[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, 20 April 1993] [[111]] [115] [ch 6]
Translated by Robert F. Evans
In her struggle with the heretics, a struggle which was also a
contest for the extension of her own influence, Rome employed
various tactics which can even better illuminate for us the whole
nature of this controversy and Rome's significance in it. But the
importance of the controversy must be assessed correctly, and
again a great deal hinges upon our acquiring a true-to-life
picture from indications in the sources, even if some degree of
imagination should be necessary in order that this picture be
brought into focus. Concerning Rome's achievement with respect to
Corinth at the time of Clement, one could scarcely accord a
higher estimate to it than has been given above. Nevertheless,
the words of Dionysius of Corinth in his letter to Soter (above,
104) would in my opinion be incorrectly interpreted if one were
to deduce from them that Rome had attained and had permanently
insured its goal through the repeated public reading of
It is clearer that Rome appealed to the apostles for justification of her action, and did this with all the more reason if our view has commended itself that the deposed presbyters in Corinth were the continuators of the apostolic line in that community. Precisely in those chapters which most clearly touch upon the controversy does the discussion turn repeatedly to the apostles (42.1-2) or to our apostles (44.1), as those who have been instructed by Christ and through him establish the only possible contact with God. As early as the fifth chapter, the worthy apostles Peter and Paul are presented as examples -- victims of envy, strife, and jealousy (5.2-7), as now most recently are the elders of Corinth. Peter and Paul are the only apostles whom the West has at its disposal. Both had suffered as martyrs in Rome, and the Roman church was conscious of this distinction from the outset and also knew from the beginning how to invest this asset to advantage. When Ignatius, who in all his letters to the churches again and again refers to "the apostles," refers only to "Peter and Paul" as apostles in the letter to Rome (4.3), it is because this association is of Roman origin. An Antiochian would have been the very last to gain the impression from the history of his own church that precisely these two apostles belong in close connection.
Likewise, Dionysius of Corinth is not looking back to the past
of his own church but rather over to Rome when he writes: "By
such a forceful admonition, you [Romans] now have united the
communities of Romans and Corinthians planted by Peter and Paul.
For both planted also in our city of Corinth and instructed us in
like manner, and in like manner also taught together in Italy and
suffered martyrdom [[113]] [117] at the same time" (EH 2.25.8).
For even if Peter personally had been in Corinth,[1] a
supposition which admittedly I consider to be almost impossible,
certainly Dionysius 120 years later does not have at his disposal
a tradition to this effect that is in any way defensible. I am
skeptical not only because the details that he adduces are
incorrect, insofar as the two apostles cannot possibly have
appeared together in Corinth, thence to continue their work in
close association at Rome. But I am even more dubious for another
reason. Dionysius does not learn from history the only thing that
history could teach him, namely, that Paul and Peter visited
Corinth and Rome; rather he has Peter and Paul (in that order)
sowing the undivided planting which consists of the Romans and
then only secondarily of the Corinthians. He pays homage in
submissive manner to the Romans and to their "blessed bishop"
Soter (
The basis for the supposition that in Dionysius' view Peter
came from Rome to Corinth is strengthened for me by a
corresponding observation concerning Antioch. We believe that the
slogan "Peter and Paul" in Ignatius' letter to the Romans should
be understood as a Roman contribution (above, 112). This becomes
even clearer in view of the further development for which Rome
sets the pace, which is characterized by the harmonization of
opposing interests. Harnack has demonstrated,[2] with documentary
evidence which need not here be reproduced, how toward the end of
the second century "that momentous transformation of tradition
took place in Rome, by virtue of which Paul was eliminated from
any connection with the Roman episcopate and the office was
attached to Peter" (703). The latter alone continues to play a
role, first as founder of the Roman episcopate, later as first
bishop (704). There is already an intimation here of what it was
that prompted Rome to cut in half the apostolic foundation of its
own church. Until far into the second century there [[114]] has
developed here [118], almost undisturbed, a consolidation of
"orthodoxy," and accordingly Hermas, who has no heresies in
view,[3] still presupposes a number of leaders at the head of the
church.[4] But eventually not even Rome was spared controversy
with the heretics, above all with Marcion and Valentinus, and
this made even Rome recognize the advantages of her own use of
the monarchial episcopate, an institution which in Rome is first
embodied in Soter (166-174), according to a historical view of
the matter.[5] But if an apostolic founder of the monarchical
episcopate was still required, an exigency which the struggle
with heresy did indeed produce, then a decision had to be made,
which, as we have seen, did in fact take place a bit later. If
one asks why the decision went in favor of Peter, I find no
answer in Matthew 16.17-19. But I also do not believe that any
important role in the decision was played by the recollection
that Paul actually had been in Rome only as a prisoner and
therefore can hardly have held the chief office. The real reasons
are not forthcoming from history, but rather must be grounded in
the period of time and in the momentum which saw the introduction
of the monarchical episcopate in Rome, and thus made the one
apostle dispensable -- which is to say in the controversy with
heresy. Only Peter provides the close tie to Jesus which alone
guarantees the purity of church teaching.[6] And Paul, who had
indeed been eminently serviceable against the schismatics in
Corinth (
At a slightly later date than in Rome, Peter also emerges in
Antioch as the first of the monarchical bishops. Here too it was
certainly not historical memory that elevated him to the
cathedra. Our oldest tradition, Galatians 2.11 ff., knows of
Peter in Antioch only in a [[115]] situation that would hardly
have qualified him to become leader of the community; thus one
would have to claim that Peter's position as leader was confined
to the period before the clash with Paul. This opinion is, in
fact, to be found in John Malalas (ca. 540), and there with
reference to "the most learned
In the following period, it is true, one or another thread of
evidence leads from Antioch to Peter. Ignatius makes reference to
an apocryphal gospel story in which Peter and his companions
figure (
The chronological impossibility of this arrangement is obvious.
No proof at all is needed for the thesis that for Antioch that
form of the list which places Euodius at the beginning is just as
certainly the earlier as is that for Rome which commences with
Linus.[12] Not until later was the attempt made to free Euodius'
place in favor of Peter. Therefore it is not historical memory
that is operative here, but a specific ecclesiastical
requirement. The only question is, who is the "interested party"
here, Rome or Antioch? Harnack supposes it to be the latter. He
speaks of the "Antiochian
Here, it strikes me, Rome is credited with a reserve and moderation in the use of effective tactics that has little relationship to its genius [[117]] and circumstances. I can well imagine that Antioch and Alexandria could take over the method, proven in the battle with heresy, [121] of forming a succession of bishops which derives from the circle of the twelve. But it is more difficult to understand why they should latch on to Peter, and still more, if they could not get Peter, why they should be content with a figure of the second rank [Mark] instead of choosing someone else from that illustrious band of Jesus' closest friends. Actually, the party enthusiastic for Mark is not Alexandria but Rome; traces of Rome's influence on his behalf are discernible there (see above, 60). Through Mark his son and interpreter the Roman Peter (see above, 107) announces his claims, since he himself is much too busy in Jerusalem, Antioch, Corinth, and Rome to be able to go personally in quest of Alexandria also, which is off the beaten track for him.[14]
And so, just as I was of the opinion that I should view "Peter
and Paul" in Ignatius as a sign of Roman influence (above, 112),
I should be inclined also to find Roman influence in the
assertion of a later period that Peter originally had been in the
position of leadership at Antioch, an assertion which flies
completely in the face of Antiochian history. Origen, who has
confronted us as the first clear witness for Peter in his office
as Antiochene bishop, also was acquainted with the original
document underlying the pseudo-Clementines[15] and in his
commentary on Genesis (see above, 105 n.19) introduced an excerpt
from it with the words: "Clement the Roman, a disciple of the
apostle Peter . . . in Loadicea, says in the `Journeys' (
How many of these details relative to Antioch already stood in
the original "Journeys" (
At Antioch, as at Rome and Alexandria, a first step in this
direction was the attempt to build up an unbroken succession of
orthodox bishops reaching back into the time of the church's
founding. That also on this point Rome led the way is proven by
the fact that the symptomatic efforts toward this end begin at
Antioch later than at Rome and lead to less useful results (see
above, 63f.). As the Lord delayed his return and the necessity
arose to preserve contact with him, [123] Christians had at first
tried to avail themselves of simple [[119]] means of assistance.
They possessed the apostles, and later at least the disciples of
the apostles; and when these died out, certain "elders"
(
In Rome, where the whole environment spurred the Christians on toward the creation of stable forms for life in the community, there was evidently a refusal at first to rely on a couple of more or less doubtful personages for the most important position there was and for its continuation -- personages, moreover, whose brittle chain of succession offered no security for the immediate future. Then, too, the apostolic period in Rome had been much too short and had been broken off too early for there to have grown up any significant or numerically extensive group of apostles' disciples and "very ancient men." With Mark one did not get very far. And one can only guess how extensively the ranks of this very circle were thinned out by the Neronian and later the Domitian persecutions, and by whatever else may have occurred in between. The individuals of whose activity we hear, a Linus or a Clement (Irenaeus AH 3.3.3), were in any case already dead by the end of the first century. Irenaeus made no belated attempt to bring a successor of Clement into personal acquaintance with the apostles, whereas in Asia Minor "John" outlived Clement, to say nothing of Papias and Polycarp,[23] by means of whom one was brought up almost to the middle of the second century and even beyond. Hegesippus, belonging to the company of those who followed immediately upon the apostles,[24] reached even farther. The prerequisites for securing the tradition in another manner probably were already present in Rome well at the beginning of the second century. That a few decades passed before these measures began to come into effect is to be explained by the fact that the [[121]] danger of heresy, and thereby the necessity for such measures, was not experienced in Rome until a comparatively late date (see above, 113 f.). [125] But precisely this fact shows us again that those localities which experienced the tension between heresy and orthodoxy much earlier and more incisively than did Rome, but which came to employ that particular defensive tactic only later and less thoroughly than Rome, were not acting independently but rather were under outside, i.e. Roman, influence.
This influence makes itself noticeable also in other ways.
Ignatius praises the Romans as those who have been teachers to
other Christians -- "you taught others" (
This supposition would gain probability if we may venture to
interpret the formula which Ignatius applies to the Roman church,
Since we have already become acquainted with Roman influence at Antioch, which was oriented similarly to Rome's successful undertaking at Corinth (see above, 114 ff.), I should like to interpret the words quoted above from the preface of Ignatius' letter to the Romans as signifying that even Antioch -- meaning, of course, ecclesiastical Antioch -- had been privileged to enjoy material support from Rome. And so as not to leave Alexandria out of the picture, alongside Corinth and Antioch, on the matter of relations with Rome, let us now recall the letter of Dionysius of Alexandria to the Roman bishop Stephen I (254-57; EH 7.5.2). The letter even includes "the whole of Syria" among the regions privileged to benefit from Roman sacrificial unselfishness, and reveals that Rome's shipments of aid are accompanied by letters. Likewise in the letter of Dionysius of Corinth the donations for the saints and the instructions to the brethren coming to Rome are mentioned alongside of one another (EH 4.23.10 end). In similar fashion is it likewise probable that the orthodoxy of Ignatian Antioch is the orthodoxy not only of those who have been privileged to experience the charity of Rome, but also of those "others" whom Rome was accustomed to teach (see above, 121).
If we ask to what degree donations of money could be of importance in the warfare of the spirits, our imagination would have no [[123]] difficulty in suggesting all kinds of ways. In this context it is to the point to adduce further statements of Ignatius revealing to us needs and desires on the part of Christians which could be met by material gifts. In the letter to Polycarp, he turns his attention with pacifying intent to slaves who wish their freedom to be purchased at the church's expense (4.3). [127] If, as is certainly the case, many a slave joined the church because he hoped for the fulfillment of such a wish on the basis of the celebrated mutual solidarity of the "brethren," one can also imagine how within the Christian world that group which had at its disposal the more ample resources would draw many slaves to itself -- and indeed, how many others from the poorer classes, who from anxiety were often scarcely able to contemplate the coming day! Certainly Dionysius, the outspoken enemy of heresy, cannot intend that his words, "You relieve the poverty of the needy" (EH 4.23.10), be understood to mean that Roman abundance indiscriminately blessed all poverty-stricken souls, provided only they were baptized.
Moreover the Christian communities were at an early date already making the attempt, often with success, to buy fellow believers free from prison and from the claws of the judiciary.[26] And Ignatius' letter to the Romans is filled with expressions of his worry lest such an eventuality befall him from the side of the Romans. The encomium of Eusebius upon the Emperor Constantine (3.58) teaches us that Rome viewed it as an altogether legitimate practice in religious controversy to tip the scales with golden weights: "In his beneficient concern that as many as possible be won for the teaching of the gospel, the emperor also made rich donations there (in Phoenician Heliopolis] for the support of the poor, with the aim of rousing them even in this way to the acceptance of saving truth. He too could almost have said with the Apostle: `In every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is to be proclaimed' [Phil. 1.18]."
He who has sufficient funds at his disposal is in a position to
recruit assistants who can devote themselves without distraction
to the tasks for which they are paid. And again it is Rome, so
far as I know, where a Christian official first appears on the
scene with a [[124]] fixed salary. The
Finally, if we want to know in what way the Roman church raised
the funds necessary for her purposes, even in this regard the
sources are not entirely silent. From Tertullian we hear that
Marcion, on the occasion of his joining the Roman Christian
community, handed his fortune over to the church (
If Rome is astute in the use of tactics, it knows also how to
take advantage of every kind of situation. Again I should like to
point [[125]] to Dionysius, who as the occupant of the Roman
outpost of Corinth is at least as much an informant concerning
Roman ecclesiastical Christianity as a witness to the history of
Christian Corinth. Among the letters by which he seeks to be of
influence on behalf of orthodoxy is to be found one "to the
church of Amastris together with the other churches throughout
Pontus" (EH 4.23.6). The final words
It was argued earlier (above, 75 f.) that also in Crete
Dionysius was dealing not with "the churches" but at best with
orthodox elements in a Christianity heavily permeated with
heresy. That one certainly cannot speak in superlatives of the
success he achieved there has been intimated [130] and will
become even more evident below. Although in the spirit of
Eusebius, who praises "the inspired diligence" of the bishop (EH
4.23.1), one can say with Harnack that "advice and edification
were solicited of him from far and wide," Dionysius himself
allows us to surmise what really happened when he complains: "At
the request of some brethren, I wrote letters. But the apostles
of the devil crammed them full of weeds, deleting one thing and
adding another" (EH 4.23.12). Dionysius, then, writes to other
areas when orthodox brethren request him to do so. But when they
arrive, his letters are exposed to severe hazards on the part of
other Christians, and are by no means treated in "the churches"
with the esteem that, under his leadership, was accorded in
Corinth to
In his moderation Dionysius certainly did not feel himself to be in opposition to Rome. Rome also was not in favor of forcing the issue and demanding the impossible. It much more favored the gentler manner, with sinners as with heretics. Official Rome was prepared to make significant concessions just as much on the question of second repentance[30] as in the controversy over the baptism of heretics. And so Dionysius, with his advice not to make life too difficult for sinners within the Catholic church, was probably following a suggestion or even a directive issuing from Rome. Rome had only recently discovered that in the matter of the relentless demand for chastity one could not successfully compete with a Marcion. And so the preference was to stick by "the great multitude," whom to have on one's side was in the long run a guarantee of success.
Rome's astuteness displayed and proved itself in other respects also. Rome knows how to call suitable leaders to its helm. Hermas may be ever so effective in his activity as a prophet, but for leadership of the community his brother Pius is better suited. And without filling a church office, Justin turns his rich erudition to good account in the controversy with pagans, Jews, and heretics. Rome can wait, and does not hurry the development along, but just as little does it allow favorable opportunities to escape. Anicetus is a courteous opponent of Polycarp on the matter of the celebration of Easter (EH 5.24.16-17), whereas on the same issue Victor is extremely violent in his confrontation with Polycrates of Ephesus and those in agreement with him (EH 5.24.7 and 9; see also above 97). [[128]]
Roman Christianity, so far as we know, was from the beginning
under the heaviest pressure from external enemies. The
persecutions under Nero and Domitian, which in recorded church
history are counted as the two earliest (EH 3.17 end), were
exclusively or at least predominantly Roman affairs. And Hebrews
and
Marcion presented the greatest danger to which Roman orthodoxy
was exposed. That, of course, does not mean that apart from him
the Christian faith at Rome in the generation from around 135 to
about 170 assumed an entirely uniform shape. Besides Marcion we
know also of personalities and movements that would have been
able in this period to give the development of religious life at
Rome a turn away from orthocloxy if the direction of orthodoxy
had not been already so firmly set. Although it is not entirely
certain that Marcion's disciple Lucanus was active at Rome,[31]
Marcion's precursor Cerdo lived there under Hyginus (136-140),
and according to the account of Irenaeus (AH 3.4.3), was not on
good terms with the majority of Roman Christians. According to
the same authority and passage, Valentinus also appeared in Rome
at that time, flourished under Pius and continued until Anicetus,
i.e. from about 136-160 in all. Tertullian, who of course allows
no opportunity for maligning any heretic to escape him, reports
of Valentinus that he seceded from the church because he had
suffered a defeat in the episcopal election. Out of vengefulness
he set himself henceforth to the task of battling against the
truth (
The "many" Valentinians and Marcionites whom Polycarp won over
to the church in Rome under Anicetus (154-165) are no more
significant than the "many" disciples who at the same time and
place, and according to the same authority (Irenaeus, AH 3.3.4
and 1.25.6 [=20.4]) were won over by the Carpocratian Marcellina
-- the former were no great gain, the latter no appreciable
danger. Neither did any danger for Rome emanate from Tatian.
After Roman Christianity had rid itself of the Marcionites (and
Valentinians), there still remained, to be sure, the possibility
of differing styles of belief within the church, but not of
serious heresy. In his
[1] This is the opinion of E. Schwartz,
[2] Harnack,
[3] See Kirsch,
[4] Cf., e.g., Knopf,
[5] Cf. Schwartz, in his GCS edition of EH, vol. 3: p. CCXXV.
[6] This point is acknowledged by the Paul who in the
[7]
[8] See Zahn,
[9] Harnack,
[10] Origen,
[11] John Chrysostom
[12] Cf. Harnack,
[13] Harnack,
[14] The Roman, and not Alexandrian, origin of the legend of Mark
as founder of the church at Alexandria would stand out still more
clearly if it were still possible today to accept such a judgment
as Harnack's on the so-called Monarchian prologues to the Latin
gospels (ed. H. Lietzmann,
[15] On this point see E. Schwartz, "Unzeitgemässe Beobachtungen zu den Clementinen," ZNW 31 (1932): 151-199, esp. 159 ff.
[16] On Laodicea and Antioch in the ps.-Clementines see also
[17] One branch of the tradition has Peter before his departure ordain another bishop and several presbyters.
[18] So Papias is called in Irenaeus AH 5.33.4. But Eusebius can
rank Irenaeus himself with the band of the
[19] Occasionally even the apostles are separated into ranks: the
Lord gives gnosis to James, John, and Peter; these impart it to
the remaining apostles, who in turn give it to the seventy, to
whom Barnabas belongs -- Clement of Alexandria,
[20] In Eusebius EH 6.13.8:
[21] Strom. 7.[17.]108.1. Also Hippolytus,
[22]
[23] Irenaeus, in Eusebius EH 5.20.7 calls Polycarp "the
apostolic presbyter" (
[24] Eusebius EH 2.23.3: "Hegesippus, who belonged to the
generation of the first successors to the apostles" (
[25] See Bauer,
[26] Cf. the anti-Montanist Apollonius (ca. 197) in Eusebius EH
5.18.9 and also 5;
[27] Knopf
[28] Achelis
[29] Harnack,
[30] Knopf,
[31] Harnack,
[32] Cf. E. Preuschen, RPTK\3 20 (1908): 396 f.
[33] Irenaeus Syriac fragment 28 in Harvey's edition, vol. 2, p. 457. .