The Letter of the Roman Church to the Corinthian Church from the Era of Domitian: 1 Clement: With a Collection of Articles on 1 Clement by Adolf von Harnack

By Adolf von Harnack and Larry L. Welborn

This farewell gift on 1 Clement to Harnack's students of church history was formative for studies of 1 Clement for several decades after its publication, and it remains an influential work even in contemporary discussions of this ancient letter. Harnack contends that 1 Clement is the most important witness to early Christianity, and that a close study of this work will place the reader upon the right path to better understand its later developments. Also included within this volume are four influential essays that Harnack wrote throughout his career pertaining to 1 Clement as well as a historical introduction and assessment of Harnack's work by Larry Welborn.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Pickwick Publications
• Release date: Feb 4, 2021
• ISBN: 9781725273801

Book preview

Preface

With the publication of the following pages, I conclude my seminar on Church History, which I led in Leipzig, Gießen, Marburg, and Berlin for fifty-four years (1874–1928) and which was the focus of my academic work. A large number of studies on church history and monographs by fellow students have come out of the seminar, but I have certainly learned more from these exercises than did my students. For this, I thank them most sincerely, but above all I thank them for the cordial trust I have always found to be characteristic of them. These pages are my farewell. They are to remind my colleagues of the spirit shared in the hours on Thursday evenings. It was a serious and a joyful spirit. May it remain true with them even in difficult times. — Non potest non laetari qui sperat in domino!

Berlin, June 1929

von Harnack

Introduction

The deepest gratitude that Christianity owes to tradition relates to the collection and preservation of the writings of the New Testament. However, next to the transmission of the New Testament is the most important foundational document (Urkunde) we have received from the earliest history of the church: the so-called 1 Clement, that is, the extensive letter from the Roman Church, the congregation of the capital of the world, to the Corinthian Church, the congregation of the Greek metropolis, which originated during the reign of Domitian. Rome and Greece appear here together in the transition from the apostolic age to the post-apostolic age, and Rome is the spokeswoman. This is of utmost importance; but the requisite consequence does not follow from this fact. Neither the Roman Church, which is primarily in view in this letter, nor the Protestant churches, nor historical-theological scholarship appreciate this writing as it deserves in their research and teaching. What it is ultimately about can be summarized in one sentence: From the New Testament writings, one cannot grasp the essence and spiritual structure of the great church of the Greeks and Romans, how it was formed in the first century and how it became the mother of all churches—one can only approach it tentatively and with uncertainty from here—however, in 1 Clement, the oldest church of the Gentiles presents itself in spirit and essence, and one can by means of simple analysis both ascertain its elements and foresee its continued development into the Catholic Church. Therefore, this letter forms directly the foundation for the study of the ancient history of the church, while the majority of the writings compiled in the New Testament are testimonies to the short, paleontological epoch¹ (so to speak) of the history of Christianity. This classical epoch has been denied a direct continuation.²

From here arises the necessary conclusion that the study of ancient church history must begin with 1 Clement, since there is no other foundational document (Urkunde) that is able to compete with it with respect to its historical significance. From this insight, the following work emerged: a presentation in an elementary form that does not deal with many individual and sublime foundational questions.³ It is a necessary addition to the textbooks that exist on church history and hopes to introduce every student of theology to the most ancient history of the church through 1 Clement. If this happens, the student will be placed upon a firm foundation, will understand the development that begins here, and will be protected from the greatest danger that lurks here, namely overestimating particular phenomena (e.g., primitive, gnostic) within the development of the earliest history of the church, and letting it cloud one’s view of the main elements. The one who has worked through and understood 1 Clement is immune to the mistakes of taking a measure of the particular phenomena of the most ancient church history and substituting a distorted, generalized picture in place of the genuine one.⁴

We have excellent detailed commentaries on the letter, especially those by Lightfoot (1890)⁵ and by Knopf (1920)⁶—see also my commentary (1876)⁷—and I can only hope that they are being worked through. They do not, however, make superfluous the attempt to target directly the historical understanding of this foundational document (Urkunde) directly through analysis, and at the same time to introduce it into the basic repertoire of theological education. Therefore, I have also provided a German translation⁸ here, partly to explain the letter through the translation itself, and partly to make it possible for those who still have difficulties reading it in the original language, because unfortunately we must reckon with this state of affairs in a large number of students. However, they too should interact with the explanations and remarks given here, which in many cases refer to the Greek text.⁹

When I published the letter together with my friend von Gebhardt (†) in 1875, there was only one manuscript, and that manuscript itself was incomplete. Today, we have six, not more or less indifferent copies,¹⁰ but rather six principal manuscripts (two Greek, one Old Latin, one Old Syriac, and two Coptic). The transmission of the letter is therefore firmly established, and also in this respect (the richness and goodness of ancient tradition) it comes alongside the writings of the New Testament. The manuscript discoveries of the last fifty years have not come anywhere near as close to any ancient Christian writing like that of 1 Clement. They also show the high esteem in which the writing was held in ecclesiastical antiquity. It is the purpose of this work to give back to it—a letter that had been entirely forgotten from the thirteenth to the seventeenth century, which then gradually reappeared—its status as the oldest and most distinguished foundational document (Urkunde) of the ancient church of the Greeks and the Romans. By following my monograph on Marcion published nine years ago with such a monograph on 1 Clement, I am guided by the intention to make the two most important phenomena of the post-apostolic age as clear and bright as possible and to influence the teaching of church history accordingly, this time in a form expressly intended for students since I often treated 1 Clement in seminars and gave a one hour lecture on it in the winter semester of 1928/1929.

The noble, in the best sense of the word, letter of 1 Clement belongs to the Church of Rome; even today it may strengthen its Catholic self-confidence. The peace treaty between the Vatican and Fascist Italy that we have just witnessed has rekindled this self-confidence. An eloquent proof of this is the treatise by the important Italian church historian Chiappelli Gesù e Roma (Nuova Antologia, Nov. 1, 1928) with the motto from Dante Di quella Roma onde Cristo è Romano. Here, Jesus and Rome—strangely without respect to 1 Clement—are presented according to a hyper-historical method as the great syzygy, chosen by Jesus, who has determined and dominated the history of the church. Forty-three years ago, in a chapter entitled Katholisch und Römisch in the first edition of my Lehrbuches der Dogmengeschichte¹¹—which is as far as I know the first in Protestant historiography—I established the historical connection between these two great phenomena of church history and strengthened this proof in subsequent editions. But to form the syzygy Jesus and Rome lies outside critical-historical possibility and can only be achieved by political speculation which leaves the domain of real history. Nevertheless, Chiappelli tried it and placed the eternal Rome according to the wish of Jesus (!) on the throne next to Jesus. Fascist Italy and the Roman Church will gratefully welcome this new theology of history, but historical research must reject it and at the same time fear that eccentric speculation will discredit the true realization that Catholic and Roman really belong very closely together. Jesus and Rome cannot be connected with each other on any historical line without the mediating role of Hellenism and the Greek Church.

1

. TN: Harnack uses the expression paläontologische Epoche numerous times throughout his works. Christoph Markschies explains that Harnack’s use of the expression refers to the entire writings of Early Christianity from the first three centuries ("Harnack’s Image of

1

Clement and Contemporary Research,"

58

). For a more in depth explanation of Harnack’s usage of this expression and its meaning, see Markschies, "Harnack’s Image of

1

Clement and Contemporary Research,"

59

–

60

.

2

. The distinction made here is not to be understood as an absolute distinction. From the New Testament writings, lines can be drawn to the nascent Catholic Church, and, on the other hand,

1

Clement evidences original Christian features of the first order. Nevertheless, in the main, the distinction rightly exists.

3

. The predecessor of this work is an investigation which I published in

1909

in the proceedings of the Prussian Academy, Der erste Klemensbrief. Eine Studie zur Bestimmung des Charakters des ältesten Heidenchristenums (translated in this volume under the title The First Letter of Clement: A Study to Determine the Character of the Oldest Form of Gentile Christianity,

144–168

). I have taken over a number of lengthy constructions, word-for-word, from that publication, and so this new work can be understood as a greatly expanded and augmented reworking of the earlier one. Among the foundational questions, I consider to be of significance those that pertain to the emergence of church law and, similarly, those which one can and has linked with the letter. Whether and to what extent one wishes to deal with them must remain open.

4

. One could argue that the doctrinal development of the church in the following period could not be understood from

1

Clement, because it remains silent about the heresies. Yet this argument is inaccurate. Granted, one cannot foresee from this letter what theses and in what forms the heresies would appear; nevertheless, how the churches will answer them with firm doctrines of faith and knowledge is clearly evident in it, and this is the main point because it will determine the fight decisively. But what it contains about the moral and ecclesiastical principles of life, about the community in order and worship, and about ministry is to be taken as the immediate starting point for subsequent developments.

5

. Lightfoot, Clement of Rome, vol.

1

.

6

. Knopf, Die Lehre der Zwölf Apostel.

7

. Gebhardt and Harnack, Patrum Apostolicorum Opera.

8

. TN: Here rendered into English.

9

. With these remarks, I do not intend to explain the letter with an evenly prepared commentary, but instead I have deliberately proceeded eclectically and have essentially limited myself to what I deemed necessary for the purpose of this work. With regard to translation, I am grateful to older translations for some apt expressions. I have not, however, compared them methodically.

10

. TN: Harnack’s use of gleichgültige (indifferent) establishes, by way of contrast, the value of all extant manuscripts. Among the extant manuscripts of

1

Clement, none are insignificant.

11

. Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte.

1. The Transmission of the Letter

Codex A = Codex Alexandrinus, fifth century, in the British Museum,¹² which contains the entire Bible. The letter is at the end of the New Testament, after Revelation. The Patriarch Cyrillus Lukaris gifted this codex to the king of England in the year 1628. Junius published it in the year 1633. It lacks a leaf (1 Clem 57.6–63, to the end). Otherwise, the codex has defects due to damage to the edges and illegibility. A phototype was produced in 1879.

Codex H¹³ = Codex Hierosolymitanus (Patriarchal Library), written in the year 1056, discovered and published (1875) by Bryennios. The letter is placed after Barnabas and before 2 Clement and the Didache (thus placed together with the antilegomena, but not among the works of the New Testament). A photographical facsimile is in Lightfoot’s edition, published in 1890.

Codex S = A Syriac codex (Cambridge, Add. Mss. 1700), written in the year 1170, described and first used by Lightfoot (loc. cit.), published by Bensly and Kennet (1899). The letter is within the New Testament, after the Catholic Epistles and before 2 Clement and the Pauline Epistles, and is divided into lections.

Codex L = A Latin codex (Seminary at Namur, previously the Monastery of Florennes) from the eleventh century. The translation however probably belongs to the second century. The codex was discovered and published by Morin (Maredsous, 1894). The letter stands in a miscellaneous collection, after the letter of Pseudo Clement to James and before Bede’s De locis sanctis.

Codex C¹ = A Coptic codex¹⁴ (papyrus, Akhmimic dialect, housed in the Staatsbibliothek of Berlin, formerly in the White Monastery of Shenute), fourth century, or (early) fifth. Five leaves (1 Clem 34.5—42.2) have been lost. The codex was discovered and published by Karl Schmidt, Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, vol. 32.1, 1908.

Codex C² = A Coptic codex¹⁵ (papyrus, Akhmimic dialect, but a different translation than C¹, Straßburg, probably fifth century, preserved only in fragments, extending to around 1 Clem 26. Edited by F. Rösch, Bruchstücke des 1 Clemensbriefs (Straßburg: M. Du Mont Schauberg, 1910).

In the indirect tradition, only Clement of Alexandria (containing numerous quotations and allusions) is of both great and substantial significance.

All the manuscripts are valuable, and not a one of them is clearly better than the others (A is not much better than H); C¹ and C² are closer to AH than S and L.

If SL agree with one of the four manuscripts (AHC¹C²), there is a very high probability that it is the original reading; agreement between AHC¹C² does not however guarantee the correctness of the reading. Very sparse are the cases in which a singular manuscript has preserved the correct reading; nevertheless, even S and L sometimes have a singular reading that is correct. The history of the letter, which begins with Ignatius, Polycarp, Hermas, Dionysius of Corinth, Hegesippus, and Irenaeus, thus presenting itself in an incomparably good series of witnesses,¹⁶ cannot be dealt with in short; it is however discussed in detail by me in my edition Patrum Apostolicicorum Opera (1876)¹⁷ and in my Altchristlichen Literaturgeschichte I (1893).¹⁸

12. TN: In Harnack’s day, Codex Alexandrinus was housed in the British Museum, of which the Library was a part. However, the Library detached itself from the British Museum in 1972. Codex Alexandrinus is, therefore, no longer housed in the Museum but instead within the British Library.

13. TN: In previous works, Harnack has used the abbreviation C for this manuscript because it was often called Codex Constantinopolitanus. This practice has inadvertently bled into this work, despite the fact that he claims to use the abbreviation H here. This inconsistency has been repaired within this translation.

14. TN: This codex is also known as Codex Berolinensis.

15. TN: This codex is also known as Codex Argentinensis.

16. Ignatius writes to the Romans (3:1), You have never mistreated anyone, you have taught others . . . It is highly probable that this refers to 1 Clement.

In his letter to Philippi, Polycarp used numerous passages from 1 Peter and 1 Clement without naming his sources. (He proceeds differently, however, with respect to Paul.)

Hermas (Vis. II.4) claims to have received the following order from the church in the form of an old woman, "Write two books and send one to Clement, the other to Grapte. Clement should then send it to the cities abroad. For this is his duty (ἐπιτέτραπται: the word is unfortunately ambiguous—ad hoc or entirely?), but Grapte should instruct the widows and orphans." It is generally accepted that the Clement mentioned is our Clement, and that the reference here is to 1 Clement.

Eusebius writes, A letter to the Romans is circulated also by Dionysius (bishop of Corinth, ca. 170) with the address to the then bishop Soter . . .. In this letter, Dionysius also mentions the letter of Clement to the Corinthians, stating that this letter has been read in the Corinthian Church for a long time due to old habits. His words are as follows, ‘Today we have observed the holy day of the Lord, on which we have read your letter aloud, which we will continue to read [in the church assembly] for our admonition, as well as the previous one which you wrote to us through Clement’ (Hist. eccl.