[German original, copyright J.C.B.Mohr, Tübingen, 1934] Second German Edition ed and supplemented byGeorg Strecker [Copyright J.C.B.Mohr, Tübingen, 1964] English Translation ed and supplemented byRobert A. Kraft andGerhard Kroedel with a team from the Philadelphia Seminar on Christian Origins [Copyright Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1971] Updated Electronic English Edition byRobert A. Kraft [Copyright Robert A. Kraft, 19 April 1993] [[95]] [99] [ch 5]
translated by Stephen Benko
If we take
For the person who keeps the question "why?" in view, the admission that, at least at first glance, he is faced with so much that is quite unexpected seems to me to make it imperative that he proceed with special care in attempting to determine the letter's purpose, [[96]] and not limit himself to considering [100] only what appears on the surface. An author who admittedly presents such a quantity of material for which the reader is not prepared, and thereby consciously or unconsciously obscures his position, correspondingly could have been incomplete in what he actually says concerning the matter at hand. Such a suspicion should not be lightly dismissed. It is precisely with such a person that we have the least assurance that he reveals exhaustively and plainly his purposes and goals, particularly his basic motives.
This uncertainty in the evaluation of
What is it, then, that actually happened in Corinth? Youth, it is said, rebelled against age. "The point in question was solely a matter of cliques, not of principles."[2] "The motive that precipitated the whole situation must therefore have been simply the desire for a realignment of the power structure"; and "at this point the Roman community, in full consciousness of the unity of the church, felt itself obliged to render a service of love, and thus intervened."[3] The ecclesiastical "office" was in danger and Rome assumed the position [[97]] of a protective shield. But just as surely as Rome felt it important to appear in an utterly unselfish light, as fulfilling a divine responsibility, I am all the less inclined to believe [101] that we have fully grasped the real situation by means of that approach. To acknowledge and accept such a picture, it seems to me, is to forgo an explanation. And it is just the sort of person who, as Lietzmann recently has done,[4] correctly views this action of Rome as of extreme importance, who should not treat the cause of the action so relatively lightly. Also, at least in later times, Rome shows itself to be controlled and motivated more by a strong desire for power than by the sense of brotherly love and by a selfless sense of duty. Rome knows how to take advantage of the right moment to transform minutiae into major issues in order to make other churches spiritually subject to Rome and then to incorporate them organizationally into Rome's own sphere of influence.
Consider, for example, the Easter dispute that was conjured up
by Rome less than a century after
It seems to me, therefore, that Rome takes action not when it is overflowing with love or when the great concerns of the faith are really in jeopardy, but when there is at least the opportunity of [[98]] enlarging its own sphere of influence. In this connection it certainly may be granted that, as far as Rome is concerned, its own interests coincide with the interests of the true faith and of genuine [102] brotherly love. The earliest such opportunity presented itself to Rome, in my judgment, toward the end of the first century in Corinth. But what exactly was it in this congregation that called Rome into action? No doubt it was the fact that the internal discord greatly reduced the power of resistance of the Corinthian church, so that it seemed to be easy prey. But what were the factors that indicated to Rome what position to take in the Corinthian arena, in favor of one party and against the others?
Certainly it was not moral indignation over the irreverence of
the young people and their lack of a brotherly and Christian
community spirit that induced Rome to intervene and produced the
voluminous writing of sixty-five chapters. In that case, Rome's
expenditure of effort would be disproportionate to the occasion.
Even the ecclesiastical office" as such is not of a decisive
significance for Rome. If the change in Corinth had turned things
in a direction acceptable to Rome, then
With reference to
In view of the insufficient reasons supplied by the letter itself, it seems to me not inappropriate also to take into account differences of doctrine and life, if we wish to understand the origin of the new order in Corinth which was so painful to Rome. But in order to do this, it is necessary to pay attention also to the church history of Corinth during the period before and after Clement. In the capital city of Achaia, there had been diverse patters of Christianity from the very beginning. Alongside the personal disciples of Paul, who endeavored to preserve with fidelity the characteristic features of the proclamation of the Apostle to the Gentiles, stand the followers of Apollos and two kinds of Jewish Christians: (1) those who identify themselves with Cephas and, like their hero, hold fast to Jewish practice for themselves but do not demand the same from their uncircumcised brethren; and (2) the "Christ" group, who had the same requirements even for gentile Christians. Doubtless the latter group disappeared from Corinth in the postapostolic age (see above, 86 f.). But as far as the other parties are concerned, a change comparable to that which we have suspected for the Asia of the postapostolic [[100]] age (see above, 87 f.) probably took place in Corinth, conditioned by similar circumstances.
We have all the more reason to assume this, since such a change
makes its appearance already in apostolic times. Already in 1
Corinthians, alongside the division which is identified by the
names of the leaders, [104] there appears also another division
that coincides only partly with the first and that bears within
itself the seeds of further development. From the very beginning,
there existed in Corinth conflict between the strong and the
weak, a conflict in which "gnostic" ideas and attitudes play a
role.[11] The strong proudly believe that since they possess
gnosis and are pneumatics, "everything" is permissible, including
the eating of food sacrificed to idols (1 Cor. 8. 1 ff.; 10. 23
f.) and the unhesitating satisfaction of sexual desires (1 Cor.
6. 12 ff.). The Apocalypticist resisted the very same view of
Christian freedom in heretical circles in Pergamum (Rev. 2.14)
and Thyatira (2.20) -- the heretics teach the slaves of the Son
of Man "to practice immorality and to enjoy food that has been
sacrificed to idols." The same thing is characteristic of the
Basilidians, according to Irenaeus (AH 1.24.5 [= 19.3]), and of
the gnostics in general, according to Justin (
With the observation that there were gnostics in Corinth whom
the Apostle time and again rebukes with the argument that
although everything may be permitted, not everything that is
permitted is beneficial, I would now like to establish a
connection between this and a doctrinal deviation that we also
encounter in Corinth and for which Paul assumed just as little
responsibility. Certain people there were maintaining that there
is no resurrection of the dead (1 Cor. 15.12, 16, 29, 32). This
too, is a trait which the churchmen of post-apostolic times never
grow tired of branding as a heretical, and especially a gnostic
degeneration: Polycarp (
If Paul already had rejected the "strong," with whose approach
(food sacrificed to idols, immorality, denial of the
resurrection) the Jewish Christians in question could sympathize
even less than he, [105] the subsequent development (once again,
compare the analogous situation in Asia; above 86f.) must have
taken place in such a way that the genuine successors of the
original Paul and Cephas parties gradually drew closer to each
other, so that finally they would merge to produce "orthodoxy,"
in opposition to the gnosticizing Christians in whom perhaps the
spirit of the syncretistic Alexandrian Apollos continued to
flourish. It seems quite natural to me that the former group,
which could regard itself as the embodiment of the apostolic past
of the Corinthian church, and which could lay claim to the
reputations of Paul and Peter, took charge from the very outset.
However, it is equally clear that the longer time went on, the
less it could rely upon the majority of the faithful. Already at
the time of Paul, the "strong" had become an extremely noteworthy
factor. And it can hardly be doubted that they won a much greater
number of adherents from the hellenistic world than the other
groups, whose Jewish Christian wing would increasingly be pushed
into the background. Thus it appears to be a natural consequence
of the changed state of affairs that eventually the minority rule
of the "old" became intolerable to the "young," so that they,
inspired and led by particularly determined and ambitious persons
(
This development, however, touched a sensitive spot with reference to the interests of Rome. Now the community in the metropolis nearest to Rome -- indeed, that important body of Christians with which, in general, Rome had the closest communications -- was about to break away from Rome completely. But for Rome, this involved [[102]] the danger of total isolation, because the farther one traveled toward the East, the less Christianity conformed to Rome's approach. As far as we can tell, during the first century the Christian religion had developed in the world capital without any noticeable absorption of "gnostic" material; for even if the ascetic ideal which was so highly regarded by the "weak" of Rome (Rom. 14.1 ff.)[14] belongs to this category, that was and remained the way of life only of a minority. The course of events was gradually moving Corinth farther and farther from Rome, and when with the removal of the older generation of presbyters,[15] the gulf [106] threatened to become unbridgeable, Rome risked making the attempt to turn back the wheel -- an action that held all the more promise of success since there was a powerful minority in Corinth upon which Rome could rely because their religious and ecclesiastical aims, and in several cases their personal desires as well, were completely in line with the Roman efforts.
To some extent, then,
Finally, we have Irenaeus (AH 3.3.3 [= 3.3.2]), who first
reports that Clement had seen the apostles and heard their
preaching with his own ears. Irenaeus continues:
If we take to heart the hint which is given here and which
comes from a man who had good Roman connections, then it seems to
me that we can understand the essential content of
Just as one should not underestimate the success of Rome which at that time established toward the dangerous Orient a bulwark that has never been taken away, neither should one suppose it to have been greater than it really was. If we have already refused to permit our conclusions about Smyrna to be applied directly to Asia, or those concerning Hierapolis to Phrygia (above, 70 f. and 72), we must now resist the temptation to consider Corinth to be representative of Achaia. On the contrary, we need to recognize that apart from its capital city of Corinth, Christian Greece remained hostile toward Rome. The very proximity of Macedonia (see above, 72-75) should make this suggestion seem all the more reasonable. Dionysius of Corinth tries to gain a foothold in the churches of Lacedaemonia and Athens by means of letters whose subject matter is instruction in the orthodox doctrine or encouragement to faith and gospel-centered conduct (EH 4.23.2-3) -- and one can imagine what these conceptions mean in the mouth of the devoted servant of Rome. But the results can not have been particularly significant. For although very soon afterward, as a result of the paschal controversies, synods and assemblies of bishops convened in Pontus and Gaul, which agreed with the assembly of bishops which met for the same reason in Rome [[106]] (EH 5.23.3; see above, 75), we hear of nothing similar for Achaia. Not that the local bishop, Bacchyllus, had not taken great pains to bring about a common declaration in favor of Rome; but he was not successful. At least this is what I must conclude is meant when Eusebius, after enumerating the provinces which supported Rome, goes on to say that there is also a personal letter from Bacchyllus, bishop of Corinth, concerning this matter (EH 5.23.4). Eusebius, who like his native land Palestine is favorable to Rome, certainly did not eliminate materials from the tradition to the detriment of that church. [110]
Furthermore, we know that Achaia, in contrast to Rome, did not
support Demetrius in his action against Origen. Jerome states
this explicitly (see above, 55). Origen had been in Greece
shortly before this (EH 6.23.4), but he did not visit the
capital, which was under Roman influence; instead, he went to
Athens (Jerome
The fact that in Greece Rome found its influence limited to Corinth does not at all mean that it had not made any efforts to gain more new territory for itself and for its interpretation of Christianity. To be sure, around the middle of the second century many serious difficulties arose for Rome in its own house. It is enough to refer to the names of Marcion and Valentinus to indicate what it was that soon restricted considerably Rome's outward expansion, limited its powers, and kept Rome within rather definite bounds. Nevertheless, behind Dionysius of Corinth with his efforts for Greece, Crete and certain northern areas of Asia Minor, stands ecclesiastical Rome. Generally speaking, whenever we see fighters of heresy at work in the time between Clement and Dionysius of Corinth, their connections with Rome are quite clear and quite close. Papias is perhaps the only one concerning whom we have no direct evidence from the sources that he had personal contact with the world capital. In the highly fragmentary tradition about him and his life, nothing is said about [[107]] him ever having left his Phrygian homeland.[21] Of course, it would be hard to imagine that the energetic collector of old traditions who has consciously evaluated book wisdom as less valuable than living communication with the hearers of tradition (in Eusebius, EH 3.39.4) would have been permanently fettered to one spot. And even if he had not personally been in Rome, he had a clear connection with Rome in another way. His friend Polycarp (Irenaeus AH 5.33.4) stood near enough to the world capital; and both churchmen held in high regard 1 Peter, that proclamation with which [111] Rome had made inroads into the major part of Asia Minor.[22] Furthermore, we find among the traditions concerning the gospels collected by Papias some that are clearly of Roman origin. Although the name of Rome does not occur in the report of Eusebius about what Papias relates concerning the "elder's" account of the origin of Mark's gospel (EH 3.39.15), it does appear quite soon in this context in Irenaeus (AH 3.1.1 [= 3.1.2]), a theologian dependent upon Papias, and even more unmistakably in Clement of Alexandria (in his lost "Outlines", see EH 6.14.6 f.). Elsewhere, Eusebius makes it clear that in his judgement Clement of Alexandria is only repeating the opinion of Papias (EH 2.15, esp. 2). In accord with this is the fact that the old gospel prologues also claim that Mark, the interpreter of Peter, wrote his gospel in Italy.[23] Not only is the presence of Mark (Col. 4.10; Philem. 24; cf. 2 Tim. 4.11), like that of Peter,[24] already attested in Rome during the apostolic age, but both personalities appear to be so closely associated in Rome already in the first century that I can hardly doubt that it was here that the origin of Mark's gospel was first attributed to the influence of Peter, and that the "elder" derived from this source what he passed on to Papias.
Hegesippus, who dedicated his life to the fight against heresy,
traveled by way of Corinth to Rome in order to take up residence
there for an extended period of time (EH 4.22.1-3; see above,
103). Justin spent the major portion of his Christian life in
Rome, whence he attacked the heretics, both at home and abroad,
orally and in [[108]] writing. Rhodon of Asia Minor, who fought
Marcion, Apelles, and Tatian, had been a pupil of Tatian in Rome
when the latter was still considered orthodox (EH 5.13.1,8).[25]
Perhaps Miltiades also, the enemy of the Valentinians and
Montanists, whom the so-called
As we see here the lines running from Rome to the East and from the main representatives of orthodoxy back again to Rome, the case of Corinth becomes all the more instructive in showing that the Roman church took a special interest in gaining influence over communities located in the great metropolitan centers. In Corinth, Rome was able to do this in an extensive and conclusive way as early as the year 100; in Alexandria, this only happened in a more limited manner more than one hundred years later (see above, 55 f., 60), which is highly significant in relation to the situation in Christian Egypt at an earlier period. Rome did not wait for such a long time voluntarily and gladly. In another metropolis of the ancient world she apparently intervened much sooner, in spite of the fact that heresy had the upper hand there. Nevertheless, the situation in Antioch (see above, 63-67) was different and more favorable, insofar as here there was an orthodox minority with which cooperation seemed to be possible. In the capital of Syria the attempt to refute and to defeat the heretics becomes apparent to us with Ignatius. But at once, it seems to me, we also sense the desire of Rome to strengthen the forces of orthodoxy and ecclesiastical Christianity. A particularly fortunate circumstance shows it is also at work here, about twenty years after the Corinthian campaign. We can hardly value highly enough the fact that in addition to his letters to the Asians, we also possess from the pen of the Antiochene martyr-bishop a letter to the church of Rome from which a great deal can be learned for our purposes. It gives us some insight into the methods used by Rome to open Antioch to Rome's influence.
This is why the writings of Ignatius are of such extreme importance [[109]] to us, because the ecclesiastical history of a later time leaves us almost completely in the dark with regard to the early period at Antioch. What, strictly speaking, has been included in the work of Eusebius from the life of the Antiochian church up to the time of Theophilus, who held office toward the end of the second century? We must admit that there is practically nothing. And the reserve which borders on silence on the part of the ecclesiastical historian [113] in this case is perhaps even more shocking than it was with regard to Mesopotamia (see above, 8 f.) and Egypt (see above, 45 f.). One should think that when the bishop of Caesarea undertook to write a church history he would have had the greatest interest in the past of the church of Antioch, which was founded in earliest apostolic times and situated in the nearby metropolis. In fact his interest does appear in the form of his attempt to provide a list of bishops also for this church, as had been done for Rome, Alexandria and Jerusalem. Unfortunately, however, his interest in Antioch's earliest history is practically exhausted in this sort of attempt, as far as we can tell; and if his interest was not exhausted, the material which he possessed or found worthy of relating was.
We have already discussed what an examination of the bishop
lists reveals -- little enough and all quite uncertain (see
above, 63 f.). All we need to add here is that the mention of
bishop Ignatius leads to an account about him, his fate and his
letters, with quotations from the latter (EH 3.36). Nevertheless
that yields almost nothing about Antioch itself, and nothing at
all that we could not also gather from the Ignatian writings,
which evidently are Eusebius' only source in spite of the fact
that he calls their author "still highly esteemed by a great
many" (EH 3.36.2). If we take the added assertion that Ignatius
was second in the succession from Peter to hold the bishop's
chair (see below, 115 f.) for what it really is -- an
untrustworthy feature in the growth of ecclesiastical tradition -
- then we have dealt with everything that Eusebius has to report
about that period of the earliest church history of Antioch which
he examines with the greatest detail. Apart from this, we find
that Acts 11.20-30 is utilized (EH 2.3.3), a passage that is also
echoed a couple of other times; we hear that Luke came from
Antioch (EH 3.4.6);[27] and we can read [[110]] a small section
from Justin's longer
In what other way is it possible to explain this sort of
reporting, except to suppose that the recollections concerning
the beginning [114] have been forced through a narrow sieve which
held back the main item? One need not speak directly of
ecclesiastical censorship, for even before censorship became
unilaterally effective the decay of tradition already had set in
and had progressed rapidly. In the conflict between the two
hostile parties, orthodoxy and heresy, the witnesses to the
earliest history often were ground down and have disappeared.
Each movement tried to blot from public memory that which was
unfavorable to itself, to check its further distribution and
propagation; this tendency became a most successful ally to those
circumstances which in themselves already threatened the survival
of a literature that was issued in such very small quantities and
in such a perishable form. We know something of Ignatius because
he wrote his letters in Asia and for (Rome and) Asia, where they
were soon taken over by the faithful hands of Polycarp who
supervised their reproduction and circulation (Polycarp
The fortunate circumstances mentioned above have rescued this informant for us, and thus a solitary light flashes forth in the darkness and illuminates a limited area. Within this area we are seeking to obtain information about those things that we can still more or less clearly recognize concerning the methods used by Rome to draw other churches into its sphere of influence. What we are still in a position to discover concerning the attitude of Rome toward Antioch is by no means limited to this particular case, but has a general significance. We would do well, therefore, to incorporate this piece of information from the primitive Christian history of Antioch into a larger context (see below, 113 f.). //end ch.5//
[1] R. Knopf,
[2] A. von Harnack,
[3] Lietzmann,
[4] Lietzmann,
[5] So as not to fall victim to the danger of arbitrarily
coloring the facts in favor of my arguments as the occasion
demands, I follow here the presentation of Achelis,
[6] Achelis,
[7] Knopf,
[8] And thereby also the reasons that could be inferred therefrom.
[9] Harnack,
[10] [See 1 Clem. 42-44.] Lietzmann,
[11] Cf. H. Lietzmann,
[12] (The authenticity of the preserved fragments of Justin's
treatise "On The Resurrection" (see K. Holl,
[13] ET by R. McL. Wilson in Hennecke-Schneemelcher 2:374 ff.; for the text, see above 42 n. 99.
[14] See H. Lietzmann,
[15] According to 1 Clem. 44.6 only "some" elders had been removed. Apparently, then, the flow [106] of events already had reached the point where representatives of the new line were being inducted into office. These, of course, would not be affected by the reorganization, and probably should be regarded as the leaders of the "young."
[16] Cf. Lightfoot,
[17] This refers to the time at which Hegesippus writes.
Concerning subsequent developments he can say nothing. Thus
"abiding in the true doctrine" stands in contrast to the
unpleasant condition of earlier circumstances, in which
[18] On Clement as a writer and author of church orders, see
Harnack,
[19]
[20] On Rome's desire to gain infiuence in the East, see below, 106-109.
[21] Cf. Zahn,
[22] Papias' use of the document is described in EH 3.39.17; for
Polycarp's use, see his
[23] Harnack,
[24] H. Lietzmann,
[25] I will refrain from attempting to infer from the names of particular heresy fighters such as Agrippa Castor, Modestus, or Musanus, that they had Roman connections.
[26] O. Bardenhewer,
[27] The ancient prologues to the gospels also know this; see
Harnack,