Studies on First Clement

Studies on First Clement

William Wrede

Edited and translated by

Jacob N. Cerone

Foreword by Clare K. Rothschild

Studies on First Clement

Classic Studies on the Apostolic Fathers

3

Copyright ©

2023

Jacob N. Cerone. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers,

199

W.

8

th Ave., Suite

3

, Eugene, OR

97401

.

Pickwick Publications

An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers

199

W.

8

th Ave., Suite

3

Eugene, OR

97401

www.wipfandstock.com

paperback isbn: 978-1-7252-9944-3

hardcover isbn: 978-1-7252-9943-6

ebook isbn: 978-1-7252-9942-9

Cataloguing-in-Publication data:

Names: Wrede, William,

1859–1906, author. | Cerone, Jacob N., editor and translator. | Rothschild, Clare K., foreword.

Title: Studies on First Clement / by William Wrede ; edited and translated by Jacob N. Cerone ; foreword by Clare K. Rothschild.

Description: Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications,

2023.

| Classic Studies on the Apostolic Fathers

3

. | Includes bibliographical references and index.

Identifiers:

isbn 978-1-7252-9944-3

(paperback). |

isbn 978-1-7252-9943-6

(hardcover). |

isbn 978-1-7252-9942-9

(ebook).

Subjects: LCSH: Clement,

1

st—Criticism, interpretation, etc. | First epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (Clement I, Pope). | Church history—Primitive and early church.

Classification: BS

2675.2

W

2022

(print). | BS

2675.2

(ebook)

05/24/23

Table of Contents

Title Page

Series Foreword

Preface by Jacob N. Cerone

Acknowledgments by Jacob N. Cerone

Foreword by Clare K. Rothschild

Acknowledgments by William Wrede

I. The Conditions of the Corinthian Church Presupposed in 1 Clement

A. The Character of the Letter in Its Individual Purpose

B. The Fixed Points

C. The Constitution of the Congregation

D. The ἀρχηγοὶ τῆς στάσεως

E. The Reason for Their Reputation (1 Clem. 38 and 48)

F. Subject and Cause of the Dispute

G. Limits of the Interpretation of the Letter

II. First Clement and the Old Testament

A. Introduction

B. Appearance of the Use of the Old Testament

C. Christianity of the Old Testament

D. Paraenetic Use of the Scriptures and Utilization of the Scriptures as Prophecy (γνῶσις)

E. Law

F. Christ and the Old Testament

G. Significance of the Old Testament for the Overall Attitude of the Letter

H. The Nationality of the Author

Appendix 1: Theses Which Were Published with the Approval of the Theological Faculty for the Attainment of the Theological Licentiate at the Georg-Augusts-University in Göttingen

Appendix 2: Adolf von Hilgenfeld’s Review of Studies on 1 Clement

Appendix 3: Adolf Jülicher’s Review of Studies on 1 Clement

Appendix 4: William Wrede’s Review of Der erste Clemensbrief. Untersucht und herausgegeben by R. Knopf

Appendix 5: Letters from William Wrede to Adolf von Harnack

Bibliography

Classic Studies on the Apostolic Fathers

Edited by Jeremiah Bailey, George Kalantzis, and Jacob N. Cerone

Classic Studies on the Apostolic Fathers serves two primary purposes. First, it would bring back into print important studies on the Apostolic Fathers. Many of these books can be difficult to find, prohibitively expensive, and often only available in poor condition. Second, it would provide translations of seminal works which have not yet appeared in English. Works would be chosen for the series based on the following factors: 1) Influence. This would include both works of continuing significance and works which shaped the flow of the scholarly conversation but whose theses may have fallen out of favor at the moment. The latter sort of book is often neglected despite the illumination it can provide on the nature of the current consensus. 2) Availability. The series would target books which continue to be frequently cited in modern scholarship, but which have limited availability outside of libraries. Out of print works written between the 1920s and 1980s are still frequently cited and can be hard for even libraries to acquire. 3) Cost of Production. The series would target, at least initially, those works which could be reproduced most easily including works in the public domain which are costly to acquire in printed form and translation projects of a shorter length. Each chosen title would appear in the series with a foreword written by one of the editors or a suitable contributor explaining the importance and significance of the work.

Series Foreword

Classic Studies on the Apostolic Fathers

The late scholar of early Christianity Larry Hurtado described the second century as the Cinderella century, because it occupies the liminal space between the apostolic period of the New Testament and the world of the apologists at the end of the second century and beginning of the third. The post-apostolic era was a vibrant period of development as early Christians struggled to narrate their beliefs about the person of Jesus, decide the structure of their assemblies, find their place in the vastness that was the Roman Empire, and tackle the social issues that arose when a Jewish sect took on a massive influx of gentiles.

Some of the earliest voices of this period are found in the grouping of texts that is commonly called The Apostolic Fathers. These texts are a record of early Christian self-expression composed without the limits of later creeds and bear witness to the hard work of identifying one’s own theological boundaries or rejecting the boundaries that others have created. The presentation of these texts as a collection, however, is an artificial construct of scholarship, which is reflected in the variety of genres found within: the corpus includes epistolary material (both corporate and individual; both pseudepigraphic and genuine), a sermon, an apology, and an apocalypse. In many respects, it is precisely this variety that makes the Apostolic Fathers an excellent entry point to the broader second century.

Even though in the last few decades there has been an increase in interest in the Apostolic Fathers, the volume of scholarship remains small. There are likely many causes for this neglect, but two seem particularly prominent. First is the inherent difficulty of any transitional period to fit comfortably within the delineations of historical scholarship. To those who were trained in New Testament studies, the boundaries of that corpus have more recently tended to exclude the post-apostolic writings, while those trained in Patristics or Late Antiquity sometimes gloss over the second century in favor of the action-packed third and fourth centuries. Hurtado argued (and we agree), however, that the study of the second century makes the scholars working on either side of that century better. When we skip over these texts, we erase important strata of early Christian theological development.

Another significant cause of this neglect is access to scholarship. The student who wishes to study these texts closely is already faced with the challenge of greatly expanding their Koine vocabulary and, if they desire to engage in textual criticism, acquiring Latin, Coptic, and Syriac. Having accomplished these things, the would-be student of the Apostolic Fathers is then confronted by the reality that most of the secondary literature is in German, French, or Italian. In addition, much of the important English language scholarship is out-of-print and/or prohibitively expensive to acquire. Studying these texts beyond a surface level might, therefore, seem quite daunting.

The goal of Classic Studies on the Apostolic Fathers is to bridge this gap by bringing back to print some of the most important but hard-to-find resources in English and by providing translations of important works of scholarship on the Apostolic Fathers into English for the very first time. It is our hope that Classic Studies on the Apostolic Fathers will allow students and scholars to see for themselves the promise of these texts and engage this vital period anew.

—Jeremiah Bailey, George Kalantzis, and Jacob N. Cerone

Preface

Jacob N. Cerone

Georg Friedrich Eduard William Wrede was born to Ernst and Justine Wrede on May 10, 1859, in Bücken (Lower Saxony). His monumental work The Messianic Secret has shaped historical Jesus research since its first appearance in German under the title Das Messiasgeheimnis in 1901. Although it is impossible to escape his work in historical Jesus studies, Wrede’s work on 1 Clement has gone virtually unnoticed outside of Germany for almost 130 years. Though his research on 1 Clement may not be as significant as The Messianic Secret, Wrede’s first work (Erstlingsschrift) is an important part of the history of research. In this preface, I wish to provide a brief sketch of Wrede’s academic studies as well as the historical background for Studies on First Clement.¹

In 1877, Wrede began his theological studies at the University of Leipzig where Adolf von Harnack was one of his instructors. He was quickly identified as an excellent, young student. Agnes von Zahn notes that during this time Wrede belonged to Harnack’s closest circle of friends and later colleagues which gathered for regular meetings around Harnack.² In 1879, however, Harnack left Leipzig for a post in Gießen, and Wrede would depart soon after to continue his theological studies at the University of Göttingen. While at Göttingen, Wrede was taught, influenced, and shaped by the work and thought of Albrecht Ritschl.³

Wrede concluded his theological studies at Göttingen after passing his first theological exam in 1881 and became a teacher at a private school in Liebenburg am Harz for a year.⁴ Thereafter, he continued studying theology at the elite Loccum seminary under the influence of Uhlhorn (1882–1884).⁵ In 1884, he returned to Göttingen as a tutor where he served until 1886.⁶ Six years after passing his first theological exam, he passed his second exam and took up the pastorate in a Lutheran church near his parents.⁷ He would not remain a pastor for long. By November of 1889, Wrede had given up his pastoral post and once again moved close to Göttingen to resume his academic study of the New Testament.⁸

Before officially returning to the University of Göttingen to study for his Licentiate,⁹ Wrede visited his former teacher and mentor, Adolf von Harnack. In a letter to Harnack on June 20, 1889,¹⁰ Wrede reflects on his visit and their discussion about his continuing education. He begins his letter by admitting that he cannot remember the title or the name of the author of a presumably forthcoming work on 1 Clement. He petitions Harnack not only to provide him with the details of this work, if it had indeed appeared in the meantime, but also supply him with information on how to find the most recent bibliography of publications on 1 Clement. At the time of writing, Wrede was still uncertain he would select 1 Clement as the topic for his dissertation, fearing that he might have nothing new to say and only devolve into repeating those who had written on the letter before him.

Wrede did, however, find enough material for a dissertation on 1 Clement, limiting it to the study of the ecclesiastical constitution of the church reflected in the letter and the letter’s relationship to the Old Testament.¹¹ Wrede credits his long-time mentor, Harnack, as the source of his dissertation topic: The occasion which prompted me to deal more closely with the subject of the following work was the statement of my esteemed teacher, Professor Dr. Harnack in Berlin, that a renewed monographic treatment of the questions posed by 1 Clement would be desirable.¹² Less than two years after his official start back at Göttingen, Wrede had completed the requirements for Licentiate, which included an oral examination, a public defense of 27 theses against opponents Johannes Weiss and Heinrich Hackmann on February 21, 1891 at 5 o’clock,¹³ and the publication of Untersuchungenz um 1. Klemensbrief (Studies on First Clement; hereafter Studies) with Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht in 1891.

Almost immediately after the publication of Studies, Wrede received a positive assessment and praise for the work from Harnack. In his letter to Harnack on July 13, 1891,¹⁴ Wrede thanks Harnack for his kind words about his book and shares how much of an encouragement it was for him to receive Harnack’s assessment. Here, we also experience Wrede’s own disappointment in learning that, had he submitted the book to Harnack’s series Texte und Untersuchungen, it would have been accepted without question. Both Harnack’s evaluation of the work and the knowledge that it would have been included in Texte und Untersuchungen prompted Wrede to say, Whether I will immediately continue to work on Clement, I cannot yet say, for the colleges demand all of me. But you have given me a new desire.¹⁵

Wrede’s work, however, did not receive unilateral praise. Hilgenfeld, a prominent member of the Tübingen school,¹⁶ published a review of Studies in 1892 in his journal Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie¹⁷ that clearly reflects the tensions that existed between the Tübingen school and the History of Religions School at that time. Hilgenfeld begins his review with:

The posture of the first publication (Erstlingsschrift) of a gifted young theologian, now a Privatdozent of theology in Göttingen, is quite Harnackian. Though this is not carried out in such a way that Wrede does not dispute some of Harnack’s views, but rather in such a way that he takes the position on pre-Harnackian workers in the field, which is sufficiently known from this side of the divide . . . I share with Lipsius the fate that my views, at the outset, where they are mentioned at all, are almost always disputed, even refuted with exclamation marks, or referred to as strange . . .¹⁸

Hilgenfeld expresses his surprise that Wrede accepts with approval his thesis that the troublemakers within the Corinthian congregation claimed to be endowed by the Spirit with special gifts. However, he himself cannot endorse the main thesis of Wrede’s first study: that at the time πρεσβύτεροι was an official title that described both the ἐπίσκοποι and διάκονοι. Furthermore, Hilgenfeld insists that Clement’s reference to the Old Testament sacrificial order in 1 Clem 44 is intended to draw direct parallels to the Christian ecclesiastical order, despite Wrede’s objections. Finally, Hilgenfeld objects to Wrede’s view that the term πρεσβύτερος describes both the holder of the ecclesiastical office and older men among the laity.

Having voiced his objections to the content of Wrede’s work, Hilgenfeld ends as he began: The author is without a doubt a capable force, but he will be all the more successful the more he keeps himself free from the spell of his school, which, for what it is worth, I neither belong to nor do I wish to banish.¹⁹

Almost immediately thereafter (in August of 1892)—in what can only be seen as a defense of Wrede—Adolf Jülicher published a review of Studies in the Theologische Literaturzeitung.²⁰ Therein, Jülicher expresses his astonishment that so many valuable new points of view could still be contributed to the full understanding of 1 Clement, although so many outstanding researchers of recent times—I mention only Lipsius, Harnack, Lightfoot—have dealt so thoroughly with this very book.²¹ Not only does Wrede make contributions to the main two studies that encompass the book, says Jülicher, he makes significant contributions to related questions in the course of his treatment of the constitution of the church as well as 1 Clement’s relationship to the Old Testament. According to Jülicher, these contributions to the study of 1 Clement can without a doubt be attributed to Wrede’s vast knowledge of the relevant literature, his fair treatment of the sources, and his willingness to learn from a diverse group of scholars—regardless of their affiliation with a particular school of thought. That Jülicher intends to parry Hilgenfeld’s accusation that Wrede has both ignored and slighted his work is confirmed when he writes: "that Lightfoot’s last great work on Clement and the latest editions of Lecher’s work on the post apostolic era and of Hilgendfeld’s Nov. Test. extra can. r. were unavailable to him is not his fault."²²

Jülicher finds little fault in Wrede’s work. Instead of summarizing, analyzing, and critiquing Wrede’s arguments, he highlights Wrede’s caution and prudence, his manner of detailing the degree of probability of each interpretive option, and what could be described as his creed that one should not write unless one knows.²³ When he finally does assess the content of Wrede’s work, he focuses on the second study—Clement and the Old Testament—and petitions the reader to accept Wrede’s judgments unequivocally. Jülicher extols Wrede for his assessment of Clement’s representation of biblical Christianity, of the Old Testament, and of the letter’s character.²⁴ Despite this unbridled praise, the last sentence of his penultimate paragraph reveals that his assessment of Wrede’s first study (i.e., ch. 1 on the constitution of the congregation) may tend toward that of Hilgenfeld’s own. With some degree of flippancy, Jülicher writes: Also, that bishops and deacons were among the πρεσβύτεροι makes less sense to me than the other remarks he makes about ‘elders’ in Clement. Having levelled his only criticism of substance, Jülicher concludes his review by stating that Wrede is a model of careful, learned, sharp-eyed, completely unprejudiced historical research.²⁵

In the years following his publication on 1 Clement, Wrede’s attention shifted to other topics, and it seems he had all but forgotten the letter. In 1892 he published Der Prediger und sein Zuhörer (the preacher and his audience), and in the following year he left his post as Privatdozent at Göttingen for a professorship in Breslau (now the University of Wrocław, Poland). While there, he published Ueber Aufgabe und Methode der sogenannten Neutestamentlichen Theologie (On the Tasks and Method of New Testament Theology) in 1897, and his watershed work Das Messiasgeheimnis (The Messianic Secret) in 1901.

A year after the publication of Messiasgeheimnis, Wrede briefly returned to 1 Clement in his review of Rudolf Knopf’s dissertation on the letter entitled Der erste Clemensbrief (First Clement), which had been published three years earlier (1899) in Harnack’s series Texte und Untersuchungen.²⁶ Wrede’s review of the work can only be characterized as blunt:

Knopf remarks in the Foreword that his work owes its origin in all parts to Harnack’s suggestions. I must say quite frankly that I think differently about the task itself than Harnack and the author. I have not been able to convince myself that a new edition is either desirable or even a need on the basis of the new Latin manuscript.²⁷

. . .

But the edition is now here, and the less I could conceal the expressed concern, the more I would like to emphasize that Knopf not only spent a great deal of effort and care, but also delivered a solid, efficient, well-trained, and—within its limits—certainly not useless work.²⁸

Despite the bluntness and at times harshness of Wrede’s criticisms, we find a number of significant developments and refinements on Wrede’s own thinking about 1 Clement prompted by Knopf’s work. Of greatest significance is the original point of unity between Hilgenfeld and Wrede: the belief that pneumatics were the root cause of the rebellion in Corinth. Wrede writes:

But he [Knopf] also disputes the view that I hold or maintain, that according to chs. 

38

and

48

, it can be inferred that the ringleaders in the Corinthian rebellion against the ministry were pneumatics and had made several claims on the basis of their possession of the πνεῦμα. Here, I agree with Knopf against my former judgments.²⁹

Whereas here Knopf convinces Wrede to retract his former position, in other places Knopf’s more extreme articulations of Wrede’s views prompt Wrede to refine his earlier statements. For instance, both authors view 1 Clem. 4–38 as containing general instruction about the Christian life, and in Studies Wrede goes so far as to say that in some chapters he [the author of 1 Clement] seems to forget completely what actually prompted him to write, and any transparent relation to the practical purpose of the letter disappears.³⁰ However, when Knopf suggests that these chapters seem to have the characteristics of being a whole composed of independent treatises,³¹ Wrede comes to Clement’s defense and demonstrates how the argument flows from one point to the next, connected with Stichworte that are all conditioned by the conduct of the Corinthian rebels as viewed by Clement.³² He clarifies that The insight that not every term (e.g., φιλοξενία) points to a specific flaw in the Corinthian congregation must not be overstretched with the result the interpreter virtually ignores the general context of most of the admonitions and their relationship to the already mentioned deficiencies of the vocal leaders/Corinthian congregation.³³

It is surprising that Wrede published such a candid review of one of Harnack’s students.³⁴ In a private letter Wrede sent Harnack on October 22, 1902, he writes, Finally, I would like to ask you not to misinterpret what I thought it necessary to say frankly in my review of Knopf’s work on 1 Clement.³⁵ He insists that it was a matter of academic conscience and conviction: he could neither convince himself that Knopf had correctly assessed the value of the Latin text nor be convinced of Knopf’s view concerning the composition of the letter. Could there be more behind Wrede’s motives rather than pure, unbiased convictions? Perhaps he felt it necessary to defend his mentor’s own critical edition of 1 Clement; perhaps he felt a tinge of jealousy that Knopf’s work occupied the place in Texte und Untersuchungen, when it could have been his own; or perhaps he saw this as an opportunity to reenter the field of 1 Clement studies? If he had intended to return to 1 Clement later in his career, as Harnack himself did in 1929, we will never know. A lung infection cut Wrede’s short on Nov 23, 1906 at the age of forty-seven, only fifteen years after the publication of Studies on First Clement.³⁶

1

. For an analysis of the work itself, see the Foreword by Clare K. Rothschild in this volume.

2

. Von Zahn, Adolf von Harnack,

49

. Additional members of the close circle were Gregory, Rade, Bornemann, and Loofs.

3

. Ritschl was a substantial influence on Harnack, and Harnack brought his passion for Ritschl to Leipzig where a select group of students read his work Instruction in the Christian Religion. After Harnack left Leipzig, it was time for Wrede to study under the man himself as his personal student. Cf. Rollman, Wrede, William,

1056

.

4

.