T H E SOC IALSETTIN COF , TH E IN MIN IsTR Y A5 R EFL EC TED T H E WR ITIN C ,S OF H ER MAS, CLEMEN T AN D IC ,N ATIU S HARRYO. /v\AIER , Studiesin Christianity and Judaism/ Etudessur le christianismeet le judafisme: ll Studies in Christianity and Judaism / Etudes sur le christianisme et Ie judaisme publishes monographs on Christianity and Judaism in the last two centuries before the common era and the first six centuries of the common era, with a special interest in studies of their interrelationship or the cultural and social context in which they developed. GSNERALEprroR: Peter Richardson Eonoruer Boenp: Paula Fredriksen John Gager Olivette Genest Paul-Hubert Poirier Adele Reinhanz Stephen G. Wilson Universityof Toronto BostonUniversity PrincetonUniversity Universitdde Montrdal UniversitdLaval McMasterUniversity CarletonUniversity Studiesin ChristianityandJudaism/ Etudessur le christianismeet le judaisme 11 The SocialSettingof the Ministry as Reflectedin the Writings of Hermas' Clementand lgnatius HarryO. Maier l,ublishedfor the CanadianCorporationfor Studiesin Religion / (lorporation CanadiennedesSciencesReligieuses by Wilfrid Laurier UniversityPress 2m2 The original printing of this book was publishedwith the supportof the Dissertation seriesprize of the CanadianCorporationfor Studiesin Religion.We acknowledgethe financial supportof the Governmentof Canadathroughthe Book PublishingIndustry DevelopmentProgramfor our publishingactivities. National Library of Canada Cataloguingin Publication Data Maier,Harry O., 1959The socialsettingof the ministry asreflectdin the writings of Hermas,Clementand Ignatius (Studiesin ChnistianityandJudaism= Etudessur le christianismeet le judallme ESCJ;v.12) Firstpublished1991. Includesbibliographicalreferences. rsBN 0-88920-4il-X L Church polity-History-Early church,ca. 30-600. 2. PastoraltheologyHistoryof doctrines-Early church,ca. 30-600. 3. Hermas,2nd cent.Shepherd. 4. ClementI, Pope.First epistleof Clementto the Corinthians. 5. Ignatius,Saint, Bishopof Antioch,d. ca. 100. I. CanadianCorporationfor Studiesin Religion. ll, fitle. lll. Series. BV64t,M2620tr2 2 5 3 ' .0 9 ' 0 15 c2w2-9m795-){ O l9lrl Cmdirn Corporationfor Studiesin Religion/ CorporationCanadienne des SclcnccrRcligieuscs SocondInprcrlon 2002 Coverdcri3n by Lerlie Macredie.CoverimageTheConsecration of the Thbernacle and Its Prlcsts(PanelWB2) from thefinalreport8, pt. I in the series:Excavations at DuraEuropos, originallypublished in 1956by YaleUniversityPress. o hinted in Canada Everyreasonable effort hasbeenmadeto acquirepermissionfor copyrightmaterialused in this text, and to acknowledgeall such indebtedness accurately.Any errors and omissionscalledto thepublisher'sattentionwill becorrectedin futureprintings. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted,in any form or by any means,without the prior consentof the publisheror a licencefrom The CanadianCopyrightLicensingAgency(AccessCopyrighg.For an Access Copyright licence, visit www.accesscopyright.ca or call toll free to l-800-893-5777. Orderfrom: Wilfrid Laurier University Press Waterloo, Ontario,CanadaN2L 3C5 http://www.wlupress. wlu.ca To myFather EdmundMaier Wasdu ererbtvon deinenVltern hast, erwirb es,um eszu besitzen. - Goethe Contents lX Introduc{lon .. A Topic With a t ong History The Early Ministryand the Household:. A House-Church Trqiectory The Methodology The Strategy... Notes Chapter One Thc Household In the Anclent lVorld Thc Tbaditional Graeco-Roman Household..... The Householdand Mystery Religionsand ForeignCults, Philosophical Schools,Associations, andJewishSynagogues ... Summary Notes Chrpter Tlvo Tb: hullne Eplsths hrt Onc: The Genuine Fauline Epistles The Early huline Churchas Sectarian... The HouseholdContextof the ChristianSect Housc-Churchl-cadership hrt TWo: The Pseudonymous Fauline Epistles Coloseians and Ephcsians The hstoral Epistles..... Summary Notcr I I 4 5 t0 il l5 l5 l8 24 24 29 29 29 32 36 40 N 43 47 47 55 55 58 65 72 78 87 87 94 r08 t22 135 t47 147 r56 170 t82 187 r99 20r Abbrcvhtlonr .. 203 20s 205 205 Acknowledg-ents Forcmostamong the many peoplc I should like to thank for contributing to this thesisis my supervisorProfessorM. F. Wiles. SinceI embarkedon this topic three yerrs agohe hasprovided mc with both personalsupport and constructive criticism,withoutwhich the following chapterswould not havebeenpossible.I hrve beenprivilegedto study under him and am gratcful for his orcellcnt suPervision. I should alsolike to thank Dr. Bryan R. Wilson who supervisedthe sociologicrl portions of this thesis.The contcmporary sectarianphenomenato which he drew my attention stimularcd my imagination and led me to a new approachof crrly Christian te)rts. The RcverendRobert Morgan kindly read the New Tesument chapter. He was generouswith his time and provided valuable criticisms. It was under his tualage that this topic first took shapcand I am gratc l for his activeinrcrestasit hasdeveloped. To David J. Reimer I also expressmy hearfelt thanks. By plodding through prgesof often rebarbativeprose and suggcstingmore fuent ways of sating my crsc, he hclped remove many stylistic asperities. A Commonwealth Scholarshiphas enabledme to study in the United Kittgdom. I thank the Associationof Commonwealth Universities for supportingmy rcrdemic endeavorin this university. Finelly, I should like to thank my wife Faith. She has faithfully supported rrrd crred for me during our stayin Oltrord. Her confidencein me and enthurirum for my topic, as well as the hours she sacrificedto type revisions and prrxrfrerd, contributcd grcatly to the completion of this projecr I am thankful lirr her dedication,and for sharing in my passionfor carly church history; sola lide. H.O.M. Introduction A Topic With a Long History This essayis an attemptto providean accountof the origins and development of the ministry in the Christian communities representedby the writings of Hermas,Clement, and lgnatius.Although its approachis new, the topic hasa long and distinguishedif labouredhistory. From an early date there hasbeen dcbateover the origins of the ofhce of bishopand elder.Jeromecontendedthat and that only later originallythe titles of elderand bishopwere interchangeable, did monarchicalepiscopacyarise.tTheodore of Mopsuestia,however,argued frrr an original monarchicalepiscopatefirst occupiedby apostlesand later by appointees who distinguishedthemselvesfrom elders.2 During the Middle Ageswhat has becomethe traditionalRoman Catholic vicw emergedand was proclaimedasorthodory. ThomasAquinas(c. 1225-74) rrgucd that the orders of bishop and presbyterwere different from the start.3 Luthcr objectedto this theoryand citedJeromein supportof an originalequivalcnceof bishopsand elders.aThe Council of Trent declaredthosewho argued for an original equivalence"anathema."S The battlelines thus drawn, a war of words issuedforth for over three centuries.In Britain, where Puritanswere unhrppywith the reconciliationof episcopalforms with Reformationideals,the debrtewasespecially vigorous.Others,suchasMilton (1641),Blondel(1&6), Srumaise(1U7, l64.s), Vitringa (1696 English translation1842),and Dailld (l(61), arguedfor an original identity of bishopsand presbyters. Altcrnatively, lfritish divines,such as Hall (1628,7639,1640,7644),Ussher (l*l, 1644), I f rtnmond (1651),Pearson(1672),and Bingham(1708),pressedfor a "monarr lricrll [str] Reformation."6Much of the debatecentredon the trustworthiness rrf lgnatius'letters,an editionof which waspublishedby LJssherin 1644.Inthe crghtcenthcentury,thesedivisionscontinuedon the Continent with little devi.lf(tn. Bcihmer(1711),for example,cited the argumentsof Blondel and Sautttriscfor an originalidentityof presbyters andbishops.T Thomassin(1703)and tlre l)ominican Alexander(1762)defendedthe traditionalRomanposition. Mrny nineteenth-centuryscholarsattemptedto overcomethis impasse. ln llf(13,Phnck arguedthat bishopsand elderswere originallydistinctbut equal puritions.uAnd in 1837,RichardRothe,a Lutheran,contendedthat after the rlcrtructionof Jerusalemthe remainingapostlesfoundeda new order of monrrclricrl episcopacy in thcir respective imperialprovinces.g Vitringa'sinvestigaNotcr to thc lntroduction rpperr on pp. I t-14. Intnxluction : tiott ittto thc synagogue and his argument,that the church modelleditselfafter andderivedthe presbyterate from it, infuencedmanynineteenth-century scholars.t0Baur's thlory of a Petrine-Jewish Christianthesisand pauline-Gentile Christian antithesissynthesizedin second-centuryhierarchicalCatholicism assumedthat the office of elderwasderivedfrom thi synagogue.tlRitschl, after distancinghimself from Baur his teacher,arguedfor an Jewish-Chris"iifrU tian and Gentile-Christianepiscopate.12 Thr questioning oithe-reliabilityand authenticityof New Testamentsourcesalsoprovidedim"petusfor refection on the develoPmentof in the earll ihurch. Floltzmann argueain his Je,a.dephiR work on the Pastoralsl3 that an original Paulinecharismaticchurch order was graduallyreplaced t legalistico(h.. structure derived from the synagogue. -bv This theory is similar to thoseput forward by twentieth-centuryGermanscholarssuchasvon campenhausen,l4 schweizer;ts and Krseman i.iu Nineteenth-centurystq{y of Graeco-Romanclubs led Renan,rT then Weingartenlsand Heinricile'torrgue that the earlychurchprtt.in.d itselfafter pagenassociatio-ns. Thcy claimedthat therewasnot sufficientevidencej9 argue tlrrt thc crrly church derivedthe oflice of presbyterfrom a point -synagggues, rcperteclhy sch(lref0 (rnd rcstatedby conte-por.ry r.itr.irZ'1. In lgg0, I lrtt'h rrgtredtlrrt thc titlesrnd functionsof the iarly bhristian ministrymust l'f rcctt irr tlrc tlttlc wry essirrritartitles-used in pagancollegiacontemporary with thc crrly church.22 fnc dn(trronoEasfinancialorr.rreero?theearlychurch was crpccirllyilttp()rtrllt becauscof the greatnumber of poor and destitute Christirttr' 'l'hc prcsbytcrs,as in Palcstiniansynagogues and secularGraeco-Roman llovcrtttncnt'occupiedtheir position in the .o--onity on the basisof their seniority'The distinctionbetweenpresbyters and bishopswas one of function and rank' While the bishopsand dea.oni took an active role in the eucharistic celebration,the eldersenjoyeda positionof honour in the worship servicewithout taking an activepart in it. In. the dairy life of the comm;;,;, thesepres_ bytersexerciseddisciplineandjurisdictionin of disputebe'nveenChristians' Monarchical episcopacydid not -"tt.rs !-.rg. fulty untii ,t.-iii.a centuFf, although it beganp developfu3-:h-. tim. Jf lgnatius through the church,s battle with gnosticism.The weak rink in Hatchir i, Loening and Lietzmann pointed out,8 is his assumptionthat -r.gr-.rrr, the-office of trforoaog in Graeco-Romancollegia alwaysdenoted financial oversight.Recentscholars have collegiaas more or less distant analogies-forthe ..ity christian ffiltfrfo HarnackembracedHatch's theory, b-utexpanded it slightly after the appearanceof the Didachein 19g3.In 1gti4,2s ald.rgain in ig{6,;,i rrl....t put for_ ward his theory of the twofold ministry of the"ch"i.n.ttli. ,rgu.a that there werc two levelsof governmentin the early church: rulership"iy , r.na.rirrg apostles,prophets,and teacherswho were not tied to individud .irur.hes, and by congregationalty elected and deacons, responsible for the administra-bishops tive and cultic leadership of the individualcommunity.witt, the disappearance of charismaticitinerants,bishopsand deaconsrook over their duties(pp. 5gf.). tn(orconor and npeopdtepoi were originally coterminous- one denoting yil.: *. Ju,i.' bisffi from PresDeaconsbecameseParate rcrchcrs,a distinctionarosebetweenthem' in worassisting r.i"g c11eo.fthe poor and hyrcrsthrough th. d...on's role i" t key to the as s applicationof the Didache rlrip (pp. 66-67).r, E.gl.ld, H.r...k had German able io observethat the r'lvirrg , ..n,,,rri.r-JJ"d.b.i. l.d iurt.i ;;1rr,rpf,.oon the brain'"28 his oPPonentin Germany'zgDenying Itudolph SohrnwasHarnack'scentral charwas Purely thl apostolicchurch tl'uble organization,Sohm argUedthat (pp' 28-51)'fu these prophets tt-J"t'' rrrrrlric,ruled entirelyby apostlet, "'d in oider to celebratethe the threefold mini"ry t lrrrismaticsdisappeared, "o" were ellcted from the honouredmemcuclrrrist (p. 68). birhop, and d.acons this task(pp' 108-13'l2l'28)' The lrrs rf thc congregation1i...,pr.Jyt.is) {or of tt'e cttaitengePresentedby false rrrorrrrchicalepiscopatearose., *rL ,t'ult correctly (p' 38' ch' 2')' This fir.st the ,..r.-.rro ln 1rr'phets to administer church was brought to a new era ,x.crrrrcdin no-.,-ifrrougft I Clementthe believers' all of priesthood of .the of the church infuenced wlrich a specialpriesthood,".k ;; ;i;. organization ch.rirm.iic original Solrrn'stheory of .r, (194gEnglishtranslation1965)' ,r'y Germantheologiansincluii;; B;-r,-;n Engtiih translition 1969),Schweizer ( lrccven (rgsusr\, campenhJ;;alsl (1964,pp. 63ff'; 1969' pp' (1959 Englishii.nrr.tion 1961),.rrd Knr.-.rrn l.l('ff.).30 seyereresponsefrom charlcs Gore' lrr England,Hatch'stheoriesprovoked.a Turncr bY apostles'",t'"' wlr' rrgued for the appoirrtment of bishop, which in book 3*t"'s essaysitt prcscntedsimilar .riewsP as did all the ministry threefold the that 't'urncr's .rr.r'iio;;;i' iighrr"o, (1888)argued *-tti.h the earliestchurch had in minis*i.i-"r,i.,or., rrcvcropedout;f the arguedthat the originalcommunities .'rnmon with the Jewisr,,yrr.g;;..-H. religiouslife rnd with pr.rbyt irThorr' to di"tt the church's weresynagogues ruled by the Jwelve, ,asthe church rtlrrrinisterits affairs (p. 191). b;G;illy pt.tbyttr emergedasa chief administrrcxprndedfrom Jerusalem,t1t. "f6fiof joined io the apostlesto form a hierarchy' rrvepositiorr,.rid the first eld.* *.re chuichesfrom the namcof the l'lre titlc 0r[orcoroEwasa.t.t-or'.r dy Gt"tile at the samedme' maintainedthe older tl*ectorsof non-Christian,ollrgi*ftittt, 'n^rotitles synonymously(p' 19-31' An tr(orcotlos rlle npeoBrltepog,joining the itte tn JerusalemChurch' ., . pr.rideni of a-council of rpeopftipor" becomethe firct presbfety '.ted fro- the P f rnrcs,thc [,ord's brothcr, *.r-.it.r.,.d wrs first position tpittopal t'ht rrr,nrrchicalbishop (p. 196).ti othe, churches, beginthe T.owards 199). rx.cupicdby apostlesand ,1,*,-.fortolic delegalr b. empire the divided aPostles r,rrrg.f t5. ,.lond century,;ohnand the remaining monarchicalbishops(pp' rr.ongst themservesand iriu.il.J about establishing of the earlyministry theihape ,lolf,). The view that the 'y"tgogtt i{u:T:ed by it was reasserted scholatthip; rrrry be dcscribedas the .onr.iirs of British 1946'35 in ministry tht o" .""yt of I )rx.ll and other contributor,ao tcirk's book rtttl ttrostrecentlybYFrcnd'36 of uniformiryin earliestChrisAll of thesetheoriesPrcsumea rclativcdegree into qucstion'Streetcranticiincrcaslnglyrrrrrity.But this view hasbcencalled ministricsin diffcrcnt fottt.of varyin! fr. .tgu.d for l,rredlrtcr scholrrswhen i nor' ^' l "f - --r-^: ,raa, tl f the R omen Frnni r' r rff .\rf frl .\611111g fl tlrc lltintstrl lr,ttt -ft'rtts;t lt ' t t tt t t t t w. t r dr , lT lJ lr r c r : r s s t r r r r c da s i r n i l a r c a r l y c l i v c r s i t y w l r c n h e argttctl tllat "'rtlt.dtlxy" attd mtlnarchical episcopacy were minority positions in the sccond ccntury; he argued that it is more appropriate to speak of ..ministries" and "churches" and "developments" in this period than to refer to them in the singular.38since the discovery of the Nag Hammadi corpus in 1945, scholars again addressed the question of 'what constituted frave normative christianiry in this period.of originr.3dTh, ..oriiodox,, ,..ord-.rntury church r'heretic's" Father is cross-examined,ao the porition freed from the detractor,s interpretations.alA view which seesearly christianity as constituted by relatively independent and dynamic "trajectories,,,42 rather than an unchanging 'TVesendes christentums" handed down from above,dominates much of contemporary scholarship. The Early Ministry and the I{ousehold: A House-C hurch Trajectory lly rcfi'rrittg t' rltc r'lc .f lt'rt.sc-churchpatrons as hosts of the worshipping ( ' of fllf llllllt y . tl tc tl c v c k rP tttc ttl o f l c e tl c rs h i pstrpcturesi n the churches addressed lr y I f c r nr r r , ( l l c rrrc rrt,;rrrtll g n ;rti rrsw i l l b c cxpl i cated.W e shal l argue that the r f t t t t t lt t t t r c t t ttgttt l t,rttrc h ,,l .l * | .,rrv i tl c sth c s.rci alsctti ngof ,fr. a* el opment of f c r r lc t r lt t f tr t rttt tl l rc s i tt tl rc s ci ' ,rrfyc l rrrrc hcs. It i s preJentedas a ,.ffaj ectory.,, wc r t r t l' l r t tc ttl Ptl tl l lt() p r()v i d ca u n i v c r sal cxpl anati on:fri i ..n, and i nfu( ' f lr ( ' rt t t A lc x ' ttttl ttl ,l ' ;tl t' s ti n c .;rn c l -Sy _ ri a rn ayha.rebeendi ffei ent.The traj ectory wc ttc hcrc 'rrgttirrgfirr bcgirrs bcfore or with paul and extends to Rome, ( l' t t t t t lt ' r r t t l tl rc As i a Mi rr.ri .o --u n i ti e s addressedby Ignati us (i t may al so cxtctttl t. l'hilippi at thc time of Polycarp but the evidencehlre is inconclusive). 'l'lrcsc wcre all cotnmunities or areaswhere paul was active anJ atthough we cantr()t say that these were "Pauline" churches, there it pi*o facie cese for arguing that similar patterns of meeting were present in^ other communities associatedwith his activities. In the case"of Asi, ivlino-. 1.rp..irily Ephesus)we may also have to do with communities associatedwith Johannine patterns. we shall argue that the typical leadersof the communities here analysedwere patrafamilias with hout.t-irrg. enough to accom-oJrr. meetings in their homes. They were the wealthiei membe"rsof th. .hu..h, and their social position is an important factor to be taken into account in any attempt to understand the problems to which theseselecteddocuments testify and the efforts of their writers to solve them' It will b. .rgr.d that not enough attention h* been paid to social factors by those using otf,r, methodologi., to provide an explanadon of the development of ministelial structures in ceitain early churches.4r.ureare not attempting to supprant theorogicarexpranation, .rtog.th.. bt ,;ggesting that social structures are the only significani a.r.rr, Lut.rth.. to argue that ideasin and of themselvesare not suffilient to explain how the ministry evolved.aa At best they provide a two-dimensional picture which gains depth only when it is rcalizcd that thc pcople who formutaicd them were motivated by a number of ::::i ilililI; X. areaimingat an "interactionist,, account b.t*..n ideasand A rccognition that thc early church met in houses is not new. In 1696, Vit- In,nxlutltttn to early of thc socio-historical approach I lrl{1, w59 rrtay bc called the father synapattcrned itself after house ( .lrristieniry, .rg,r.d that thc carliest church have we similar line of argument'a7At In 1753, Mosheim pr.r.nr.a a p.,grrer.46 between on the parallelsVitringa made rccl, rlost subsequentscholarsfocused how-ever'cited Vitringa in support p"'bytt":t'.rytt' rlrc Jewish and ii'i"i"t wealthier met in the hout:t-:li" ut'his contention that the earliestchristians presented rrrcr'bcrswho actedas its nrr, i.ia.;;ru;;* andweingtt':ttto Although scholarssuch as rrrrrilararguments.This .ppro..h *., ,ho't-lived' that the t:tty churchmet to argue Krrsch,slHauck,52and Leclerq5rcontinued drawn from this fact'sa *t'"'iot *r 6ouses,deductionsregardingleadership ., Ou"-Eu'op" in 1930-31'sshowAlicr the discoveryof the house church of the ministry could not be cvcr, Filson porrut.t.a that the development 1945Dix notedthatthe without referenc.,o,fr. hou" chu'ch'56In trrrtlcrstood tuid Farrer in-1946 arguedthat crrly eucharisttook placeit p.tt:;; il;1 were its bishops'S'In 1962'Telfer rlrc rpostofi. .iur.trT, hospitablePatrons commonlyownedby the commurrgucd that bish'frr ii".a 11"churcir houses" ltt 1949' nospitality-itr tr.a.v.elteis'se rffry, and were iesponsibl, -fo,. ;fib;;g the assessed f,asremai"ti uttpoblished' Wrgrrcr,in a thesis*fri.t unfortunately without the eucharist'again of th. householdin the development.of tf 'portanc. to determinehow it i"flu'nttd the ministry'o rrtcnrpting i o-f the importalce studiessince1960haveattemptedto assess Social-historical reflittle but there is often pJine churches'61 r5c Souseholdfor leadershipi' in what is becoming Klauck, Hans-Josef evidence. crcr1ceto the extra-canonical iri the New Testament'providesa rlrc ruthoritativework o. lrour. tt'u"tttt on the earlierchurches'but is truitful accountof the impact ti ii. fttusehold similar settingin-latcrcanonicaland rlsrppoin,i'gly ,"iicent abou,il;;;lbt"g a in very r...nd-y, Ernsl Dassmannhaspainted cxrra-canoni..lil;;6irurotr archaeoletters.oLiterary-and lrr'rtl strokesa house-church,.i irrg of fjnatius' -met privatehomesat leastuntil the in l,rgicalevidencesugges6that Chririit"' althoughthe ..rrrury.A it i, field is relativelyuntouched; t;-;fi "f with enthusiasmin recentyears'no 'egi'ning Ncw Testamentdatahasbeeninvestigated haveventured outsideits rr lrglarsof whom I am aware'DassmannexcePted' lrrtrits. The Methodolory thc socialsciences'especially srrbscquentchaptersemployinsightsgleaned$l havebecomeincreasChr-i-stianiry rociology.Sociologicalexplanadonso"fearly The applicationof sociologtr.gly popularamongstNew 'J..rtr-*t ,chll"rr.6s neY venture; in 1925 entirely an not is . rl tools to early C-hristianevidence of Form Criticismwas dependenton "une ( lrrllmannarguedthat the success da loisdel'^volutionila trailid l'examen sp,cialedeh s;wiologie [soitJconsacr€e brurche ShailerMathews'Shirley populaira."6l' tfr.?rrt q,r.rt , of this century' tto^s the ,o-called ChicagoSchool' 9f f.rtkson Case,and Donald Riddl;;-;;-;;T and dynamicsof early rrgucd for careful attentior,,o ,h. sociel background .liurch history.67 and the work of the cullmann's request, however, remained unheeded, 6 Introduction gr'ly; rr O'icago ,, ;*" rwocenturies have orten been il:;H*",,{'il,#t*::::{ili,:' ' Engri'1 with dres,.r:il 1..uu.s. ;:ffoJ:.,',*;:TlH[."ili*:*d;[ the painfurv obvious,the ,oiiotogil, ,he historianof b . comte 1rzbaraf ' ;l';.;;, ..ri..&;;; il;1'rmp iIers ;i :;;# **rt,.T,* unable to transcend theii parochiarir.- rnl insights o, ii".rrigr,i"g..;;;;;; stubbornry ,.rirrirrg potentiar "*r:.0, surprising: socioroery initiarf d.,,rrop.JT;;; sociar phenome na.70This is kheim,weber,rna"Jrr,..t comte,Dur_ i"'"i,ag"{_*..irry g,. .l"lrjrt; turesof European andstruc_ civiliz"tioiTry* yr.-il;,;., thedeveropment exarnple, historian *r, , notedRornan andregard.a tr,. .oliection orr,irrJ;.1a;;31;#i r" aiJi"Jlir,i'g""r'-'u.#..n sociorosi sociorogy i'#r:'lJ?f and1o.his rustory. rn the tions which shape opposing opinions. Norms such as those contained in the I laustafelnor truisms such as "the love of money is the root of all evils" often lrclp one to identifr the assumed role expectationsand more general social structuresexerting an influence on the group. The analysisof religious symbols t;rcilitatesone's understandingof the group's identiry, challenges,and ideals. Finally, comparativeproceduresanalysetexts which are not derived from the ( lhristian group being investigated.Here the investigator looks outside the ( llrristian milieu to its contemporary society, to such institutions as synagogues, plrilosophicalschools,and Graeco-Roman clubs in the hope of gaining insights rrrto what Christianiry has in common with its greaterenvironment and how it tlrflt'rs from it. Or he or she seekswhat early Christianity has in common with ..rciological phenomena of other periods. Maurice Duverger identifies nvo (.rtcgoriesof comparison: closeand distant.T6 (llose comparison is used to compare phenomena relatively proximate temp'rally and culturally; it aims at precision, thoroughness,and detail; it seeksto rrlcrrtiFydifferencesbetween data and to explain those variationsby referenceto ;',trsiblc differencesof context and structure. For historical research,closecoml,rrisons are only helpful where there is a wealth of detailed information conr cr ning the socialphenomenon under investigation.Becausethis is not available lrrr ulvcstigatorsof the early church, they must rely upon Duverger's second Irrrtl of comparison: distant comparison.TT Here, rather than differences lrt'twccn phenomena,resemblancesare sought: l#l;l,il:,il':*,:1,;ftTffi f#:{ii*,_,*r,::,$;i:**:; History tTi be concernedwith the.analysis of the particurarset of eventsor liT,:,1:}nffii:r:':',';gj::::h1 j,Tfptswhich,uc*,i.avariety actuar happenings andavoid lor.,n.n**n,.r,-lnfi,lij one rime or praceto ,liilil;H,:"":i: that .rr.*t...,r..a what occurredin ,1,. r.i"i.ir.u-ron.rs ,.'. l'irto.tion in the?escription of beinganarysed.T2 Mrcn thc h,vr. trsks are divorced frorn each other there is a danger, on the 'nc hr'd' 'f entfing*i,r, ." lr",,,.rrri,;g;.r;;i, rl'tttirtit'rttdis'lati.lr",,oo.o;h;; ilir,ory,whory ii"'n.rn.J'il;'lrr.it-ti!, and,on rrr.other, -,o ;;;';'.,,r,.-.,"".ii,i a l.1il.::,['$ilil:;Hi: l"L il!ff 'l *,:'.*::li, .g.r specific : of situati"n'ttrr, :'j" orindividuar, transcend ratic Nhril l, historicaIryidiosync :,:11,, conditions ;il'r,.u.tur.r ,.r.,ior.ls.with-"singurar situations."T4 Theproblem ,o;,h.inr,.rtig.r;ffi:rlrJj.=:H::#f#r;.f;;;1 l ffff:;li'iilir:'+::i'ilfiT'Jt,fi,tr[ril.** ;],;;;;;d,fe .L-_ rent I orgenerar issues, uur.u"u, il;i ffirTrttffii[l'# sonsuch paur rent or general issues, but about *.ro.r", P.* not about tlpical, ...u.- -nh^^-as or ci.tn.* ffi::ffi:: i.., ,ypi.armemberof munity'The researcher "rnr-; ;;; hiscorn_ ;;.iotogr.J'.."r'h;s to ginsmust thereforer..r;-::;: invesrig.i.ct ristian ";;"; ..y. ori_ uJ*.."'rt .-r,n.r,, and rlcognizewhatare | are not6erd rheissen t=lH::4:'l,:;i5,"li?;;iff 'v roertrr'drs rnls txski constructive, Tfi*'J*n* analytia, comparative.T5 Constructive anJ l)ifferenttypesof structuresor institutionsfrom differentculturalcontextsor of differentdimensionsor of differentsignificance, are compared.They are citherhistoricalcomparisons periodsor ethnologicoveringwidely separated t';rlcomparisons.T8 l'hc researcheris interested in the degree to which they are similar and the rrgnrficanceof their resemblances.The comparison is not rigorous (it cannot I'c), but there must be suflicient proximity to be able to draw analogies.Such rrt.rhrgicsthen become the basisof hypothesesfor further research.The point of r rltrtlttt comparison, therefore, is not so much to identifr socialphenomena of vln(frrs epochs and cultures, but to provide, as Duverger says, "one means rrn'nl4st t>thersof provoking shock which producesdiscovery."7g Itcrclrchcrs attempting to make distant comparisons benveen phenomena hrvc lwo tools availableto them: ideal types and models. The ideal type is espe, rrffy .rssociated with Max Weber (1864-1920).Weber, as one historian among rlrry wlto attempt to understand contemporary society by comparison with ;'.rrt .trttlculturally different societies,developedthis device to locatedifferences I'r trvccn groups which could then be subjected to further hypotheses and f r ..('Jf r lr. "An idcal type,"'W'eberexplained, rr firrtttedby the one-sidedaccentuation of one or more pointsof view and by -hi'hleiJu.',il',':."':i,[ilnP"1l,'i1fi,.1l'lilj'lti'dilf::';h':"*; j:il tlrc sytttltesis of a greatmanydiffuse,discrete,more or lesspresentand occa:lil,'FJ#ffi .t.,ttrllyrhsentrcncrete ,fff,ttr#Tji.":G;;;:,;,,itutions,,,,Jo.g,nizations individual phenomena,which arearrangedaccordingto *".H';;:'ffi ffit;liltfiiiil:f*Hnft .lfi tltrrrconc-sidedlyemphasized viewpointsinto a unified analytical construct. Itt ttr rontcptrralprrriry,tlris nrentalconstructcannotbe found anyvherein H) The SocialSettingoJtheMinistry More sirrrply,iclealtypcs are logically integrated mental constructs of specific . phenomena arising from the obscrvation ofi wide range of similar data drawn from a wide variety of periods ancl culturcs. They are purely heuristic devices dcsigncd to enabte a rcscarchcr to focus his attention on similar phenomena, idcnti$r differences betwecn thcrn, and generate hypotheses for further research' They are very useful in the const;uction of iirt rrt comparisons. In subseq-uentchapterswe shall make use of Bryan lTilson's sect type and weber,s type of charismaticleadership.Used as heuristic tools, these id.af rypeswill help to discover socialasPectsassociatedwith the leadership of the ..ity church. The word "heuristic" is used with emphasis; it is unsound to allow types to generate data or make predictions where ih. t.*t is silent. This is a point Robin Scroggs forgets when he sets out to treat early christian communities as sectarian communities.sl He first identifies sevenirp..r, of sects and then seeks to locate them in the available data. The methodoligically fateful ,r.p.o-es when he argues that where evidence is lacking it may b. ,rru-ed that the typical elements were present.S2Thus he uses.thJtrp. ,o g.n..rte evidence and argues in a vicious circle. The proper course is to nlte th"at there .;;;;;gh similarities to draw an analogy between contemporary secrs and early Christii groups, and then to use contemporary evidence rUoui sectsto formulate questions to bring to thc ancient sources.Another instanceof a misuse of the methodology is comnrittcd by James A. witde in his discussion of Mark's gospel. H. ur., Bryan wils.tt's sevenfold typology of sectarianism to help ,o"unb.rrtaia the group bchirrtl thc g.spel by arranging characteristics inferied from the text according t' lltc tlifTcrcrrt tyPes of sectr wilson identifies. He then argues that Mark,s ('(ftlllllltllity t'ottstittrtcda "vector," i.e. a combination of characteristics drawn fi.ttt tliflbrcrrt sc('ttyltes.slThc pr.blcm is that wilde's attempt fits togethertoo chrscly c()lltcltlp(tnry rypet ,ni ancient data, and confuses description with cxPlrtrrtiott' In ordcr ft)r typcs to bc fruitfut in'analysisit is imperative that they be rrscd ls trlorc than dcsciiptive boxes: their chief value lies in their ability to stirrrtthtcthc investigat'r'simagination,to seethe data i. r;;;iight, and to ask qucstionswhich havenot been raisedbefore. The second tool available to reseerchers stud ying a tent using a comparative procedure is the model. Models are schematizeiabstractions formulated on the basisof theori.r:tl.rhgr are creat:q to h.rp ror-utrt, h;;;.ses to theories.Bruce Malina describesmodels as abstract,simplified representationsof more complex real world objectsand interactions.... [T]hey are approximate,simpL representations of more processes,andi-unctionsof physicarand phe;:HHrPrms' "or,-ftyricar test Like ideal typ:tt they cannot be used to generate data - otherwise theories would never be able to be falsified or verifieal uut unlike ideal r)?es, they predict relationships between entities a-ndoutcomes when elements of the model are changed' They.are-"blueprints"S6 for furthe. ,tudy. As in the caseof ideal rypes' models are also heuristic devices applied cross-culturally;they help yh.! to Sencrate qtrestionsconccrning relationshipi Introduction comparisonsaredrawnbetweenP.h:tt:- t.1a: th1 t^?* 1e11 :: :,: ::::t"i#i :?; ;.JT:","ila";';il1liT:i'lo::'10::':1'1;':l'ii"t*":iYT j': r':t"::*:"-'I:5 f"'i:;: Hn;T':"ilff il ;;; ;ii Jr'i',"'i'n' .-,l:-'oa' ): T., ; J;i;: ; ;;1ti"' ::h?fl ii: 9:'::1,,*; T:'^t' ?isJ;:; hi":tit1t_:T::1, whether qtrcsrion not so.much. one th-rn in the future.87 jlP:: [:TlT*'nffi::i#i,i"i'liJi:J"il;;J;;;i:;;*ii-'i.'"if f Shepthe which in wavs thatthetraditional (al rnuuE u rl l ()tnef rrU U 4u eov v v "' r' ---- mOdel S , * W hi C h :;:,il:#l'"?iitr'r'rld;'ir;;;; il::l'.lfi mOdel S tO of the because conclusions to inaccurate ,^.roo tt:il#J.';;a"i.ra ^f the rrscof inapProPriatemodels' concept 'fhe chief model which we shall employ is Berger and Luckmann's they examples model; their to Again, there is a timeless asPect .,r i.g,,,-;";F and cultures different from widcly usc to illustrate various points .r. dr.*r, instituafter arises which Legitimation i, defined by them as a Process of thl need to justiff .tiq :*pltin those .()rs havebeen created. It arisesb...ur. 'criods. but who did not initially construct rrrstitutions to individuals whom they affect those who are questioning their validity' rlrcr', or to .*ptii. their validity to the most important d.r.ribe four levels of legitimation; llcrgcr .nd ,.t.k*"rr. under which the "canopy" a is describedis rr trratof the ,r;ff;;;;.rtlt all institutions are placed' rrrrlividual,his p.rr rr,d future, his relationships,-and referri"g:o-it an individBy rrrtl which gives them all a place.;;;..ning'e0 vhen the legitiand.why' belongs, she rrrl knows who he or she is, where he or new symbols or of creation th-e in it it-r.r"tts ,rrcy of instituti;;; ir;".rtion.al has great value when one attempts to rlrc cxplication of old orr.r. This model for ministry. Clement and lgnltils'. rurtlcrsund the development of the have of leadershipinstitutions which cxrrrrple,may be described., t.gi,iiators 'interested to see how they use symbols shared ( onre under attack. We shall be local leaders,and how they contriwrrh tlre group to justify ,t. .uifroriry "f i'e', the extensionof the canoPy' lrtrrcdto the buildirig of iurther instituiions, been misused in the attemPt to also have As in the caseof ideal tyPes,models the early church' John G' Gager is a r1,ply insights iroi tt. ,olirt sciencesto that models are a heuristic means g,xxl cxample of a scholar who has forgotten and Comrnunity: a."." tt his"book entitled Kingdom lrclp una.r*,iJLrrv 'I hr .sorjal wora t1 porty christianiry, Glg-.t argues that the social sciencescan can only tfr. ..ity Ciristiils.e2 This is false:they 1,r.vidc n.* d.r"-.onc.rning which data h.y facilitate the discovery of lrclp rrisc new questions *hictrih.t however' More importantly' wcrc rlway, th.i. but which had been parsed over' he choosesfor comparative model the fit to frc lorces the New Testament data L. Festingerand others' Festinger rrrrlysis.The modcl he usesis borrowed from millenarian gtoupt often engagein .f l*tcs that contemPorary,ro.ially deprived their prediction of a cerrnission activity rather than disintegratewhen this resultsin what he calls rrrrr tlrrc ftrr thc Sccond Co-irrf is proved Incorrect; 'rrrcr ,.r.grrrtive dissonancc" and h. irgt., that.this is overcome by increasedproseexpectation in the early 11.rrrr,')l (iagcr argucs that a siililarly disappointed He contends that the death of ,lr*rr lr rcc.unts ftrr its cmpSasison inission' which disconfirmcdtheir belicf in him ^ ^t- -:-' fr.rrrrlrrcsctttctlr crisis for his dir.ipt.', o^ rr Mrtsi"ll rr"l rn'rllt"tl i" t "i""t"t'"-l'o:"- -^'-^^l^r l( l 11 lntrtuluction c r r ly ( llr rrs ri rrr* ..t,,,* ,,,,,r. .* .r: cvcr' ltc rlt ttrc evi<Jence t() the contrary; he serects 'vcrl''ks rrrrdel..Scc'rrdry his data to fit the he rrrusr ,rr"r,1.r*rr;;t;.;;;;#ns his ultir'atc fate - a t'pic "r,ritirt, concerning ah'ut which ,t itlnsufficient .rr'id.n.. any firm c'nclusi'ns' Furthcr, to arrive at ".. he rnusr rir;;;.t the earry christians expected Jesus to return.on a specified date. It is most important that there be a parallel hereor theentire.n,.rp.ir. airr.,,r,., ir," .r.ty bt,.irti"";rJ;rong logical beliefsis withou't d;;;, eschato_ ;";;-h;;; ;';t evidence,rrri*.y time of christ's return' Indeed specified a one may draw the opposite concrusionfrom the evidence;in Mark 13:32y.ru,,admits-b;;;;. of the precisetime of the Parousiaand2 pet. 3:g 1"*iirtir,e Iaord;;;';;y is as a th-ousand thousandyears.t: years,and a 9T d^y" -. ,..* crg.r d; asevidenceof a revision ing rrom the initiar arisdi'confi.-.uo1) the fact that short of a global testimony dy d;q"irr,nr.qp;;;J; to ..oroophe the ct,,irtirn dottrine of christ,s second coming is in fact;*-fri;;rur.. rro*;;;". interprets-rii prr.ine sage'thereis no evidence,rrt, ii. earliestct,ririirns predicted parousiapasthe precisiondemandedin the with ord.. fo..ogJtirr;;lrro,r"nce to arise.Thus Gager postulatesconnectionswhere ii.r. are none and forces the evidenceto fit his models,which arethen used tofiitrt. tr.u-n*liiir,o.i."r evidence. Both ideattvpesand moders J"-lo_,,J;;;;.g. in ...;;;;ri* rcscarchof the earlychristian sociorogicar thu..h. They...r-nl, g.n...ti help us to asknew questions. data;they canonry In subseq;.;;.e*rJ* hope. ,rro_ that they hclp us t. raisevafuabre unaskeduy ,.t or.* il"-hr"e ;;;;"r emproyed in thei*i*po :f[: ffiilf;:'.1sics 'l'' to discover theorigins anddeveropment The Strategy lglirt a lirll appreciati,nof the rolc of householders in the communities sclcctcdftrr irrvesiigati.n t ..", i,.wilt be fi.rt to frrrii. . survey househ.rd in anteuiry. ";;;;; of the wc ,t,.rt .";;;;;;;r.'ilrr, on the traditionarGraeco_ R.man houschord,.ni ,tr*-iurn to a discussionof pagan organizedaronghousehord ,nl-j.rirh groups rines.This will p;;;;. to house-thu'Jhptoonr-.r irri"n;;;.jr. r". rooking ^ il church'sJ-ry'L.d.rr. T-hisis fo'owed bv a chapteron the .rrid.n.. rr"ur.*rr"..rrl..a.rrrrip tainedin the Pauline."rpur.-i;is "f.h;ur. ;;;.;.nI con_ chapter-;ili';.""ide us settingfrom which ," .pp*.i-it. firm -iit-.*..trtirr.ty H.r-as direct evidenceto subsiantirt.-ou. rrri.l".u-intr. providesthe most thesis.il; shall anaiysethe problems as cha,**:i:ai,*'"-;ri;;;"ns ru!ft"':;ny'*l't,'* ries'I clementwit provia.u, *ith an buildingroreof cr.-.r,r,rllil "pd;;;;',il:"t:t1:'J:: rT:TIr::#j;: a, tr* ciiinri,rn community,andthedever_ opmentof house-church readership charismatic leaderwho usediir',p.irrit.g.a ,4,;rl,;;"Iii.tiu, w1r be discussed as a as !"rirjon a potentiar christ to estabrish martyr for more;.e;1..rq.rrfrin J;;;*, in theAsiaMinor com_ ;il;ff :j1,il j::*liy:{ffi..,l.t intheh,,u sc-cr,,,rcr,se tti Notes PatrumLatina30, P. 880A); Epistle146 (Corpus I Oonrm.in Tit. 1:3 (Migne Bibliotheca Latinontm56). Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum B. Pauli in Epistulas ). Iip. ad Tim. I J:8 (H.8. Swete, ed.,TheodoriEpixopiMopsuesteni Cam(Cambridge: II. Vol. Fragmens. the Creek Oonrmentai.The idtin Versionwith pp.117ff. 1882), Press, lrridgeUniversity I SummaTheologka ll,2 quaal 784, art.6. etprimatupapaen. 60ff' de potestate 'l SrlrnralkaldicArticla(1547) Tractatus 'r Scss.)C(III canon7. t' I Irl l , 1640,pp. 17f . / l'p. 303f.;atsopAf[, 1727,pp. 69f.; 1770;Hildebrand, 7745,Pp' 9f'; Mosheim,1753' pp.125 f . x Vol. 1,pp. 24-33. ', f tf]7, pp.35l-92; similarly,Bunsen, 1847,pp.85f., 129f.;Lightfoot, 1888;Telfer, l ()62,pp. 69f . Itt f rfXr, pp.467ff.,609ff.(Engtishtranslation1842,pp.145ff.;169ff')' | | ttt35,pp. 84f.; 1838,pp. 59f.;first published1863(Englishtranslation1873,Vol.2, | .' || ll | ', f r, || I tt f ', jrt .'| I tt57,pp.415f.,432f.,441f. lHtt0,pp. l94ff. l:rrstpublished1953(Englishtranslation1969,pp. 76ff.). 1961,pp. 70f.,passim). l'rrstpublished1959(Englishtranslation 1t11,4, pp.63ff.;1969,pp.236ff. | H{,6,pp. 351f.In tSOelfaulus, p. 257) Renanarguedthat parallelscouldbe drawn and Christianhousechurches;cf. alsoLiebenam,1890, l,.r*"en household,collegia 272 n. 4. | I Httl , pp. 453f. p.556. 1880,pp.20-29;1887, f H7(,,pp. 465ff.;1877,pp.89ff.; lllT(),pp.542-46. \r lr(frcr (rev. and ed. Fergus,Millar, Black, and Goodman),Vol. 2, 1973f.,pp. .ll7-39; alsoHarvey,1974,pp.318-32(who overstates his case).The moderneviarefar too strong. pp.41-56,but herconclusions ,fcrrtcis listedby Brooten,1982, I r,rrlcncefor rpeoprhepor, (male and female) in some localities(notablyAlexan,lrrr) is insufficient to allow scholarsto draw the strong parallelswhich havebeen ,lrrwrr bcrweenthe synagogue and the earlychurch.It is difhcult to determinein rrrrrtlr of this evidencewhetherthe title was usedhonorificallyor to describememl,crrlrip in a council. Such theoriesleaveunexplainedthe entire lack in the early , hrrrt'hof titles most common in the Jewishepigraphicand literaryevidence.The crr cprion is Epiphanius who notcs that PalestinianEbionites(!) possessed rilrlrtnrvdytoyorand ltpeoBritepor(Panarion 30:18.2;cf. Haer.30:11for rirqp6rqE I r n?). I r1'crrrlly lectures two to four; Hatch also argued for the influence of the syna6 ''}l r r c . pp.21f.; Lietzmann, 1914,pp. 101-105;Porter, 1939,pp. 110ff. | 'crung,, 1889, Wrllcrr, 1972,pp.268ff. (although he is somewhat equivocal:comParepp.279 nd .tr{l), rfstr Oourttryman, 1977,pp. 135ff.; Meeks, 1983,pp. 77-80; Malherbe, 1983' rrl. tn our view the analogy holds, as we shall see in Chapter One, where l,l, N(, l,,,flr rlrrrrt'h tnd dlegia rclied upon wealthy patrons for the successof their comnr tttt.r l t r l t v t l t a t e t t rl l l rr l rl , l c rs l ri r' t , l rrw n f r, t t rr rl re s a rrrrk s 13 t2 lntroduction 2( r l' gr . llt l . 27 l:or wlrrt lollows we shalloudine the position presentedby him in 1920;for further discussion seeLinton,7g32,1oc.cit. p' l0 (first published1887);for criticism of Harnack,suseof evidenceseepp. " l'lrtl.'' 29 1892;1895;cf Linton, pp.49f- for further discussion.References are to his lg92 publication. le80b, pp. 187r.;for rurther discussion and criticism and chapter " :::j*l*:"' 3l 1900,esp.pp.57-197. 32 Turner, 1921,pp. 93-214. xiif. lisa the conclusionsof the collected essays;more succinctly, " ,TTi ):?r,.nrR. 34 Dix, 7947,pp. 18.3ff.,.!sp. pp. 227-74; (first pubrished rg4s),pp. r9ff., 4gff .1978 Dix pursueda unique line of by contendingthat the ministry aroseout of liturgical practice,much of it "tgu-.nt bJrrowed iirectly from the synagogue. Dix,s conclusions'especiallythoseabout 1 clement,upon *'hi.h much of his argumenrrests,are criticized bvJ.v, re8r,pp.r25ff.Dix (1b78, pp.iir.r .r* tu 3 (r .1 7 s;;.;;?;; toobroadry from Hippolytul ApostoticTraditionto make , .rr. for earlier liturgicat practice. His argumentthat the early eucharistwas mutatis mutandis a,chabfirahirr,i.i everywhere took on normative characteristicsfrom trrit j.*irh religious meal exceeds the bounds of the evidence.His contention 1pp. soey that-the Lrrr i,rpper was a chabarah becomescircularwhen he usesevidince drawn from late' t iu,aa*prayers in gapswhere evidenceconcerningJesus' p.ry., is lacking1r., .rp..iatty pp. ;X-li byF.l*.: pp.113-82. rhiswhore approach has lillllil::::::::y_:9j::1 corffe rrnder incrersing attack; see,e.g., Burke, 1970, pp. 499ff. l f)l l { n n tfv. ltr lfT. E- - - ) :- - l J"il';. pp.r3ef. ( 0f . r ,,,r |(l 2 l l - pp. nn .L- - ^^r I r S(tf.; rr()re rrso ^t.^ the methodorogicar ;r;;;;,t."r'.iJfiiili ," Chapter (::?' )rre. 3tf 1934(llr t97t); ftrrtlrerdiscussion of his theoriesappearin subsequent chapters. 39 The fruit of sucfl may be discovered in Wilk.n, lgll. ]aUo11 40 For exampleVall6.e, lggl (shortversion,19g0,pp. I 74ft.). 4l For examplepagels,lg7g. 42 Robinsonand Kbester,lg7l,esp. pp. lJ_16,l14ff. 43 Linton, 7932, 132-3.fnognt twentieth-centuryapproaches to the probrem of ,pp. early church leadershipinio four categories and providesexamplesof each: texigraphical(focusing k.y terms),.th."otogi.ri lerl-,phasizing the transcendentand often idealorigins 9l church),'histori..I1..n'rring on recoverabledataand chro.of$e nology)' and sociologcal. our ipproach falis within Linton,s rourit generalcategory and will be explicatedin the next section. 44 Philosophicalqutttion, of reductionism, the implicationsof sociologyfor a doctrine of Providence,and the relation between ,oJi.t determinism and free will are large topics which falt outside the confines of this discussion.\[hii; many nineteenth-centurysociotogistslike Durkheim were reductionist,contemporarysociologistsmake more modist craims.A dj:Ts;n 1n",.r*.y, .or^rinffi of the topic of freewi[ canbe-found in Berger, pp.i+zn;u.r*;'il;iix.r, r98t,pp. .rgq, 92ff' Berger also discussesthe rltationrrtip;;;;; sociologicalexp6nationsand the ultimate referenceof.theorogicar statem.nrr,,.. r g67,pp. r7gff. 45 Gill, 1977,hascoinedthis term"inhis . discussion .l (r P p.145ff.; 42gf t . ( ETpp. 10f . ) Her ef er st oBeza( 1519- 1605) andEr asm us (pp' 430' 431)' dqog-tsl6) in partialsupport 1 1 6. 47 I'p. 7 6ff.,especiallY .ltl tAlZ, pp. S4ff.lVitringa, 169-6,y2:9' 2, P'16)' g6i.;186i(Englishtranslation7879,Vo1' {r) 1835,pp. 82,g4f.;idl"g,'pp. pp.444f . 'r() 1881, 'rl Itt97,pp. 6ff. pp.7 74f f . \l 1901, ' \l 1921,V;1. 4, PP.2279ft.,esP'2287 often the church'spatrons'but presbytefs.:vere \.1 I larnack,1884,p.l42argued that episcopacy' lre did not draw..orrrr".Iion betweenhospitality.end 1985'pp' account'(summarizedin snyder' \5 Kraeling, 1967,pr*id., an exhaustive a private was postulates.toocon6dentlythat it 69-71);cf. alsoH;;ki;;,7iig,who Gerkan' von the third century; similarly' placeof worship bifore its conversio. i. t964. \t 1939,pp. 105ff. V 1978,pp . 16f f . from primarilv tobedrawn seems rhis conclusion ll iiil?ior!,I*,esp. 165f.,.17-1. to suspect highly not it is but 258), (d. rlrc letters(especiallyEpistle7; of Cyprian the for an earlier seaing?The burden of rlgge from such l"te, e.ridenceto "..o,rrr, from buildinp .trliest Christiansowned i, o' tnoi" *lro contend il;;h; for support' 1lry:t convincinglv rlrc start.white, lsu2,.aauting;l;;;ii;;": 'rr.f mCetingpto semi-publichousechurches t'r a developmentfrom privat -froui.hold the third and fourth century' lrke that.t Our. to the dimuseccleshof aal lispecially ChaPters One and Two' l .l l:or referen.. t.. Chapter Two below' Klruck,1981,PP.63ff. l'rrstin 1984,pp. gZff.,andagainin 1985'pp' 886-901'folnd in Rordore lg64'pp' 110ff' and ft.0 A tliscussionof the literary evidence[],t" evidenceis discussedby Snyder' t)rssmann,1985,pp.886ff.; th..r.#oiogical cited' i';;i, pp. 6zn, *here relevantliteratureis also beganoffering essaysemployinga who proneer ( l.t lcrtl rheissen is a contemporary in teaZ;' Hii conclusionsregardr,x.rrlogicalmethodologyin 1973(most collected anticipatedbyJudge' 1960b Christians-were the well-to-do ,t",,t-, of someearly r116 Meeks, 1983 and Elliott' 1985'pp' rrrd restatedby G6lzow, 1974,pp. i6lff. See ?7-34,for bibliograPhy. llt l' 573(his italics). pP' 15-16' aresummarizedby Funk, 1976,pp'4-22,esP' tr l I lrerrconcerns 437 1974'p' Keck ' is criticizedby ,JI I freir nrethodology ' I t'l t'ttctt by Burke,1980,P. 19' the a useful summaryof the relationshipbetween 'l l lfrrrkc, 1980, pp. l3-2gprovides in relationship the for 3ff' pp. rl^r rplines over the years; cf. Hofstadter, 1968; r.j t. I A t r r c r icr . I I I'lrrrrrrdale;1959,PP. 59f' ', r t f p r c t , 1 9 6 8 ,P'2 2 . 'I I l r c t r s cn ,l 9 tf2 , p p . 1 7 6 - 7 7 . '1 l l 'r r l , p. t7 7 . "r I rrf wirrt f.rtltrwscl ibid', pp' l77ff' '1 . l r l l r . l .n n .2 ( r l f 7t l lbid. ,p ,z ((r. 79 lbid. ,p .2 6 7 . 80 1949,p.90. ql ts7s,pp.t_23. rucket t, 1e87, pp.t46r.ror rurther discussion. ii i3*: i: \ltcc u+ tsorthoroueh discu5slon seeWiller,1967. e85, pp, ;io:;';jji;;:;ffi;l':",, -,o ff ffilfi' 87 1975,p.5.' 88 Themodelis *'out f llt;ljji:' in teTt'pp'110ffIt ispresented more runyinchapter Four. Chapter One The Household in the Ancient IVorld 9l The review bv ls7e,pp. e5-e6 ofFers simitar criticisms. f S.J.,i;fi3 Thomas, ,, described in ibid., pp.3ef. ;; ;ff:r;? 95 lhid, ,pp .2 4 ,2 t7 f. ln this chapterwe shall presenta generaldiscussionof the Graeco-Roman lrourcholdin antiquity.A largetopic such asthis must be limited hereto a brief utrvey, which will provide a more generalcontextfor the argumentpresented ttt rubsequentchapters.The discussionwill be dividedinto nvo parts.First, the lcrrerrl contours of the traditional Greek and Roman household will be prcrcntcd.Here, literaryevidencewill be largelyrelied upon. In the secondpart wc rhrll alsoturn our attentionto epigraphicevidenceand arguefor the imporunce of the householdand its patronsin the life and organizationof various ( lrreco-Romangroups. The Traditional Graeco-Roman Household 'l'lre basiceconomic,political, and religious social unit of antiquity was the household. Generallyspeaking,the ancient householdwas composedof nvo clctnents:the olrog and the oir[cr. The olroE wasconstitutedby the habiatton with all of its property,power,and possessions and the olx[a consistedof thc rclatives,clienteh,and servants.lThe Latin equivalentof the olroy'otr(cr urrit is thedomus/familia. Finley definesf miliaas"all the persons,free or unfree, ttttder the authority of the paterfamilias, the head of the household,or all the dcrccndantsfrom a common ancestor;or all one'sproperty;or simply all one's Frvlnts. The Septuaginttranslatesthe Hebr* *ori n'a by both okog rnd olr(cr.3 Olxoy'oi,r[a is used in the Septuaglntto designrt . physicai rfwclling(Esther2:3;7;8), the family of a patriarch(Gen. 50:8; 1 Sam.l:21) trrcfuding his wife, concubine,sonsand daughters(Gen. 36:6),dependentrelattvcs(Gen. 13:1),servants(Gen. 75:2),vassals(Gen. 14:14)and slaves(Gen. 17:13-27),a clan (2 Sam.9:4), or domesticpropertywith its privileges,tools, rfrvcs,and livestock(Dt. 20217;Esther8:1).4It is imporrantto note, especially ttr the caseof the Roman.;frmilia, that the family wasnot a staticsocialphenometton, but underwenta significantdevelopmentin the courseof antiquity.sStill, tlrc householdremainedan important institution economically,politically,and rcligiouslythroughoutthe periodof Graeco-Romancivilization. Notes to this chapterappearon pp. 24-28. #i'#,r,'{# , . ' q r' , : ir$i1#r, 4, "r , ,' '- ?r*'.. ii, " .,i* . ..' r Fclc'usstxc ou three first- and carl-y-se-cond-century clocumcnts(the S ht' p111.1i of Her m as, 1 Clem ent and t he I gnat ian cpist les) t, his r vor k cotrtrilrttte'sto a grort'ing bocly of litcrature conccrne.drt'ith the sqcial setti ng of ear ly Chr ist ianit y.I v{aierar guest hat t he clevekr pm entof stnrcturts of leaclc- r ship in t hc car ly Chr ist iar nchur ch is bcst account cd for by rcfcrc'nceto the hospitality,p.rtrclnage,arrd leaciershipof rvcal thl ,host s n'ho invit c- dlocal Chr ist ian gr oups t o m cct in t heir homcs. Sociologicalmorlcls ancl t1'pcsare cmploycd to analvzc the tcnsions that arose frorn excessesof 1'xrtlsnagearrclleaclershif-r by the f $' w ' el l -to-c1 o. Re-cognizingthe socio-economicse-ttingof thcsc conflicts corrects thc interl'rretationof early Christian conflicts ovcr the ministry as purcl y thcologicaland doct r inal. ll IJ v h Hn'nnv O. Mntrn is associateprofessor of Nerv Tcstanrentstudics at the \/ancouver school of Theolog\',felloiv of Cre.enCollege at the ur-ri'ersitv of British Columbia, ancl fellorv of the Alcxancicrvon I funrbolclt Foundation. "Thebookis wellwrittenand wellargued...one of itsstrengths is the summaryof scholarship on every main point.This is done smoothly, nottediously." - CarolynOsiek,R.S.C.J. CatholicTheological Union,Chicago The CatholicBiblical Quarterly ".. .he hasputan important pieceof thepuzzlein place." - WayneA. Meeks, Journalof Theotogicatsfudies "...animaginative and stimulating application of new methodsto oldproblems." - MichaelHollerich, SantaClaraUniversity TheologicalStudies s{ Wilfrid Laurier University Press I i illl lillllllll ll illllll