitive apostles. We must therefore conclude that by “apostle”
Ignatius
simply and solely understood\31/ the twelve and Paul (Rom.
4.3). Any decision in the case of Polycarp (Ep. 6.3,
8.1) is uncertain, but he would
hardly have occupied a different position from that of Ignatius. His
church
added to his name the title of an “apostolic
and prophetic teacher” (Ep. Smyrn.
16.2).
\31/
Ignatius disclaims apostolic dignity for himself, in several passages
of his
epistles; which nevertheless is a proof that there was a possibility of
one who
had not been an original apostle being none the less an apostle.
This
survey of the primitive usage of the word “apostle” [[327]]
shows that while two conceptions existed side by side, the narrower was
successful in making headway against its rival.\32/
\32/
During the course of the second century it became more rare than ever
to confer
the title of “apostles” on any except the biblical apostles or persons
mentioned
as apostles in the Bible. But Clement of Rome is called an apostle by
Clement
of Alexandria (Strom. 4.17. 105), and
Quadratus is once called by this name.
ΙΙ
One other
preliminary inquiry is necessary before we can proceed to the subject
of this
chapter. We are to discuss apostles, prophets, and teachers as the
missionaries
or preachers of Christianity; the question is, whether this threefold
group can
be explained from Judaism.
Such a
derivation is in any case limited by the fact that these classes did
not form
any triple group in Judaism, their close association being a
characteristic of
primitive Christianity. With regard to each group, the following
details are to
be noted: --
1. Apostles.\33/
-- Jewish officials bearing this title are unknown to us until
the
destruction of the temple and the organization of the Palestinian
patriarchate;
but it is extremely unlikely that no “apostles” previously existed,
since the
Jews would hardly have created an official class of “apostles” after
the
appearance of the Christian apostles. At any rate, the fact was there,
as also,
beyond question, was the name\34/ -- i.e., of authoritative
officials who
collected contributions from the Diaspora for the temple and kept the
churches
in touch with
\33/
The very restricted use of the word in classical (Attic) Greek is well
known
(Herod. 1.21.5.38; Hesychius: ἀπόστολος
· στρατηγὸς κατὰ πλοῦν πεμπόμενος). In the LXX.
the word occurs only in 1 Kings 14.6 (describing the prophet Abijah:
Hebrew <h> שלוה </h>).
Justin has to fall back on ἀποστέλλειν
in order to prove (Dial. 75) that the
prophets in the Old Testament were called άπόστολοι. Josephus calls Varus, the
head of a
Jewish deputation to
\34/
If Judaism had never known apostles, would Paul have spoken of
“apostles” in 2
Cor. 8.23 and Phil. 2.25?
\35/
The passages have been printed above, on pp. 57 f.; χειροτονήσαντες denotes the apostolate (cp.
Acts
13.3).
\36/
For this intercommunication see, e.g., Acts, 28.21: οὔτε γράμματα περὶ σοπῦ ἐδέξαμεθα ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰουδαίας (say the Roman Jews, with
regard to
Paul) οὔτε παραγενόμενος τις τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἀπήγγειλεν. A cognate reference is
that of 2 Cor.
3.1, to ἐπιστολαὶ συστατικαί.
Eusebius
(in Isa. 18.1 f.) proves that the chosen persons whom Justin thus
characterizes
are to be identified with the “apostles” of Judaism. The passage has
been
already printed (cp. p. 59), but in view of its importance it may once
more be
quoted: εὕρομεν ἐν τοῖς τῶν παλαιῶν συγγράμμασιν, ὡς
οἱ τὴν Ἱερουσαλὴμ
οἰκοῦντες τοῦ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἔθνους ἱερεῖς καὶ πρεσβύτεροι
γράμματα
διαχαράξαντες
εἰς
πάντα
διεπέμψαντο
τὰ
ἔθνη
τοῖς
ἁπανταχοῦ
Ἰουδαίοις
διαβάλλοντες
τὴν
Χριστοῦ
διδασκαλίαν
ὡς
αἵρεσιν
καινὴν
καὶ
ἀλλοτρίαν
θεοῦ, παρήγγελλόν
τε
δι’
ἐπιστολῶν
μὴ
παραδέξασθαι
αὐτήν . . . .
οἵ τε
ἀπόστολοι αὐτῶν ἐπιστολὰς βιβλίνας
κομιζόμενοι\37/ ἁπανταχοῦ
γῆς
διέτρεχον,
τὸν
περὶ τοῦ
σωτῆρος ἡμῶν
ἐνδιαβάλλοντες λόγον. ἀποστόλους δὲ εἰσέτι καὶ
νῦν (so that the institution was
no
novelty) ἔθος ἐστὶν Ἰουδαίοις
ὀνομάζειν
τοὺς
ἐγκύκλια
γράμματα
παρὰ
τῶν
ἀρχόντων
αὐτῶν
ἐπικομιζομένους.
The
primary function, therefore, which
Eusebius emphasized in the Jewish “ apostles “ of his own day, was
their duty of
conveying encyclical epistles issued by the central authority for
the
instruction and direction of the Diaspora. In the law-book (Theodosianus
Codex, 16.8.14), as is only natural, another side is presented: “Superstitionis indignae
est, ut
archisynagogi sive presbyteri Judaeorum vel quos ipsi apostolos
vocant,
qui ad exigendum aurum atque argentum a patriarcha certo tempore
diriguntur,” [[329]] etc.
(“It is part of this worthless
superstition that the Jews have chiefs of their synagogues, or elders,
or persons
whom they call apostles, who are appointed by the patriarch at
a certain
season to collect gold and silver”). The same aspect is adduced, as the
context
indicates, by Julian (Epist. 25; Hertlein, p. 513), when he
speaks of “the
apostleship you talk about” (λεγομένη
παρ’ ὑμῖν ἀποστολή). Jerome (ad Gal.
1.1) merely
remarks: “Usque hodie a patriarchis Judaeorum apostolos mitti” (“To
this day
apostles are despatched by the Jewish patriarchs”). But we gain much
more
information from Epiphanius, who, in speaking of a certain Joseph (adv.
Har.
30.4), writes: οὗτος τῶν
παρ’ αὐτοῖς ἀξιωματικῶν
ἀνδρῶν ἐναρίθμιος
ἦν ·
εἶσὶ
δὲ οὗτοι μετὰ
τὸν
πατριάρχην ἀπόστολοι
καλούμενοι, προσεδρεύουσι
δὲ
τῷ
πατριάρχῃ
καὶ
σὺν
αὐτῷ
πολλάκις
καὶ
ἐν
νυκτὶ
καὶ
ἐν
ἡμέρᾳ
συνεχῶς
διάγουσι,
διὰ
τὸ
συμβουλεύειν
καὶ
ἀναφέρειν
αὐτῷ
τὰ
κατὰ
τὸν
νόμον.\38/
He tells (chap. 11) when this Joseph became an apostle (or, got the εὐκαρπία τῆς ἀποστολῆς), and then proceeds: καὶ μετ’
ἐπιστολῶν οὗτος
ἀποστέλλεται
εἰς
τὴν Κιλίκων γῆν
· ὅς ἀνελθὼν
ἐκεῖσε ἀπὸ
ἑκάστης
πόλεως τῆς
Κιλικίας τὰ ἐπιδέκατα καὶ
τὰς ἀπαρχὰς
παρὰ τῶν ἐν
τῇ ἐπαρχίᾳ
Ἰουδαίων εἰσέπραττεν
. . . . ἐπεὶ
οὖν, οἷα
ἀπόστολος
(οὕτως
γὰρ
παρ’ αὐτοῖς, ὡς
ἔφην, τὸ
ἀξίωμα
καλεῖται),
ἐμβριθέστατος
καὶ
καθαρεύων
δῆθεν
τὰ
εἰς
κατάστασιν
εὐνομίας,
οὕτως
ἐπιτελεῖν
προβαλλόμενος,
πολλοὺς
τῶν
κακῶν
κατασταθέντων
ἀρχισυναγώγων
καὶ
ἱερέων
καὶ
πρεσβυτέρων
καὶ
ἀζανιτῶν . . . . καθαιρῶν
τε
καὶ
μετακινῶν
τοῦ ἀξιώματος
ὑπὸ πολλῶν
ἐνεκοτεῖτο, κ.τ.λ. (“He
was despatched with epistles to
\37/
The allusion is to Isa. 18.1-2, where the LXX.
reads
: οὐαὶ . . . . ὁ ἀποστέλλων ἐν θαλάσςῃ ὅμηρα καὶ ἐπιστολὰς βιβλίνας ἐπάνω τοῦ ὕδατος, while Symmachus has not ὅμηρα but ἀποστόλους.
Eusebius therefore refers this passage to the false “apostles” of
Judaism, and
the words πορεύσονται
γὰρ ἄγγελοι κοῦφοι, κ.τ.λ.,
to the true apostles.
\38/ ”He
belonged to the order of their distinguished men. These consist of men
called “apostles’;
they rank next to the patriarch, with whom they are associated and with
whom
they often spend whole nights and days taking counsel together and
consulting
him on matters concerning the law.”
Putting
together these functions of the “apostles,”\39/ we get the following
result.
(1) They were consecrated persons of a very high rank; (2) they were
sent out
into the Diaspora to collect tribute for headquarters; (3) they brought
encyclical letters with them, kept the Diaspora in touch with the
center and
informed of the intentions of the latter (or of the patriarch),
received orders
about any dangerous movement, and had to organize resistance to it; (4)
they
exercised certain powers of surveillance and discipline in the Diaspora
; and
(5) on returning to their own country they formed a sort of council
which aided
the patriarch in supervising the interests of the law.
\39/
Up till now only one inscription has been discovered which mentions
these
apostles, viz., the epitaph of a girl of fourteen at Venosa: “ Quei
dixerunt
trenus duo apostuli et duo rebbites” (Hirschfeld, Bullett. dell Instit. di corrisp.
archaeol.
1867, p. 152).
In view of all
this one can hardly deny a certain connection between these Jewish
apostles and
the Christian. It was not simply that Paul\40/ and others had hostile
relations
with them their very organization afforded a sort of type for the
Christian
apostleship, great as were the differences between the two. But, one
may ask,
were not these differences too great? Were not the Jewish apostles just
financial officials? Well, at the very moment when the primitive
apostles
recognized Paul as an apostle, they set him also a financial task (Gal.
2.10);
he was to collect money throughout the Diaspora for the church at
\40/
Was not Paul himself, in his pre-Christian days [cp. p. 59], a Jewish
“apostle”?
He bore letters which were directed against Christians in the
Diaspora,
and had assigned to him by the highpriests and Sanhedrin certain
disciplinary
powers (see Acts 8.2, 22.4 f., 26.10 f., statements which deserve
careful
attention).
\41/
We do not know whether there were also “apostles” among the disciples
of John
-- that narrow circle of the Baptist which, as the gospels narrate, was
held
together by means of fasting and special prayers; we merely know that
adherents
of this circle existed in the Diaspora (at Alexandria: Acts 18.24 f.,
and
Ephesus: Acts 19.1 f.). Apollos (see above, p. 79) would appear to have
been
originally a regular missionary of John the Baptist's movement; but the
whole
narrative of Acts at this point is singularly colored and obscure.
These
statements about the Jewish apostles have been contested by
Monnier (op.
cit. pp. 16 f.): “To prop up his theory, Harnack takes a text of
Justin and
fortifies it with another from Eusebius. That is, he proves the
existence of an
institution in the first century by means of a second-century text, and
interprets the latter by means of a fourth-century writer. This is too
easy.”
But it is still more easy to let such confusing abstractions blind us
to the
reasons which in the present instance not only allow us but even make
it
obvious to explain the testimony of Justin by that of Eusebius, and
again to
connect it with what we know of the antichristian mission set on foot
by the
Jerusalemites, and of the false apostles in the time of Paul. I have
not
ignored the fact that we possess no direct evidence for the assertion
that
Jewish emissaries like Saul in the first century bore the name of
“apostles.”
(2) Prophets.
-- The common idea is that prophets had died out in Judaism long before
the age
of Jesus and the apostles, but the New Testament itself protests
against this
erroneous idea. Reference may be made especially to John the Baptist,
who
certainly was a prophet and was called a prophet; also to the
prophetess Hanna
(Luke 2.36), to Barjesus the Jewish prophet [[332]]
in the retinue of the pro-consul at Cyprus (Acts 13.7), and to the
warnings
against false prophets (Matt. 7.15, 24.11, 25, Mark 13.22, 1 John 4.1,
2 Pet.
2.1).
Besides, we are
told that the Essenes possessed the gift of prophecy;\42/ of Theudas,
as of the
Egyptian,\43/ it is said, προφήτης
ἔλεγεν εἶναι (“ he alleged himself to be
a
prophet,” Joseph. Antiq. 20.5.1); Josephus the historian played
the
prophet openly and successfully before Vespasian;\44/ Philo called
himself a
prophet, and in the Diaspora we hear of Jewish interpreters of dreams,
and of
prophetic magicians.\45/ What is still more significant, the wealth of
contemporary Jewish apocalypses, oracular utterances, and so forth
shows that,
so far from being extinct, prophecy was in luxuriant bloom, and also
that
prophets were numerous, and secured both adherents and readers. There
were very
wide circles of Judaism who cannot have felt any surprise when a
prophet
appeared: John the Baptist and Jesus were hailed without further ado as
prophets, and the imminent return of ancient prophets was an article of
faith.\46/ From its earliest awakening, then, Christian prophecy was no
novelty, when formally considered, but a phenomenon which readily
coordinated
itself with similar contemporary phenomena in Judaism. In both cases,
too, the
high value attached to the prophets follows as a matter of course,
since they
are the voice of God; recognized as genuine prophets, they possess an
absolute
authority in their preaching and counsels. They were not [[333]] merely deemed capable
of miracles, but
even expected to perform them. It even seemed credible that a
prophet could
rise from the dead by the power of God; Herod and a section of the
people were
quite of opinion that Jesus was John the Baptist redivivus (see
also
Rev. 11.11).\47/
\42/
Cp. Josephus' Wars, 1.3.5, 2.7.3, 8.12; Antiq. 13.11.2,
15.10.5,
17.3.3.
\43/
Acts 21.38; Joseph. Antiq. 20.8.6; Wars, 2.13.5
\44/
Wars, 3.8.9; cp. Suet. Vespas. 5, and Dio Cass.
66.1.
\45/
Cp. Hadrian, Ep. ad Servian. (Vopisc. Saturn. 8.) --
One cannot,
of course, cite the gospel of pseudo-Matthew, ch. 13 (“et prophetae qui
fuerant
in
\46/
Only it is quite true that the Sadducees would have nothing to do with
prophets, and that a section of the strict upholders of the law would
no longer
hear of anything ranking beside the law. It stands to reason also that
the
priests and their party did not approve of prophets. After the
completion of
the canon there must have been a semi-official doctrine to the effect
that the
prophets were complete (cp. Ps. 74.9: τὰ σημεῖα ἡμῶν οὐκ εἴδομεν, οὐκ
ἔστιν ἔτι προφήτης, καὶ ἡμᾶς οὐ γνώσεται ἔτι, also 1 Macc. 4.46, 9.27,
14.41), and
this conviction passed over into the church (cp. Murator. Fragm.,
“completo
numero”); the [[333b]]
book of Daniel was no
longer placed among the prophets, and the later apocalypses were no
longer
admitted at all into the canon. Josephus is undoubtedly echoing a
widely spread
opinion when he maintains that the “succession of the prophets” is at
an end (Apion.
1.8; cp. also Euseb. H.E. 3.10.4: “From the time of Artaxerxes
to our
own day all the events have been recorded, but they do not merit the
same
confidence as we repose in the events that preceded them, since there
has not
been during this time an exact succession of prophets” -- ἀπὸ δὲ Ἀραταξέρξου μέχρι τοῦ καθ’ ἡμᾶς χρόνου γέγραπται μὲν ἕκαστα, πίστεως δ’ οὐχ ὁμοίας ἠξίωται τοῖς πρὸ αὐτῶν, διὰ τὸ μὴ γενέσθαι τὴν τῶν προφητῶν ἀκριβῆ διαδοχήν). Julian, c. Christ.
198 C: τὸ παρ’ Ἑβραίοις [προφητικὸν πνεῦμα] ἐπέλιπεν (“ the prophetic spirit
failed among
the Hebrews “). But although the line of the “canonical” prophets had
been
broken off before the appearance of Jesus, prophecy need not therefore
have
been extinguished.
\47/
The saying of Jesus, that all the prophets and the law prophesied until
John
(Matt. 11.13), is very remarkable (see below); he appears to have been
thinking of the cessation of
prophecy,
probably owing to the nearness of the end. But the word also admits of
an
interpretation which does not contemplate the cessation of prophecy.
(3)
Teachers. -- No words need be
wasted on the importance of the scribes and teachers in Judaism,
particularly
in
\48/
Schürer, Gesch. d. jud. Volkes, 2.(3) pp. 317
f. (Eng. trans. 2.1.317).
Thus the three
members of the Christian group -- apostles, prophets, teachers --
were
already to be met with in contemporary Judaism, where they were
individually
held in very high esteem. Still, they were not grouped together;
otherwise the
prophets would have been placed in a more prominent position. The
grouping of
these three classes, and the special development of the
apostleship, were the
special work of the Christian church. It was a work which had most
vital
consequences.
III
As we are essaying a study
of the
missionaries and teachers, let us take the Didachê into
consideration.\49/
\49/
In what follows I have drawn upon the section in my larger edition of
the
Didachê (1884), which occupies pp. 93 f.
In the fourth
chapter, where the author gathers up the special duties of Christians
as
members of the church, this counsel is put forward as the first
commandment: τέκνον μοῦ, τοῦ λαλοῦντός σοι τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ μνησθήσῃ νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας, τιμήσεις δὲ αὐτὸν ὡς κύριον ὅθεν γὰρ ἡ κυριότης λαλεῖται, ἐκεῖ κύριός ἐστιν (“My son, thou shalt
remember him that
speaketh to thee the word of God by night and day; thou shalt honor him
as the
Lord. For whencesoever the lordship is lauded, there is the Lord present”).\50/ As is plain from the
whole book
(particularly from what is said in chap. 15 on the bishops and
deacons), the
writer knew only one class of people who were to be honored in
the
church, viz., those alone who preached the word of God in their
capacity of ministri
evangelii.\51/ [[335]]
\50/
Compare the esteem above mentioned in which the Jews held their
teachers.
Barnabas (19.9-10), in a passage parallel to that of the Didachê,
writes: ἀγαπήσεις ὡς κόρην τοῦ ὀφθαλμοῦ σου πάντα τὸν λαλοῦντά σοι τὸν λόν λόγον κυρίου, μνησθήςῃ ἡμέραν κρίσεως νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας:
(“Thou shalt love as the apple of thine eye everyone who speaks to thee
the
word of the Lord; night and day shalt thou remember the day of
judgment”).
\51/
The author of Hebrews also depicts the ἡγούμενοι more closely, thus: οἵτινες ἐλάλησαν ὑμῖν τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ (13.7). The expression ἡγούμενοι or προηγούμενοι (see also
Heb. 13.17), which had a special vogue in the Roman church, [[335b]] although it is not
unexampled
elsewhere, did not become a technical expression in the primitive age;
consequently it is often impossible to ascertain in any given case who
are
meant by it, whether bishops or teachers.
But who are
these λαλοῦντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ in the Didachê? Not
permanent, elected
officials of an individual church, but primarily independent teachers
who
ascribed their calling to a divine command or charism. Among them we
distinguish (1) apostles, (2) prophets, and (3) teachers. These
preachers, at
the time when the author wrote, and for the circle of churches with
which he
was familiar, were in the first place the regular missionaries of the
gospel (apostles),
in the second place the men who ministered to edification, and
consequently sustained
the spiritual life of the churches (prophets and teachers).\52/
\52/
According to chap. 15, bishops and deacons belong to the second class,
in so
far as they take the place of prophets and teachers in the work of
edifying the
church by means of oral instruction.
(1) They
were not elected by the churches, as were bishops and deacons alone
(15.1, χειροτονήσατε ἑαυτοῖς ἐπισκόπους καὶ διακόους). In 1 Cor. 12.28 we read: καὶ οὓς μὲν ἔθετο ὁ θεὸς ἐν τῆ ἐκκλησίᾳ πρῶτον ἀποστόλους, δεύτερον προφήτας, τρίτον διδασκάλους (cp. Ephes. 4.11: καὶ αὐτὸς ἔδωκεν τοὺς μὲν ἀποστόλους, τοὺς δὲ προφήτας, τοὺς δὲ εὐαγγελιστάς, τοὺς δὲ ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλους). The early source
incorporated in
Acts 13 gives a capital idea of the way in which this divine
appointment is to
be understood in the case of the apostles. In that passage we are told
how
after prayer and fasting five prophets and teachers resident in the
church at
Antioch (Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, Manaen, and Saul) received
instructions
from the holy Spirit to despatch Barnabas and Saul as missionaries or
apostles.\53/ We may assume that in other cases also the apostles could
fall
back on such an exceptional commission.\54/ [[336]]
The prophets were authenticated by what they delivered in the form of
messages
from the Holy Spirit, in so far as these addresses proved spiritually
effective. But it is impossible to determine exactly how people were
recognized
as teachers. One clue seems visible, however, in Jas. 3.1, where we
read: μὴ πολλοὶ διδάσκαλοι γίνεσθε, εἰδότες ὅτι μεῖζον κρίμα λημψόμεθα. From this it follows that
to become a
teacher was a matter of personal choice -- based, of course, upon the
individual's consciousness of possessing a charisma. The teacher
also ranked
as one who had received the holy Spirit\55/ for his calling; whether he
was a
genuine teacher (Did. 13.2) or not, was a matter which, like the
genuineness of the prophets (Did. 11.11, 13.1), had to be
decided by the
churches. Yet they merely verified the existence of a divine
commission; they
did not in the slightest degree confer any office by their action. As a
rule,
the special and onerous duties which apostles and prophets had to
discharge
(see below) formed a natural barrier against the intrusion of a crowd
of
interlopers into the office of the preacher or the missionary.
\53/
The dispatch of these two
men appears to be entirely the work of the holy Spirit. Ἀφορίσατε δὴ μοι τὸν Βαρνάβαν καὶ Σαῦλον εἰς τὸ ἔργον ὃ προσκέκλημαι αὐτούς, says the Spirit. The
envoys thus act
simply as executive organs of the Spirit.
\54/
In the epistles to Timothy, Timothy is represented as an “evangelist,”
i.e., as
an apostle of the second class, but he is also the holder of a
charismatic
office. Consequently, just as in Acts 13, we find in 1.1.18 these
words: ταύτην τὴν παραγγελίαν παρατίθεμαί σοι, τέκνον Τιμόθεε, κατὰ τὰς προαγούσας ἐπὶ σὲ προφητείας; and in 4.14, the
following: μὴ ἀμέλει τοῦ ἐν σοὶ χαρίσματος, ὓ ἐδόθη σοι διὰ προφητείας [μετὰ ἐπιθέσεως τῶν τοῦ πρεσβυτερίου].
\55/
This may probably be inferred even from 1 Cor. 14.26, where διδαχή follows ἀποκάλυψις, and it is made perfectly
clear by
Hermas who not only is in the habit of grouping ἀπόστολοι and διδάσκαλοι, but also (Sim.
9.25.2) writes
thus of the apostles and teachers: “They taught the word of God soberly
and
purely . . . . even as also they had received the holy Spirit” (διδάξαντες σεμνῶ καὶ ἁγνῶς τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ . . . . καθῶς καὶ παρέλαβον τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον).
(2) The
distinction of “apostles, prophets, and teachers” is very old, and was
common
in the earliest period of the church. The author of the
Didachê presupposes
that apostles, prophets, and teachers were known to all the churches.
In 11.7
he specially mentions prophets; in 12.3 f. he names apostles and
prophets,
conjoining in 13.1-2 and 16.1-2 prophets and teachers (never apostles
and
teachers: unlike Hermas). The inference is that although this order
-- “apostles,
prophets, and teachers” -- was before his mind, the prophets and
apostles
formed in certain aspects a category by themselves, while in other
aspects the
prophets had to be ranked with the teachers (see below). This order is
identical with that of Paul (1 Cor. 12.28), so that its origin is to be
pushed
back to the sixth decade of the first century; in fact, it goes back to
a still
earlier [[337]] period,
for in saying οὓς μὲν ἔθετο ὁ θεὸς ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ πρῶτον ἀποστόλους, κ.τ.λ.,
Paul is thinking without doubt of some arrangement in the church which
held
good among Jewish Christian communities founded apart from his
co-operation, no
less than among the communities of Greece and Asia Minor.
This assumption
is confirmed by Acts 11.27, 15.22, 32, and 13.1. f. In the first of
these
passages we hear of prophets who had migrated from the
Jerusalem-church
to the Antiochene;\56/ the third passage implies that five men, who are
described as prophets
and teachers,
occupied a special position in the church at Antioch, and that two of
their
number were elected by them as apostles at the injunction of the Spirit
(see
above).\57/ Thus the apostolic vocation was not necessarily involved in
the
calling to be a prophet or teacher; it required for itself a further
special
injunction of the Spirit. From Acts 13.1 f. the order -- “apostles,
prophets,
teachers” -- follows indirectly but quite obviously; we have therefore
evidence
for it (as the notice may be considered historically reliable) in the
earliest
Gentile church and at a time which was probably not even one decade
distant
from the year of Paul's conversion.
\56/
On a temporary visit. One of them, Agabus, was permanently resident in
Judaea
about fifteen years later, but journeyed to meet Paul at Caesarea in
order to
bring him a piece of prophetic information (Acts 21.10
f.).
\57/
From the particles employed in the passage, it is probable that
Barnabas,
Simeon, and Lucius were the prophets, while Manäen and Saul were
the teachers.
One prophet and one teacher were thus dispatched as apostles. As the
older man,
Barnabas at first took the lead (his prophetic gift may be gathered
from the
name assigned to him, “Barnabas” = υἱὸς παρακλήσεως [Acts
4.36]; for in 1 Cor. 14.3 we read, ὁ προφητεύων ἀνθρώποις λαλεῖ παράκλησιν).
A century may
have elapsed between the event recorded in Acts 13.1 f. and the final
editing
of the Didachê. But intermediate stages are not lacking.
First, we have the
evidence of 1 Cor. (12.28),\58/ with two witnesses besides in Ephesians
(whose [[338]] evidence
is all the more weighty if the
epistle is not genuine) and Hermas. Yet neither of these witnesses is
of
supreme importance, inasmuch as both fail to present in its
pristine purity the
old class of the regular λαλοῦντες
τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ as apostles, prophets, and
teachers;
both point to a slight modification of this class, owing to the
organization
of individual churches, complete within themselves, which had grown up
on other
bases.
\58/
Observe that after enumerating apostles, prophets, and teachers, Paul
does not
proceed to give any further category of persons with charismatic gifts,
but
merely adds charismatic gifts themselves; note further that he gives no
classification of these gifts, but simply arranges them in one series
with a
double ἔπειτα, whereas the
apostles, prophets, and teachers are enumerated in order with πρῶτον, δεύτερον, and τρίτον. The conclusion is that the
apostolate, the prophetic office (not, speaking with tongues), and
teaching
were the only offices which made their occupants persons of rank in the
church,
whilst the δυνάμεις,
ἰάματα, ἀντιλήμψεις, κ.τ.λ.
conferred no special standing on those who were gifted with such
charismata. [[338b]] Hence
with Paul, too, it is the preaching of God's word which constitutes a
position
in the ἐκκλησία of God. This
agrees exactly with the view of the author of the Didachê.
Like Did. 11.3,
Eph. 2.20 and 3.5 associate apostles and prophets, and assign them an
extremely
high position. All believers, we are told, are built up on the
foundation of
the apostles and prophets, to whom, in the first instance, is revealed
the
secret that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs of the promise of Christ.
That
prophets of the gospel, and not of the Old Testament, are intended
here is
shown both by the context and by the previous mention of apostles. Now
in the
list at 4.11 the order “apostles,
prophets, and teachers” is indeed preserved, but in such a way that
“evangelists”
are inserted after “prophets,” and “pastors” added to “teachers”
(preceding
them, in fact, but constituting with them a single group or class).\59/
From these intercalated words it follows (1) that the author (or
Paul)
knew missionaries who did not possess the dignity of apostles,\60/ but
that he
did not place them immediately after the apostles, inasmuch as the
collocation
of “apostles and prophets” was a sort of noli me tangere (not
so the
collocation of “prophets and teachers”); (2) that he reckoned the
leaders of an
individual church (ποιμένες)
among the preachers bestowed upon the church as a whole (the
individual
church in this way made its influence felt); (3) that he looks upon the
teachers as persons belonging to a definite church, as is
evident from
the close connection of teachers with ποιμένες and the subsequent mention
(though in [[339]]
collocation) of the former. [[Note to editor
– new paragraph here?]] The
difference between the author of Ephesians and the author of the
Didachê on
these points, however, ceases to have any significance when one
observes two
things : (a) first, that even the latter places the ποιμένες (ἐπίσκοποι) of the individual church
side by side
with the teachers, and seeks to have like honor paid to them (15.1-2);
and
secondly (b), that he makes the permanent domicile of teachers in an
individual
church (13.9) the rule, as opposed to any special appointment (whereas,
with
regard to prophets, domicile would appear, from 13.1, to have been the
exception). It is certainly obvious that the Didachê's arrangement
approaches more nearly
than that of Ephesians to the arrangement given by Paul in Corinthians,
but it
would be more than hasty to conclude that the Didachê must
therefore be older
than the former epistle. We have already seen that the juxtaposition of
the
narrower conception of the apostolate with the broader is very early,
and that
the latter, instead of being simply dropped, kept pace for a time with
the
former. Furthermore, it must be borne in mind that passages like Acts
13.1,
11.27, 21.10, etc., prove that although the prophets, and especially
the
teachers, had to serve the whole church with their gifts, they could
possess,
even in the earliest age, a permanent residence and also membership of
a
definite community, either permanently or for a considerable
length of time.
Hence at an early period they could be viewed in this particular light,
without
prejudice to their function as teachers who were assigned to the church
in
general.
\59/
It does not follow that the “teachers” are to be considered identical
with the “pastors,”
because τοὺς δὲ does
not immediately precede
διδάσκαλους. The inference is
merely that
Paul or the author took both as comprising a single group.
\60/
I have already tried (p. 321) to explain exactly why evangelists are
mentioned
in Ephesians.
As for Hermas,
the most surprising observation suggested by the book is that the
prophets are
never mentioned, for all its enumeration of classes of preachers and
superintendents in Christendom.\61/ In consequence of this, apostles
and
teachers (ἀπόστολοι
and διδάσκαλοι) are
usually conjoined.\62/ Now as [[340]]
Hermas
comes forward in the rôle
of prophet, as his book contains one large section (Mand.
11) dealing
expressly with false and genuine prophets, and finally as the vocation
of the
genuine prophet is more forcibly emphasized in Hermas than in any other
early
Christian writing and presupposed to be universal, the absence of any
mention
of the prophet in the “hierarchy”
of Hermas must be held to have been deliberate.
\61/
In Sim. 9.15.4a Old Testament prophets are meant.
\62/
Cp. Sin,., 9.15, 4b: οἱ
δὲ μ’ ἀπόστολοι καὶ διδάσκαλοι τοῦ κηρύγματος τοῦ ὑιοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ (“the forty are apostles
and teachers
of the preaching of the Son of God”); 16.5: οἱ ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ διδάσκαλοι οἱ κηρύξαντες τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ (“the apostles and teachers
who
preached the name of the Son of God”); 25.2: ἀπόστολοι καὶ διδάσκαλοι οἱ κηρύξαντες εἰς ὅλον τὸν κόσμον καὶ οἱ διδάξαντες σεμνῶς καὶ ἁγνῶς τὸν λόγον τοῦ κυρίου (“apostles and teachers who
preached to [[340b]]
all the world, and taught soberly and
purely the word of the Lord”). Vis. 3.5.1 (see below) is also
relevant
in this connection. Elsewhere the collocation of “ἀπόστολοι, διδάσκαλος” occurs only in the
Pastoral epistles
(1 Tim. 2.7, 2 Tim. 1.11); but these passages prove nothing, as Paul
either is
or is meant to be the speaker.
In short, Hermas
passed over the prophets because he reckoned himself one of them.
If this
inference be true\63/ we are justified in supplying “prophets” wherever
Hermas
names “apostles and teachers,” so that he too becomes an indirect
witness to
the threefold group of “apostles, prophets, teachers.”\64/ In that case
the
conception expounded in the ninth similitude of the “Shepherd” is
exactly
parallel to that of the man who wrote the Didachê. Apostles
(prophets) and
teachers are the preachers appointed by God to establish the spiritual
life of
the churches; next to them come (chapters 25-27) the bishops and
deacons.\65/
On the other hand, the author alters this order in Vis., 3.5.1,
where he
writes:\66/ οἱ
μὲν οὖν λίθοι οἱ τετράγωνοι καὶ λευκοὶ καὶ συμφωνοῦντες ταῖς ἁρμογαῖς αὐτῶν, οὗτοι εἰσιν οἱ ἀπόστολοι [[341]]
(add καὶ προφῆται) καὶ ἐπίσκοποι καὶ διδάσκαλοι καὶ διάκονοι οἱ πορευθέντες κατὰ τὴν σεμνότητα τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐπισκοπήσαντες καὶ διδύξαντες καὶ διακονήσαντες ἁγνῶς καὶ σεμνῶς τοῖς ἐκλεκτοῖς τοῦ θεοῦ, οἱ μὲν κεκοιμημένοι, οἱ δὲ ἔτι ὄντες. [[Note
to
editor – new paragraph here?]] According to the author of the
Didachê
also, the ἐπίσκοποι
and διάκονοι are to be added to the ἀπόσολοι, προφῆται, and διδάσκαλοι, but the difference between
the two
writers is that Hernias has put the bishops, just as the author of
Ephesians
has put the ποιμένες,
before the teachers. The reasons for this are unknown to us; all we can
make
out is that at this point also the actual organization of the
individual
communities had already modified the conception of the organization of
the
collective church which Hermas shared with the author of the
Didachê.\67/
\63/
Lietzmann (Götting. Gelehrte Anz. 1905, 6. p. 486) proposes
another
explanation: “Apostles and teachers belong to the past generation
for Hermas;
he recognizes a prophetic office also, but only in the Old Testament (Sim.
9.15.4). He does occupy himself largely with the activities of the true
prophet, and feels he is one himself; but he conceives this προφητεύειν as a private activity which
God's
equipment renders possible, but which lacks any official character. So
with his
censor in the Muratorian Fragment.”
Perhaps this is the right explanation of the difficulty. But can Hermas
have
really estimated the prophets like the Muratorian Fragmentist?
\64/ Hermas,
like the author of the Didachê, knows nothing about “evangelists”
as
distinguished from “apostles”; he, too, uses the term “apostle” in its
wider
sense (see above, p. 326).
\65/
In conformity with the standpoint implied in the parable, the order is
reversed
in chapters 26-27; for the proper order, see Vis. 3.5.1.
\66/
“The squared white stones that fit together in their joints, are the
apostles
and bishops and teachers and deacons who walked after the holiness of
God and
acted as bishops, teachers, and deacons, purely and soberly for the
elect of
God. Some have already fallen asleep, and others are still living.”
\67/
It is to be observed, moreover, that Sim. 9 speaks of apostles
and
teachers as of a bygone generation, whilst Vis. 3 declares that
one
section of the whole group have already fallen asleep, while the rest
are still
alive. We cannot, however, go into any further detail upon the
important
conceptions of Hermas.
Well then; one
early source of Acts, Paul, Hermas, and the author of the Didachê
all attest
the fact that in the earliest Christian churches “those who spoke the
word of
God” (the λαλοῦντες
τὸν λὀγον τοῦ θεοῦ occupied the highest
position,\68/ and that they were
subdivided into apostles, prophets, and teachers. They also bear
evidence to
the fact that these apostles, prophets, and teachers were not esteemed
as
officials of an individual community, but were honored as
preachers who had
been appointed by God and assigned to the church as a whole. The notion
that
the regular preachers in the church were elected by the different
churches is
as erroneous as the other idea that they had their “office” transmitted
to them
through a human channel of some kind or other. So far as men worked
together
here, it was in the discharge of a direct command from the Spirit.
\68/
So, too, the author of Hebrews. Compare also 1 Pet. 4.11: εἴ τις λαλεῖ, ὡς λόγια θεοῦ · εἴ
τις διακονεῖ, ὡς ἐξ ἰσχύος ἧς χορηγεῖ ὁ θεὀς [a passage which
illustrates the
narrative in Acts 6].
Finally, we
have to consider more precisely the bearings of this conclusion, viz.,
that, to
judge from the consistent testimony of the earliest records, the
apostles,
prophets, and teachers were allotted and belonged, not to any
individual
community, but to the church as a whole. By means of this feature
Christendom [[342]]
possessed, amid all its scattered
fragments, a certain cohesion and a bond of unity which has often been
underestimated. [[Note to editor –
new
paragraph here?]]
These
apostles and prophets, wandering from place to place, and received by
every
community with the utmost respect, serve to explain how the development
of the
church in different provinces and under very different conditions could
preserve, as it did, such a degree of homogeneity. Nor have they left
their
traces merely in the scanty records, where little but their names are
mentioned,
and where witness is born to the respect in which they were held. In a
far
higher degree their self-expression appears throughout a whole genre of
early
Christian literature, namely, the so-called catholic epistles and
writings.
It is impossible to understand the origin, spread, and vogue of a
literary genre
so peculiar and in many respects so enigmatic, unless one correlates it
with
what is known of the early Christian “apostles, prophets, and
teachers.” When
one considers that these men were set by God within the church
-- i.e.,
in Christendom as a whole, and not in any individual community,
their calling
being meant for the church collective -- it becomes obvious
that the
so-called catholic epistles and writings, addressed to the whole of
Christendom, form a genre in literature which corresponds to
these
officials, and which must have arisen at a comparatively early period.
An
epistle like that of James, addressed “to the twelve tribes of the
dispersion,”
with its prophetic passages (4.-5), its injunctions uttered even to
presbyters
(5.14), and its emphatic assertions (5.15 f), this epistle, which
cannot have
come from the apostle James himself, becomes intelligible so soon as we
think
of the wandering prophets who, conscious of a divine calling which led
them to
all Christendom, felt themselves bound to serve the church as a whole.
We can
well understand how catholic epistles must have won great prestige,
even
although they were not originally distinguished by the name of any
of the
twelve apostles.\69/ [[Note to editor – new
paragraph
here?]] [[343]]
Behind these epistles
stood the teachers called by God, who were to be reverenced like the
Lord
himself. It would lead us too afar afield to follow up this view, but
one may
refer to the circulation and importance of certain “catholic” epistles
throughout the churches, and to the fact that they determined the
development
of Christianity in the primitive period hardly less than the Pauline
epistles.
During the closing decades of the first century, and at the opening of
the
second, the extraordinary activity of these apostles, prophets, or
teachers
left a lasting memorial of itself in the “catholic” writings; to which
we must add
other productions like the “Shepherd” of Hermas, composed by an author
of whom
we know nothing except the fact that his revelations were to be
communicated to
all the churches. He is really not a Roman prophet;
being a
prophet, he is a teacher for Christendom as a whole.
\69/
This period, of course, was past and gone, when one of the charges
levelled at
the Montanist Themison was that he had written a catholic epistle and
thus
invaded the prerogative of the original apostles: see Apollonius (in
Euseb. H.E.
5.18.5) – Θεμίσων
ἐτόλμησε, μιμούμενος τὸν ἀπόστολον, καθολικήν τινα συνταξάμενος ἐπιστολὴν κατηχεῖν τοὺς ἄμεινον αὐτοῦ πεπιστευκότας (“Themison ventured, in
imitation of the apostles, to
compose a catholic epistle for the instruction of people whose faith
was better
than his own”).
It has been remarked, not
untruly, that
Christendom came to have church officials -- as distinct from
local
officials of the communities -- only after the episcopate had been
explained
as an organization intended to perpetuate the apostolate in such a way
that
every bishop was held, not simply to occupy an office in the particular
community, but to rank as a bishop of the catholic church (and, in this
sense,
to be a follower of the apostles). This observation is correct. But it
has to be
supplemented by the following consideration that in the earliest
age special
forms of organization did arise which in one aspect afford an analogy
to
ecclesiastical office in later catholicism. For “those who spake the
word of
God” (the λαλοῦντες
τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ) were catholic teachers (διδάσκαλοι καθολικοί).\70/ Yet [[344]]
even when these primitive teachers were slowly disappearing, a
development
commenced which ended in the triumph of the monarchical episcopate,
i.e., in
the recognition of the apostolic and catholic significance attaching to
the
episcopate. [[Note to editor –
new
paragraph here?]]
The
preliminary stages in this development may be distinguished
wherever in
Ephesians, Hernias, and the Didachê the permanent [[345]]
officials of the individual community are promoted to the class of
“apostles,
prophets, and teachers,” or already inserted among them. When this
happened,
the fundamental condition was provided which enabled the bishops at
last to
secure the prestige of “apostles, prophets, and teachers.” If one looks
at 1
Cor. 12.28 [[346]] or
Did. 13 (“the prophets
are your high-priests”), and then at the passages in Cyprian and the
literature
of the following period, where the bishops are extolled as the
apostles,
prophets, teachers, and high-priests of the church, one has
before one's
eyes the start and the goal of one of the most important developments
in early
Christianity. In the case of prominent bishops like Polycarp of Smyrna,
the end
had long ago been anticipated; for Polycarp was honored by his church
and
throughout
\70/
I shall at this point put together the sources which prove the
threefold group.
(1)
The λαλοῦντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ (and they alone at first,
it would appear; i.e.,
apostles, prophets, and teachers) are the ἡγούμενοι or τετιμήμενοι
in the churches; this follows from (a) Did. 4.1, 11.3 f., 13, 15.1-2,
when
taken together; also (b) from Heb. 13.7, 17, 24, where the ἡγούμενοι are expressly described as λαλοῦντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ; probably (c) from Clem.
(2)
Apostles, prophets, and teachers: cp. Paul (1 Cor. 12.28 f., where he
tacks on δυνάμεις, χαρίσματα ἰαμάτων, ἀντιλήψεις, κυβερνήσεις, γένη γλωσσῶν). When the fathers allude
to this
passage during later centuries, they do so as if the threefold
group still
held its own, oblivious often of the presence of the hierarchy.
Novatian, after
speaking of the apostles who had been comforted by the Paraclete, [[344b]] proceeds (de
Trinit. 29): “Hic est
qui prophetas in ecclesia constituit, magistro. erudite” (“This is he
who
places prophets in the church and instructs teachers “). Cyril of
Jerusalem (Catech.
18.27) will recognize no officials as essential to the church, not even
bishops, except the persons mentioned in the above passage. Ambrose (Hexaëm,
3.12, 50) writes: “God has girt the vine as it were with a trench of
heavenly
precepts and the custody of angels; . . . . he has set in the church as
it were
a tower of apostles, prophets, and teachers, who are wont to safeguard
the
peace of the church” (“Circumdedit enim vineam velut vallo quodam
caelestium
praeceptorum et angelorum custodia . . . . posuit in ecclesia velut
turrim
apostolorum et prophetarum atque doctorum, qui solent pro ecclesiae
pace
praetendere”; see in Ps. 118, Sermo 22, ch. 15).
Vincent of Lerin
(Commonit. 37, 38) speaks of false apostles, false prophets,
false teachers;
in ch. 40, where one expects to hear of bishops, only apostles and
prophets and
teachers are mentioned. Paulinus of Nola (Opera, ed. Hartel, 1
p. 411
f.) addressed an inquiry to Augustine upon apostles, prophets and
teachers,
evangelists and pastors. He remarks very significantly: “In omnibus his
diversis nominibus simile et prope unum doctrinae officium video
fruisse
tractatum” (“Under all these different names I see that a like and
almost
identical order of doctrine has been preserved”), and rightly assumes
that the
prophets cannot be those of the Old Testament, but must be Christian
prophets.
(3)
Prophets and teachers, who select apostles from their number (Acts
13.1).
(4)
Apostles, prophets, and teachers: the Didachê (adding bishops and
deacons).
(5)
Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers: Ephes. 4.11.
(6)
Apostles and teachers (prophets being purposely omitted), with bishops
and
deacons in addition: Hermas, Sim. 9.
(7)
Apostles (prophets), bishops, teachers, deacons: Hermas, Vis. 3.
(8)
Apostles, teachers, prophets: Clem. Hom. 11.35, μέμνησθε ἀπόστολον ἢ διδάσκαλον ἢ προφήτην.
(9)
Apostles and prophets (the close connection of the two follows at an
early
period from Matt. 10.41): Rev. 18.20 (2.2, 20), Ephes. 2.20, 3.5, Did.
11.3.
(According to Irenaeus,
3.2.4, John the Baptist was at once a prophet and an apostle: “et
prophetae et
apostoli locum habuit”; according to Hippolytus, de Antichr.
50, John
the disciple was at once an apostle and prophet.) So the opponent of
the Alogi,
in Epiph. Haer. 51.35, etc.; cp. Didasc., de Charism.
[Lagarde, Reliq.
pp. 4,19 f.]: οἱ
προφῆταιἐφ’ ἡμῶν προφητεύσαντες οὐ παρεξέτειναν ἑαυτοὺς τοῖς ἀποστόλοις (“our prophets did not
measure themselves with the
apostles”).
(10)
Prophets and teachers: Acts 13.1 (2 Pet. 2.1), Did. 13.1-2, 14.1-2,
Pseudo-Clem. de Virg. 1.11: “Ne
multi inter vos sint doctores neque omnes sitis prophetae” (loc. cit.
λόγος διδαχῆς ἢ προφητείας ἢ διακονίας). In the later literature,
the
combination (false prophets and false teachers) still occurs
frequently; [[345b]] see,
e.g., Orig., Hom. 2 in
Ezek.
(Lommatzsch, 14. pp. 33, 37), and Vincent of Lerin. loc. cit.
15.23. In
the pseudo-Clementine Homilies Jesus himself is called “our teacher and
prophet.”
(11)
Apostles and teachers (Hermas): 1 Tim. 2.7, 2 Tim. 1.11, Clem. Strom.
7.16.103:
οἱ μακάριοι ἀπόστολοί τε καὶ διδάσκαλοι, Eclog. 23.
(12)
Polycarp is described in the epistle of his church (16.2) as ἐν τοῖς καθ’ ἡμᾶς χρὸνοις διδάσκαλος ἀποστολικὸς καὶ προφητικός, γενόμενος ἐπίσκοπος τῆς ἐν Σμὐρνῃ καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας (cp. Acta Pion. 1: ἀποστολικὸς ἀνὴρ τῶν καθ’ ἡμᾶς γενόμενος.) Here the ancient and
honorable
predicates are conjoined and applied to a “bishop.” But it is plain
that there
was something wholly exceptional in an apostolic and prophetic teacher
surviving “in our time.” The way in which Eusebius speaks is very
noticeable (Mart.
Pal. 11.1): of one group of twelve martyrs he says, they partook of
προφητικοῦ τινος ἢ καὶ ἀποστολικοῦ χαρίσματος καὶ ἀριθμοῦ (a prophetic or apostolic
grace and
number).
(13)
Alexander the Phrygian is thus described in the epistle from Lyons
(Eus. H.E.
5.1.49): γνωστὸς σχεδὸν πᾶσι διὰ τὴν πρὸς θεὸν ἀγάπην καὶ παρρησίαν τοῦ λόγου · ἦν γὰρ καὶ οὐκ ἄμοιρος ἀποστολικοῦ χαρίσματος (“Well
known to all on account of his love to God and boldness of speech --
for he was
not without a share of apostolic grace”).
An
admirable proof that the prophets were bestowed on the church as a
whole,
instead of on any individual congregation (that it was so with the
apostles,
goes without saying), is furnished by Valentinian circles (Excerpta
ex
Theodot. 24): “The Valentinians declare that the Spirit possessed
by each
individual of the prophets for service is poured out on all members of
the
church ; wherefore the tokens of the Spirit, i.e., healing and
prophecy, are
performed by the church” (λέγουσιν
οἱ Οὐαλεντινιανοὶ ὅτι ὃ κατὰ εἷς τῶν προφητῶν ἔσχεν πνεῦμα ἐξαίρετον εἰς διακονίαν, τοῦτο ἐπὶ πάντας τοὺς τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐξεχύθη · διὸ
καὶ τὰ σημεῖα τοῦ πνεύματος ἰάσεις καὶ προφητεῖαι διὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐπιτελοῦνται). Compare the claims of the
Montanist
prophets and the history of the “Shepherd” of Hermas in the church.
The
passage from the Eclogues of Clement, referred to under (11),
reads as
follows: ὥσπερ
διὰ τοῦ σώματος ὁ σωτὴρ ἐλάλει καὶ ἰᾶτο, οὕτως καὶ πρότερον “διὰ τῶν προφητῶν,” νῦν δὲ “διὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ διδασκάλων” . . . . καὶ πάντοτε ἄνθρωπον ὁ φιλάνθρωπος ἐνδύεται θεὸς εἰς τὴν ἀνθρώπων σωτηρίαν, πρότερον μὲν τοὺς προφήτας, νῦν δὲ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν (“Even as the Savior spake
and healed
through his body, so did he formerly by the prophets and so does he now
by the
apostles and teachers. . . . . Everywhere the God who loves men equips
man to
save men, formerly the prophets and now the church”). This passage is
very
instructive; but, as is evident, the old threefold group is already
broken up,
the prophets being merely admitted and recognized as Old Testament
prophets. I
leave it an open question whether the πνευματικοί of Origen (de Orat.
28) are
connected with our group of teachers. The τάξις προφητῶν μαρτύρων τε καὶ ἀποστόλων (Hipp. de Antichr.
59) is
irrelevant in this connection.
As for the origin of the
threefold
group, we have shown that while its component parts existed in Judaism,
their
combination cannot be explained from such a quarter. One might be
inclined to
trace it back to Jesus Christ himself, for he once sent out his
disciples as
missionaries (apostles), and he seems (according to Matt. 10.41) to
have spoken
of itinerant preaching prophets whom he set on foot. But the
historicity of the
latter passage is disputed;\71/ Jesus expressly denied the title
“teacher” to
his disciples (Matt. 23.8); and an injunction such as that implied in
the
creation of this threefold group does not at all tally with the general
preaching of Jesus or with the tenor of his instructions. We must
therefore
assume that the rise of the threefold group and the esteem in which it
was held
by the community at
\71/
I would point, not to the words of Matt. 11.13 (πάντες οἱ προφῆται καὶ ὁ νόμος ἕως Ἰωάννου ἐπροφήτευσαν), since that saying perhaps
(see p.
333) covers a new type of prophets, but certainly to the situation in
which
Matt. 10.40 f. is uttered; the latter seems to presuppose the
commencement and
prosecution of missionary labors.
IV
The Didachê
begins by grouping together apostles and prophets (11.3), and directing
that the
ordinance of the gospel is to hold good as regards both of them;
but in its
later chapters it groups prophets and teachers together and is silent
on the
apostles. From this it follows, as has been already pointed out, that
the
prophets had something in common with apostles on the one hand and with
teachers on the other. The former characteristic may be inferred from
the
expression κατὰ
τὸ δόγμα τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, as well as from the
detailed
injunctions that follow.\72/ The “ordinance of the gospel” can mean
only the
rules which we read in Mark 6 (and parallels),\73/ and this assumption
is
corroborated by the fact that in Matt. 10, which puts together the
instructions
for apostles, itinerant prophets also are mentioned, who are supposed
to be
penniless. To be penniless, therefore, was considered absolutely
essential
for apostles and prophets; this is the view shared by 3 John,
Origen, and Eusebius. John remarks
that the missionaries wandered about and preached, without accepting
anything
from pagans. They must therefore have been instructed to “accept” from
Christians. Origen (contra Cels. 3.9) writes: “Christians do all
in
their power to spread the faith all over the world. Some of them
accordingly
make it the business of their life to wander not only from city to city
but
from township to township and village to village, in order to gain
fresh
converts for the Lord. Nor could [[348]] one
say they do this for the sake of gain, since they often refuse to
accept so
much as the bare necessities of life; even if necessity drives
them sometimes
to accept a gift, they are content with getting their most pressing
needs
satisfied, although many people are ready to give them much more than
that. [[Note
to editor – new paragraph here?]] And
if at the present day, owing to the large number of people who are
converted,
some rich men of good position and delicate high-born women give
hospitality to
the messengers of the faith, will any one venture to assert that some
of the
latter preach the Christian faith merely for the sake of being honored?
In the
early days, when great peril threatened the preachers of the faith
especially,
such a suspicion could not easily have been entertained; and even at
the
present day the discredit with which Christians are assailed by
unbelievers
outweighs any honor that some of their fellow-believers show to them.”
Eusebius
(H.E. 3.37) writes: “Very many of the disciples of that age
(pupils of
the apostles), whose heart had been ravished by the divine Word with a
burning
love for philosophy [i.e., asceticism], had first fulfilled the command
of the
Savior and divided their goods among the needy. Then they set out on
long
journeys, performing the office of evangelists, eagerly
striving to
preach Christ to those who as yet had never heard the word of faith,
and to
deliver to them the holy gospels. In foreign lands they simply laid the
foundations of the faith. That done, they appointed others as
shepherds,
entrusting them with the care of the new growth, while they themselves
proceeded
with the grace and co-operation of God to other countries and to other
peoples.”
See, too, H.E. 5.10.2, where, in connection with the end
of the second
century, we read: “There were even yet many evangelists of the word
eager to
use their divinely inspired zeal, after the example of the apostles, to
increase and build up the divine Word. One of these was Pantaenus” (ἔνθεον ζῆλον ἀποστολικοῦ μιμήματος συνεισφέρειν ἐπ’ αὐξήσει καὶ οἰκοδομῇ τοῦ θείου λόγου προμηθούμενοι, ὧν εἶς γενόμενος καὶ Πανταῖνος).\74/ The second essential
for
apostles, [[349]] laid
down by the Didachê
side by side with poverty, namely, indefatigable missionary activity
(no
settling down), is endorsed by Origen and Eusebius also.\75/
\72/
“Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord. But he
shall not
remain more than one day, or, if need be, two; if he remains for three
days, he
is a false prophet. And on his departure let the apostle .receive
nothing but
bread, till he finds shelter; if he asks for money, he is a false
prophet” (Πᾶς ὁ ἀπόστολος ἐρχόμενος πρὸς ὑμᾶς δεχθήτω ὡς κύριος · οὐ
μενεῖ δὲ εἰ μὴ ἡμέραν μίαν · ἐὰν
δὲ ᾖ χρεία, καὶ τὴν ἄλλην · τρεῖς
δὲ ἐὰν μείνῃ, ψευδοπροφήτης ἐστίν · ἐξερχόμενος
δὲ ὁ ἀπόστολος μηδὲν λαμβανέτω εἰ μὴ ἄρτον ἕως οὗ αὐλισθῇ · ἐὰν
δὲ ἀργύριον αἰτῇ, ψευδοπροφήτης ἐστίν, 11.4-6).
\73/
Lietzmann (loc. cit. p. 486) objects that the words could not
mean what
apostles and prophets had to do, but simply how the community was to
treat
them. We are to think of passages like Matt. 10.40 f. But this view
seems to me
excluded by what follows (4 f.) in Did. 11. Here there is certainly an
injunction to the community, but the latter is to make the δόγμα the norm for its
treatment of these
officials, the δόγμα
laid down in the gospel; and this is to be found in Mark 6 (and
parallels).
\74/
The word “evangelist” occurs in Ephes. 4.11, Acts 21.8, 2 Tim. 4.5, and
then in
the Apost. Canons (ch. 19). Then it recurs in Tertull. de
Praescr. 4, and de Corona, 9
(Hippol. de Antichr.
56, calls Luke apostle and evangelist). [[349b]]
This proves that any distinction between apostles and evangelists was
rarely
drawn in the early ages of the church; on the contrary, the apostles
themselves
were frequently described as εὐαγγελισάμενοι
(cp. Gal. 1.8, Clem.
\75/
Apostles have merely to preach the word; that is literally their one
occupation.
This conception, which Acts 6.6 already illustrates, lasted as long as
the era
of the actual apostles was remembered. The Abgar-source, transcribed by
Eusebius (H.E. 1.13), also confirms the idea that no apostle was
to
receive any money, and makes one notable addition to the duties of the
apostolate. When Thaddaeus was summoned to preach God's word to a small
group,
he remarked: “I shall say nothing in the meantime, for I am sent to
preach the
word of God (κηρῦξαι)
publicly. But assemble all thy citizens in the morning, and I will
preach to
them.”
The Didachê
informs us that these itinerant missionaries were still called apostles
at the
opening of the second century. Origen and Eusebius assure us that they
existed
during the second century, and Origen indeed knows of such even in his
own day;
but the name of “apostle” was no longer borne,\76/ owing to the
heightened reverence
felt for the original apostles and also owing to the idea which gained
currency
even in the course of the second century, that the original apostles
had
already preached the gospel to the whole world. This idea prevented any
subsequent missionaries from being apostles, since they were no longer
the
first to preach the gospel to the nations.\77/
\76/
It is, of course, merely by way of sarcasm that Cyprian speaks of
Novatian's
apostles (Ep. 40.24).
\77/
Naturally, Eusebius thus comes into conflict with his own conception of
the
situation; compare 2.3, 3.1-4, and 3.37.
We have already
indicated how the extravagant estimate of the primitive apostles
arose.\78/
Their labors were to be looked upon as snaking amends for the fact that
Jesus
Christ did not himself labor as a missionary in every land.
Furthermore, the
belief that the world was near its end produced, by a sort of
inevitable
process, the idea that the gospel had by this time been preached
everywhere;
for the end could not come until [[350]] this
universal proclamation had been accomplished, and the credit of this
wonderful
extension was assigned to the apostles.\79/ [[Note
to
editor – New paragraph here?]] On these grounds the prestige of
the
primitive apostles shot up to so prodigious a height, that their
commission to
the whole world was put right into the creed.\80/ We are no longer in a
position nowadays to determine the degree of truth underlying the
belief in the
apostles' world-wide mission. In any case it must have been extremely
slight,
and any representation of the twelve apostles as a unity organized for
the
purpose of worldwide labors among the Gentile churches is to be
relegated
without hesitation to the province of legend.\81/
\78/
The idea of collective statements made by the apostles occurs as early
as the
Didachê (cp. its title), Jude and 2 Peter, and Justin (Apol.
1.62).
\79/
Cp. Tert. de Carne, 2: “Apostolorum erat tradere.” The idea of
the
apostolic tradition is primitive and not destitute of an historical
germ; it
was first of all in
\80/ Details in my
Lehrbuch
der Dogmengeschichte, 1.(3)
pp. 153-156 [Eng. trans. 1 pp. 160 f.]; I shall
return to the
legends of the mission in Book 4. Chap. 1, but without attempting to
exhaust
the endless materials; all I shall do is to touch upon them. The most
extreme
and eccentric allusion to the importance of the twelve apostles occurs
in the Pistis
Sophia, ch. 7 (Schmidt, p. 7), where Jesus says to the twelve: “Be
glad and
rejoice, for when I set about making the world, I was in command of
twelve
powers from the very first (as I have told you from the beginning),
which I had
taken from the twelve saviors (σωτῆρες)
of the treasure of light according to the commandment of the first
mystery.
These, then, I deposited in the womb of your mother, while I entered
the world
-- these that live now in your bodies. For these powers were given to
you in
the sight of all the world, since ye are to be the deliverers of the
world,
that ye may be able to endure . . . . the threats of the archons of the
world,
and the sufferings of the world, your perils and all your
persecutions.”
Compare ch. 8 (p. 9): “Be glad then and rejoice, for ye are blessed
above all
men on earth, since it is ye who are to be the deliverers of the
world.” In
Clement's Eclogues (c. 16) also the apostles are usually called
σωτῆρες τῶν ἀνθρώπων (“saviors
of men”). Origen calls them “kings” (Hom. 12.2, in Num. vol.
10. pp. 132
f.), and he does not reject the interpretation (de Princ. 2.8.5)
of the
saying “My soul is sorrowful even unto death” which made Jesus think of
the
apostles as his soul. The “multitudo credentium” are the body of
Christ, the
apostles are his soul!
\81/
It is worth noting that, according to the early Christian idea, the
Mosaic law
also had spread over the whole world. In their world-wide preaching,
the apostles
therefore came upon the results produced by that law (see, for example,
the
statements of Eusebius in the first book of his church-history).
Unfortunately,
we know next to nothing of any details concerning [[351]] the
missionaries (apostles) and their labors during the second century;
their very
names are lost, with the exception of Pantaenus, the Alexandrian
teacher, and
his mission to “
\82/
Cp. Hom. 11.4, in Num. vol. 10. p. 113: “Sicut in aliqua, verbi
gratia, civitate, ubi nondum
Christiani nati sunt, si accedat aliquis et docere incipiat, laboret,
instruat,
adducat ad fidem, et ipse postmodum its quos docuit princeps et
episcopus fiat.”
Yet even though
we cannot describe the labors of the apostles during the second century
-- and
by the opening of the third century only stragglers from this class
were still
to be met with -- the creation and the career of this heroic order form
of
themselves a topic of supreme interest. Their influence need not, of
course, be
overestimated. For, in the first place, we find the Didache primarily
concerned
with laying down rules to prevent abuses in the apostolic office; so
that by
the beginning of the second century, as we are not surprised to learn,
it must
have been already found necessary to guard against irregularity. In the
second
place, had apostles continued to play an important part in the second
century,
the stereotyped conception of the primitive apostles, with their
fundamental
and really exhaustive labors in the mission-field, could never have
arisen at
all or become so widely current. Probably, then, it is [[352]]
not too hazardous to affirm that the church really had never more than
two
apostles in the true sense of the term, one great and the other small,
viz.,
Paul and Peter -- unless perhaps we add John of Ephesus. The chief
credit for
the spread of Christianity scarcely belongs to the other regular
apostles,
penniless and itinerant, otherwise we should have heard of them, or at
least
have learnt their names; whereas even Eusebius was as ignorant about
them as we
are to-day. The chief credit for the spread of Christianity is due to
those who
were not regular apostles, and also to the “teachers.”
V
Though the
prophets,\83/ according to the Didachê and other witnesses, had
also to be
penniless like the apostles, they are not to be reckoned among the
regular
missionaries. Still, like the teachers, they were indirectly of
importance to
the mission, as their charismatic office qualified them for preaching
the word
of God, and, indeed, put them in the way of such a task. Their inspired
addresses were listened to by pagans as well as by Christians, and Paul
assumes
(1 Cor. 14.24), not without reason, that the former were especially
impressed
by the prophet's harangue and by his power of searching the hearer's
heart.
Down to the close of the second century the prophets retained their
position in
the church;\84/ but the Montanist movement brought [[353]]
early Christian prophecy at once to a head and to an end. Sporadic
traces of
it are still to be found in later years,\85/ but such prophets no
longer
possessed any significance for the church; in fact, they were quite
summarily
condemned by the clergy as false prophets. [[Note
to
editor – New paragraph here?]] Like the apostles, the prophets
occupied
a delicate and risky position. It was easy for them to degenerate. The
injunctions of the Didachê (ch. 11) indicate the sort of
precautions which
were considered necessary, even in the opening of the second century,
to
protect the churches against fraudulent prophets of the type sketched
by Lucian
in Proteus Peregrinus; and the latter volume agrees with the Didache,
inasmuch
as it describes Peregrinus in his prophetic capacity as now settled in
a
church, now itinerating in company with Christians who paid him special
honor
-- for prophets were not confined to any single church. Nor were even
prophetesses awanting; they were to be met with inside the Catholic
Church as
well as among the gnostics in particular.\86/
\83/
In the Gentile church they were steadily differentiated from the seers
or μάντεις (cp. Hermas, Mand.
11; Iren.
Fragm. 23 [ed.
\84/ Tertullian (de
Praescr. 3) no longer reckons
them as a special class: “Quid ergo, si episcopus, si diaconus, si
vidua, si
virgo, si doctor, si etiam martyr lapsus a regula fuerit?” (“What if a bishop, a
deacon, a widow,
a virgin, a teacher, or even a martyr, have fallen away from the rule
of faith
?”). In a very ancient Christian fragment discovered by Grenfell and
Hunt (The
Oxyrhynchus Papyri, 1, 1898, No. 5, pp. 8 f; ep. Sitzungsber.
der
Preuss. Akad. 1898, pp. 516 f.) these words occur: τὸ προφητικὸν μνεῦμα τὸ σωματεῖόν ἐστιν τῆς προφητικῆς τάξεως, ὃ ἔστιν τὸ σῶμα τῆς σαρκὸς Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τὸ μιγὲν τῇ ἀνθρωπότητι διὰ Μαρίας. The fragment perhaps
belongs to Melito's
last treatise περὶ
προφητείας, but
unfortunately it is so short and abrupt that no certain opinion is
possible.
For the expression ἡ
προφητικὴ τάξις, cp.
Serapion of Antioch's Ep. ad Cericum et Pontium (Eus. H.E.
5.19.2): ἡ
ἐνέργεια τῆς ψευδοῦς ταύτης τάξεως τῆς ἐπιλεγομένης νέας προφητείας. The expression must have
been common
about 200 CE.
\85/
Cp. Firmilian in Cyprian's Epist. 75.10.
\86/
From the Coptic version of the Acta Pauli (Paul's
correspondence with
the Corinthian church) we find that the prophet of the Corinthian
church who is
mentioned there was not a man but a woman (named Theonoe, not Theonas).
Another
prophetess, called Myrte, occurs in these Acts. Origen writes (Hom.
5.2, in
Judic. vol. 11. p. 250): “Though many judges in
The materials
and sources available for a study of the early Christian prophets are
extremely
voluminous, and the whole subject is bound up with a number of
questions which
are still unsettled; for example, the relation of the Christian
prophets to the
numerous categories of the pagan prophets (Egyptian, Syrian, and Greek)
who are
known to us from the literature and inscriptions of the period, is a
subject
which has never yet been investigated.\87/ However, these materials are
of no
use for [[354]] our
immediate purpose, as no
record of the missionary labors of the prophets is extant.
\87/
As impostors mingled here and there with the prophets, no sharp
distinction can
have existed. Celsus (Orig. c. Cels. 7.9.11) gives an extremely
[[354b]] interesting
description of the prophets,
as follows : “There are many who, though they are people of no
vocation,
with the utmost readiness, and on the slightest occasion, both within
and
without the sacred shrines, behave as if they were seized by the
prophetic
ecstasy. Others, roaming like tramps throughout cities and camps,
perform in
the same fashion in order to excite notice. Each is wont to cry, each
is glib
at proclaiming, ‘I am God,’ ‘I am the Son of God’ (παῖς θεοῦ), or ‘I am the Spirit of
God,’ ‘I have
come because the world is on the verge of ruin, and because you, O men,
are
perishing in your iniquities. But I would save you, and ye shall see me
soon
return with heavenly power! Blessed is he who now honors me! All others
I will
commit to everlasting fire, cities and lands and their inhabitants.
Those who
will not now awake to the punishments awaiting them, shall repent
and groan in
vain one day. But those who believe in me, I will preserve eternally. .
. . .’
These mighty threats are further mixed up with weird, half-crazy, and
perfectly
senseless words, in which no rational soul can discover any meaning, so
obscure
and unintelligible they are. Yet the first comer who is an idiot or an
impostor
can interpret them to suit his own fancy! . . . . These so-called
prophets,
whom more than once I have heard with my own ears, confessed their
foibles to
me, after I had exposed them, and acknowledged that they had themselves
invented their incomprehensible jargon.”
VI
The Didachê
mentions teachers twice (13.2, 15.1-2), and, what is more, as a special
class
within the churches. Their ministry was the same as that of the
prophets, a
ministry of the word; consequently they belonged to the “honored”
class, and,
like the prophets, could claim to be supported. On the other hand, they
were
evidently not obliged to be penniless;\88/ nor did they wander about,
but
resided in a particular community.
\88/
When Origen, in the story told by Eusebius (H.E. 6.3), carried
out the
gospel saying, not to have two staves, etc., it was a voluntary resolve
upon
his part. Shortly before that, we are told how he purchased an annuity
by
selling his books, in order to free himself from all care about a
livelihood.
These
statements are corroborated by such passages in our sources (see above,
pp. 336
f.) as group apostles, prophets, and teachers together, and further, by
a
series of separate testimonies which show that to be a teacher was a
vocation
in Christianity, and that the teacher enjoyed great repute not only in
the
second century, but partly also, as we shall see, in later years. First
of all,
the frequency with which we find authors protesting that they are not
writing
in the capacity of teachers (or issuing instructions) proves how
serious was
the veneration paid to a [[355]]
true
teacher, and how he was accorded the right of issuing injunctions
that were
universally valid and authoritative. [[Note
to editor –
New paragraph here?]] Thus Barnabas asserts : ἐγὼ δὲ οὐχ ὡς διδάσκαλος ἀλλ’ ὡς εἷς ὑμῶν ὑποδείξω (1.8, “I am no teacher, but
as one of
yourselves I will demonstrate”); and again, “Fain would I write many
things,
but not as a teacher” (πολλὰ
δὲ θέλων γράφειν οὐχ ὡς διδάσκαλος, 4.9).\89/ Ignatius
explains, οὐ διατάσσομαι ὑμῖν ὡς ὤν τις . . . . (“I do not command
you as if I were somebody . . .
. I address you as my school-fellows,” ad Eph. 3.1);\90/ and
Dionysius
of Alexandria in the third century still writes (Ep. ad Basil.):
ἐγὼ δὲ οὐχ ὡς διδάσκαλος, ἀλλ’ ὡς μετὰ πάσης ἁπλότητος προσῆκον ἡμᾶς ἀλλήλοις διαλέγεσθαι (“I speak not as a teacher,
but with
all the simplicity with which it befits us to address each other”).\91/
The
warning of the epistle of James (3.1): μὴ πολλοὶ διδάσκαλοι γίνεσθε, proves how this vocation
was coveted in the church, a
vocation of which Hermas pointedly remarks (Sim. 9.25.2) that
its
members had received the holy Spirit.\92/ Hermas also refers (Mand.
4.3.1) to a saying which he had heard from certain teachers with regard
to baptism,
and which the angel proceeds deliberately to endorse; this proves that
there
were teachers of high repute at Rome in the days of Hermas. [[Note to editor – New Paragraph here?]] [[added
note from
514: A whole series of teachers is mentioned by Clement of Alexandria,
in a
passage (Strom., 1.11) which also shows how international they were:
“My work
is meant to give a simple outline and sketch of those clear, vital
discourses
and of those blessed and truly notable men whom I have been privileged
to hear.
Of these, one, an Ionian, was in
\89/
On the other hand, in 9.9 he writes: οἶδεν ὁ τὴν ἔμφυτον δωρεὰν τῆς διδαχῆς αὐτοῦ θέμενος ἐν ὑμῖν (“He
knoweth, who hath placed in you the innate gift of his teaching”).
\90/
Note διατάσσομαι in this
passage, the term used by Ignatius of the apostles (Trall, 3.3, Rom.
4.3; cp. Trall. 7.1, τὰ
διατάγματα τῶν ἀποστόλων).
\91/
See further, Commodian, Instruct. 2.22.15: “Non sum ego doctor,
sed lex
docet”; 2.16.1: “Si quidem doctores, dum exspectant munera vestra aut
timent
personas, laxant singula vobis; et ego non doceo.”
\92/
Διδάσκαλοι οἱ διδάξαντες σεμνῶς καὶ ἁγνῶς τὸν λόγον τοῦ κυρίου. . . . . καθὼς καὶ παρέλαβον τὸ μνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον.
\93/
Cp. Did. 11.10: προφήτης,
εἰ ἃ διδάσκει οὐ ποιεῖ, ψευδοπροφήτης ἐστί (“If a prophet does not
practise what
he teaches, he is a false prophet”).
From this
passage it is plain that there were still teachers (and prophets) in
the
churches, that the former ranked below the latter (or had to submit to
a certain
supervision), and that, as we see from the whole chapter, gross abuses
had to
be dealt with in this order of the ministry. As was natural, this order
of
independent teachers who were in the service of the entire church
produced at
an early period prominent individuals who credited themselves with an
exceptionally
profound knowledge of the δικαιώματα
τοῦ θεοῦ (ordinances of God), and
consequently
addressed themselves, not to all and sundry, but to the advanced or
educated,
i.e., to any select body within Christendom. Insensibly, the
charismatic
teaching also passed over into the profane, and this marked the
point at
which Christian teachers as an institution had to undergo, and did
undergo, a [[357]]
change. It was inevitable that within
Christianity schools should be founded similar to the numerous
contemporary
schools which had been established by Greek and Roman philosophers.
They might
remain embedded, as it were, in Christianity; but they might also
develop very
readily in a sectarian direction, since this divisive tendency beset
any school
whatsoever. Hence the efforts of itinerant Christian apologists who,
like
Justin\94/ and Tatian,\95/ set up schools in the larger towns; hence
scholastic
establishments such as those of Rhodon and the two Theodoti at
Rome;\96/ hence
the enterprise of many so-called “gnostics”;
hence, above all, the Alexandrian catechetical school (with its
offshoots in
Caesarea Palest.), whose origin, of course, lies buried in
obscurity,\97/ and
the school of Lucian at Antioch (where we hear of Συλλουκιανισταί, i.e., a union similar
to those
of the philosophic schools). But as a direct counterpoise to the danger
of
having the church split up into schools, and the gospel handed over to
the
secular culture, the acumen, and the [[358]] ambition
of individual teachers,\98/ the consciousness of the church
finally asserted
its powers, and the word “school” became almost a term of reproach for
a
separatist ecclesiastical community.\99/ [[Note
to
editor – New paragraph here?]] Yet the “doctors” (διδάσκαλοι) -- I mean the
charismatic
teachers who were privileged to speak during the service, although they
did not
belong to the clergy -- did not become extinct all at once in the
communities;
indeed, they maintained their position longer than the apostles or the
prophets. From the outset they had been free from the “enthusiastic”
element
which characterized the latter and paved the way for their suppression.
Besides, the distinction of “milk” and “strong meat,” of different
degrees of
Christian σοφία,
σύνεσις, ἐπιστήμη, and γνῶσις, was always
indispensable.\100/ In consequence of this,
the διδάσκαλοι had
naturally to continue in the churches till the bulk of the
administrative
officials or priests came to possess the qualification of teachers, and
until
the bishop (together with the presbyters) assumed the task of educating
and
instructing the church. In several even of the large churches this
did not
take place till pretty late, i.e., till the second half of the third [[359]] century, or the
beginning of the fourth. [[Note to editor –
New paragraph here?]] Up to that
period “teachers” can still be traced here and there.\101/ Beside the
new and
compact organization of the churches (with the bishops, the college of
presbyters, and the deacons) these teachers rose like pillars of some
ruined
edifice which the storm had spared. They did not fit into the new order
of
things, and it is interesting to notice how they are shifted from one
place to
another. Tertullian's older\102/ (de Praescr. 3) is:
“bishop, deacon, widow,
virgin, teacher, martyr”! Instead of putting the teacher among
the
clergy, he thus ranks him among the spiritual heroes, and, what is
more,
assigns him the second place amongst them, next to the martyrs -- for
the order
of the list runs up to a climax. In the Acta Perpetuae et Felic.
as well
as in the Acta Saturnini et Dativi (under Diocletian; cp.
Ruinart's Acta
Martyr. Ratisbon, 1859, p. 418), both of African origin, we come
across the
title “presbyter doctor,” and from Cyprian (Ep. 29) we must also
infer
that in some churches the teachers were ranked in the college of
presbyters,
and entrusted in this capacity with the duty of examining the
readers.\103/ On
the other hand, in the account given by Hippolytus in Epiph. Haer.
42.2
(an account which refers to
\94/
Justin's are best known from the Acta Justini. He stands with
his
scholars before the judge Rusticus, who inquires, “Where do you meet?”
Justin
at first gives an evasive answer; his aim is to avoid any suggestion of
the
misleading idea that the Christians had a sacred spot for worship.
Then, in
reply to the urgent demand, “Where dost thou assemble thy scholars?” he
declares: ἐγὼ
ἐπάνω μένω τινὸς Μαρτίνου τοῦ Τιμωτίνου βαλανείου, καὶ παρὰ πάντα τὸν χρόνον τοῦτον -- ἐπεδήμησα δὲ τῇ Ῥωμαίων πόλει τοῦτο δεύτερον – οὐ
γινώσκω ἄλλην τινὰ συνέλευσιν εἰ μὴ τὴν ἐκείνου (“I stay above a certain
Martinus at
the Timotinian bath, and during all the time -- for this is my second
visit to
Rome -- I know of no other meeting-place but this”). Justin had also a
school
at
\95/
On Tatian's school, which became sectarian, see Iren. 1.28: οἰήματι διδασκάλου ἐπαρθεὶς . . . . ἴδιον χαρακτῆρα διδασκαλείου συνεστήσατο. Tatian came from Justin's
school.
\96/
For Rhodon, see Eus. H.E. 5.13 (he came from Tatian's school);
for the
Theodoti, whose school became sectarian and then attempted to transform
itself
into a church, see Eus. H.E. 5.28. Praxeas, who propagated his
doctrine
in
\97/
Cp. Eus. H.E. 5.10: ἡγεῖτο
ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ τῆς τῶν πιστῶν αὐτόθι διατριβῆς τῶν ἀπὸ παιδείας ἀνὴρ ἐπιδοξότατος, ὄνομα αὐτῷ Πανταῖνος, ἐξ ἀρχαίου ἔθους διδασκαλείου τῶν ἱερῶν λόγων παρ’ αὐτοῖς συνεστῶτος (“The school of the
faithful in
\98/
Hermas boasts that the good teachers (Sim. 9.25.2) “kept nothing at all back for
evil
intent -- G: on such teachers as introduced G (strange doctrines),
however, see
Sim. 9.19.2-3, 8.6.5; Vis. 3.7.1. It is noticeable that
in the
famous despatch of
\99/
The Theodotian church at
\100/
Cp. the Pauline epistles, Hebrews, Barnabas, etc., also Did. 11.2: διδάσκειν εἰς τὸ προσθεῖναι δικαιοσύνην καὶ γνῶσιν κυρίου (“Teach to the increase of
righteousness and the
knowledge of the Lord”).
\101/
Cp. Bonwetsch's remarks on Melito (Festschrift f. Oettingen,
1898, p.
51) “The teachers still occupy a prominent position in the church,
alongside of
the bishop. Together with him, they constitute the fixed order of the
church.
The same monition applies to both, that they nourish themselves on
sacred knowledge
and be heavenly minded. Teachers are also described as experts in
Scripture,
and tenants of the teacher's chair, who are exposed by their position
to the
danger of self-assumption. The bishops also occupy the teacher's chair,
as the
same passages show; but the teachers were able to retain their special
position
alongside of them, perhaps because not all bishops as yet possessed the
teaching gift.”
\102/
In de Praescr. 14, the “doctor” is also mentioned.
\103/
Cyprian (loc. cit.) also speaks of “doctones audientium,” but it
is
impossible to determine the relationship which he implies between these
and the
readers. As catechists, the doctors were now and then ranked among the
clergy,
and, in fact, in the college of presbyters. As against Lagarde, no
comma is to
be placed in Clem. Homil. 3.71 after πρεσβυτέρους: τιμᾶτε πρεσβυτέρους κατηχητάς, διακόνους χρησίμους, χήρας εὖ βεβιωκυίας (cp. above, p. 158).
This item of
information reaches us from
\104/
And in those of Clement. According to Quis Div. Salv. 41, the
Christian
is to choose for himself a teacher who shall watch over him as a
confessor. In Paed.
3.12.97 Clement discusses the difference between a pedagogue and a
teacher,
placing the latter above the former.
\105/
Here “spiritalis” (γνωστικός,
πνευματικός) is in
contrast to the teachers as well as to the priests. According to
Clement of
Alexandria, the “spiritual” person is apostle, prophet, and teacher,
superior
to all earthly dignitaries -- a view which Origen also favors.
\106/
“For even in the church, priests and doctors can beget children, even
as he who
wrote Gal. 4.19, and again in another place 1 Cor. 4.15. Therefore such
doctors
of the church refrain from begetting offspring, when they find an
irresponsive
audience!”
\107/
Eus. H.E. 6.19. Their arguments prove that the right of
“laymen” (for
the teachers were laymen) to speak at services of worship had become
extinct
throughout Egypt, Palestine, and most of the provinces, for the two
bishops
friendly to this proposal had to bring evidence for the practice from a
distance, and from comparatively remote churches. They write thus:
“Wherever
people are to be found who are able to profit the brethren, they are
exhorted
by the holy bishops to give addresses to the congregation; as, for
example,
Euelpis has been invited by Neon in Laranda, Paulinus by Celsus in
Iconium, and
Theodorus by Atticus in Synnada, all of whom are our blessed brethren.
Probably
this has also been done in other places unknown to us.” The three
persons
mentioned in this passage are the last of the “ancient” teachers who
are known
to us.
\108/
In this connection reference may perhaps be made to the important
statement of
Alexander, bishop of
\109/
On this order and office, originally a charismatic one, which under
certain
circumstances embraced the further duty of explaining the Scriptures,
cp. the
evidence I have stated in Texte u. Untersuch. 2.5, pp. 57 f.,
“On the
Origin of the Readership and the other Lower Orders” [Eng. trans. in
Sources of the Apostolic
Canons, by Wheatley and Owen (Messrs A. & C. Black)].
The early teachers
of the church were missionaries as well;\110/ pagans as well as
catechumens
entered their schools and listened to their teaching. We have definite
information upon this point in the case of Justin (see above), but
Tatian also
delivered [[363]] his
“Address” in order to
inform the pagan public that he had become a Christian teacher, and we
have a
similar tradition of the missionary work done by the heads of the
Alexandrian
catechetical school in the way of teaching. [[Note
to
editor – New paragraph here?]] Origen, too, had pagan hearers
whom he
instructed in the elements of Christian doctrine (cp. Eus. H.E.
6.3);
indeed, it is well known that even Julia Mamtea, the queen-mother, had
him
brought to Antioch that she might listen to his lectures (Eus. H.E.
6.21). Hippolytus also wrote her a treatise, of which fragments have
been
preserved in a Syriac version. When one lady of quality in
\110/
Tertullian complains that the heretical teachers, instead of engaging
in
mission work, merely tried to win over catholic Christians; cp. de Praescr. 42: “De verbi
autem administratione quid dicam, cum hoc sit negotium haereticis, non
ethnicos
convertendi, sed nostros evertendi. Ita
fit, ut ruinas facilius operentur stantium aedificiorum quam
exstructionern
iacentium ruinarum” (“But concerning the ministry of the word, what
shall I
say? for heretics make it their business not to convert pagans but to
subvert
our people. . . . . Thus they can effect the ruin of buildings which
are
standing more easily than the erection of ruins that lie low”). See
also adv.
Marc 2.1. I shall return to this complaint later on.
\111/
It was the task of apologists and teachers to exhibit the Christian
faith in
its various stages, and to prove it. Rhodon (Eus. H.E. 5.13)
says of the
gnostic Apelles: διδάσκαλος
εἶναι λέγων οὐκ ἤδει τὸ διδασκόμενον ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ κρατύνειν (“Though calling himself a
teacher, he knew not how to
confirm what he taught’). “Non difficile est doctori,” says Cyprian (Ep.73.3),
“vera et legitima insinuare ei qui haeretica pravitate damnata et
ecclesiastica
veritate comperta ad hoc venit -at discat, ad hoc discit ut vivat” (“It
is not
hard for a teacher to instil what is true and genuine into the mind of
a man
who, having condemned heretical evil and learnt the church's truth,
comes to
learn, and learns [[364b]]
in order that he
may live”). Everyone knows the importance of apologetic to the
propaganda of
Judaism, and Christians entered on a rich inheritance at this and at
other
points, since their teachers were able to take over the principles and
material
of Jewish apologetic. Directly or indirectly, most of the Christian
apologists
probably depended on Philo and the apologetic volumes of selections
made by
Alexandrian Judaism as well as philosophical compendia of criticisms
upon ancient
mythology. As for the dissemination of apologies throughout the church,
Justin's at least was read very soon in very different sections of the
church;
Irenaeus knew it in
The apologists
set themselves a number of tasks, emphasizing and elucidating now one,
now
another aspect of the truth. They criticized the legal procedure of the
state
against Christians; they contradicted the revolting charges, moral and
political, with which they were assailed; they criticized the pagan
mythology
and the state-religion; they defined, in very different ways, their
attitude to
Greek philosophy, and tried [[365]]
partly
to side with it, partly to oppose it;\112/ they undertook an analysis
of
ordinary life, public and private ; they criticized the achievements of
culture
and the sources as well as the consequences of conventional education.
Still
further, they stated the essence of Christianity, its doctrines of God,
providence, virtue, sin, and retribution, as well as the right of their
religion to lay claim to revelation and to uniqueness. They developed
the
Logos-idea in connection with Jesus Christ, whose ethics, preaching,
and
victory over demons they depicted. Finally, they tried to furnish
proofs for
the metaphysical and ethical content of Christianity, to rise from a
mere
opinion to a reasoned conviction, and at the same time -- by means of
the Old
Testament -- to prove that their religion was not a mere novelty but
the
primitive religion of mankind.\113/ The most important of these proofs
included
those drawn from the fulfilment of prophecy, from the moral energy of
the
faith, from its enlightenment of the reason, and from the fact of the
victory
over demons.
\112/
Three different attitudes to Greek philosophy were adopted: it
contained real
elements of truth, due to the working of the Logos; or these were
plagiarized
from the Old Testament; or they were simply demonic replicas of the
truth, as
in the case of pagan mythology.
\113/ Literary
fabrications, which were not uncommon in other departments (cp. the
interpolation in Josephus, etc.), played a rôle of their own
here. But the
forgeries which appeared in the second century seem to me to be for the
most
part of Jewish origin. In the third century things were different.
The
apologists also engaged in public discussions with pagans (Justin, Apol.
2, and the Cynic philosopher Crescens; Minucius Felix and Octavius) and
Jews
(Justin, Dial. with Trypho; Tertull. adv. Jud. 1). In
their
writings some claimed the right of speaking in the name of God and
truth; and
although (strictly speaking) they do not belong to the charismatic
teachers, they
describe themselves as “taught of God.”\114/
\114/ Compare,
e.g., Aristides, Apol. 2: “God himself granted me power to
speak about
him wisely.” Diogn. Ep. 1: τοῦ
θεοῦ τοῦ καὶ τὸ λέγειν καὶ τὸ ἀκούειν ἡμῖν χορηγοῦντος αἰτοῦμαι δοθῆναι ἐμοὶ μὲν εἰπεῖν οὕτως, κ.τ.λ. (“God,
who supplies us both with speech and hearing, I pray to grant me
utterance so
as,” etc.).
The schools
established by these teachers could only be regarded by the public
and the
authorities as philosophic schools; [[366]]
indeed, the apologists avowed themselves to be philosophers\115/ and
their
doctrine a philosophy,\116/ so that they participated here and there in
the
advantages enjoyed by philosophic schools, particularly in the freedom
of
action they possessed. This never can have lasted any time, however.
Ere long
the Government was compelled to note that the preponderating
element in these
schools was not scientific but practical, and that they were the
outcome of the
illegal “religio
Christiana.”\117/
\115/
Some of them even retained the mantle of the philosopher; at an early
period in
the church Justin was described as “philosopher and martyr.”
\116/
Τὶ γαρ, says Justin's (Dial. c.
Tryph.
1) Trypho, a tropos of contemporary philosophy, οὐκ οἱ φιλόσοφοι περὶ θεοῦ τὸν ἅπαντα ποιοῦνται λόγον, καὶ περὶ μοναρχίας αὐτοῖς καὶ προνοίας αἱ ζητήσεις γίγνονται ἑκάστοτε; ἢ οὺ τοῦτο ἔργον ἐστὶ φιλοσοφίας, ἐξετάζειν περὶ τοῦ θειόυ;
(“Why not? do not the philosophers make all their discourses turn upon
the
subject of God, and are they not always engaged in questions about his
sole
rule and providence? Is not this the very business of philosophy, to
inquire
concerning the Godhead?”). Cp. Melito's phrase, ἡ καθ’ ἡμᾶς φιλοσοφία. Similarly others.
\117/
The apologists, on the one hand, complain that pagans treat
Christianity at
best as a human philosophy, and on the other hand claim that, as
such,
Christianity should be conceded the liberty enjoyed by a philosophy.
Tertullian
(Apol. 46. f.) expatiates on this point at great length;
Plainly, the question
was one of practical moment, the aim of Christians being to retain, as
philosophic schools and as philosophers, at least some measure of
freedom, when
a thoroughgoing recognition of their claims could not be insisted upon.
“Who
forces a philosopher to sacrifice or take an oath or exhibit useless
lamps at
VII
“Plures
efficimur quotiens metimur a vobis; semen est sanguis Christianorum . .
. .
illa ipsa obstinatio, quam exprobratis magistra est” – so
Tertullian cries to
the authorities (Apol. 1: “The oftener we are mown down by you,
the
larger grow our numbers. The blood of Christians is a seed…That very
obstinacy
which you reprobate is our instructress”). The most numerous and
successful
missionaries of the Christian religion were not the regular teachers
but
Christians themselves, in virtue of their loyalty and courage. How
little we
hear of the former and their results! How much we hear of the effects [[367]] produced by the
latter! [[Note to editor – New paragraph
here?]] Above all,
every confessor and martyr was a missionary; he not merely confirmed
the faith
of those who were already won, but also enlisted new members by his
testimony
and his death. Over and again this result is noted in the Acts of the
martyrs,
though it would lead us too far afield to recapitulate such tales.
While they
lay in prison, while they stood before the judge, on the road to
execution, and
by means of the exccution itself, they won people for the faith. Ay,
and even
after death. One contemporary document (cp. Euseb. 6.5) describes how
Potamitena, an Alexandrian martyr during the reign of Septimius
Severus,
appeared immediately after dcath even to non-Christians in the city,
and how
they were converted by this vision. This is by no means incredible. The
executions of the martyrs (legally carried out, of course) must have
made an
impression which startled and stirred wide circles of people,
suggesting to
their minds the question: Who is to blame, the condemned person or the
judge?\118/ Looking at the earnestness, the readiness for sacrifice,
and the
steadfastness of these Christians, people found it difficult to think
that they
were to blame. Thus it was by no means an empty phrase, when Tertullian
and
others like him asserted that the blood of Christians was a seed.
\118/
In the ancient epistle of the Smyrniote church on the death of
Polycarp, we
already find Polycarp a subject of general talk among the pagans. In
the Vita
Cypriani (ch. 1), also, there is the following allusion: “Non quo
aliquem
gentilium lateat tanti viri vita” (“Not that the life of so great a man
can be
unknown to any of the heathen”).
Nevertheless,
it was not merely the confessors and martyrs who were missionaries. It
was characteristic
of this religion that everyone who seriously confessed the faith proved
of
service to its propaganda.\119/ Christians are to “let their light
shine, that
pagans may see their good works and glorify the Father in heaven.” If
this
dominated all their life, and if they lived [[368]]
according to the precepts of their religion, they could not be hidden
at all;
by their very mode of living they could not fail to preach their faith
plainly
and audibly.\120/ Then there was the conviction that the day of
judgment was at
hand, and that they were debtors to the heathen. Furthermore, so far
from
narrowing Christianity, the exclusiveness of the gospel was a powerful
aid in
promoting its mission, owing to the sharp dilemma which it involved.
\119/
“Bonum huius sectae usu iam et de commercio innotuit,” says Tertullian (Apol.
46) very distinctly (“The worth of this sect is now well known for its
benefits
as well as from the intercourse of life”); de Pallio, 6:
“Elinguis philo
sophia vita contenta est” (“Life is content with even a tongueless
philosophy”).
What Tertullian makes the pallium say (ch. 5) is true of
Christians (cp.
above, p. 310). Compare also what has been already specified in Book 2,
Chap.
4, and what is stated afterwards in Chap. 4 of this Book.
\120/
In the Didasc. Apost. (cp. Achelis in Texte u. Untersuchungen,
25.2 pp.
276, 80, 76 f.) we find that the church-widows made proselytes.
We cannot
hesitate to believe that the great mission of Christianity was in
reality
accomplished by means of informal missionaries. Justin says so quite
explicitly. What won him over was the impression made by the moral life
which
he found among Christians in general. How this life stood apart from
that of
pagans even in the ordinary round of the day, how it had to be or ought
to be a
constant declaration of the gospel -- all this is vividly
portrayed by
Tertullian in the passage where he adjures his wife not to marry a
pagan
husband after he is dead (ad Uxor. 2.4-6). We may safely assume,
too,
that women did play a leading role in the spread of this religion (see
below,
Book 4, Chap. 2). But it is impossible to see in any one class of
people inside
the church the chief agents of the Christian propaganda. In particular,
we
cannot think of the army in this connection. Even in the army there
were Christians,
no doubt, but it was not easy to combine Christianity and military
service.
Previous to the reign of
\121/
[Harnack bk3 ch1, 369- scanned by Moises
Bassan, March 2004]
[[369]]
EXCURSUS
TRAVELLING:
THE EXCHANGE OF LETTERS AND LITERATURE\122/
\122/
Cp. Zahn's Weltkehr and Kirche während der drei ersten
Jahrhunderte
(1877); Ramsay in Expositor, vol. 8, Dec. 1903, pp. 401 f. (“Travel and
Correspondence among the Early Christians”) [also reproduced in his Letters
to the Seven Churches, 1904, ch. 1], his Church: in the Roman
Entfiire, pp.
364 f., and his article on “Travel” in Hastings' Dictionary of the
Bible.
“It is the simple truth that travelling, whether for business or for
pleasure,
was contemplated and performed under the empire with an indifference,
confidence, and, above all, certainty which were unknown in after
centuries
until the introduction of steamers and the consequent increase in ease
and
sureness of communication.” Compare the direct and indirect evidence of
Philo,
Acts, Pliny, Appian, Plutarch, Epictetus, Aristides, etc. lren. 4.30.3:
“Mundus
pacem habet per Romanos, et nos sine timore in viis ambulamus et
navigamus quocumquc
voluerimus” (“The world enjoys peace, thanks to the Romans, and we can
travel
by road and sea wherever we wish, unafraid”). One merchant boasts, in
an
inscription on a tomb at
THE apostles, as well as
many of the
prophets, travelled unceasingly in the interests of their mission. The
journeys
of Paul from Antioch to Rome, and probably to Spain, lie in the clear
light of
history, but -- to judge from his letters -- his fellow-workers and
companions
were also continually on the [[370]]
move,
partly along with him, and partly on their own account.\123/ One thinks
especially of that missionary couple, Aquila and Priscilla. To study
and state
in detail the journeys of Paul and the rest of these missionaries would
lead us
too far afield, nor would it be relevant to our immediate purpose. Paul
felt
that the Spirit of God drove him on, revealing his route and
destination; but
this did not supersede the exercise of deliberation and reflection in
his own
mind, and evidences of the latter may be found repeatedly throughout
his
travels. Peter also journeyed as a missionary; he too reached
\123/
Read the sixteenth chapter of Romans in particular, and see what a
number of
Paul's acquaintances were in
However,
what interests us at present is not so much the travels of the regular
missionaries as the journeys undertaken by other prominent Christians,
-from
which we may learn the vitality of personal communication and
intercourse
throughout the early centuries. In this connection the Roman church
became
surprisingly prominent. The majority of the Christians with whose
travels we
are acquainted made it their goal.\124/
\124/
See Caspari, Quellen z. Taufsymbol, vol. 3 (1875).
Justin, Hegesippus, Julius Africanus, and Origen were Christian teachers who were specially travelled men, i.e., men who had gone over a large n