Prior to his death in 2004, Thomas J. Herron (PhD, biblical theology, Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome) served as an official of the Vatican Congregation for the doctrine of the Faith and was an English-language secretary for Cardinal Ratzinger (later Benedict XVI). He would later teach at St. Charles Borromeo Seminary.
His book, Clement and the Early Church of Rome, is a
defense of a pre-70 dating for the epistle, as opposed to the traditional dating
of AD 96.
Notwithstanding his theological biases (e.g., Roman Catholic
priest and seminary lecturer), he admits that there was no monoepiscopacy (“monepiscopacy”
as he spells it) in Rome when 1 Clement was written:
Regarding the ecclesiological
viewpoint dominant in the letter, it has been widely shown that 1 Clement
nowhere identifies himself as a single, “monarchical” bishop, nor does he all
for monepiscopal government to be established or restored in Corinth, nor does
he ask the Corinthian bishop’s help in restoring order, something
incomprehensible had there been a monepiscopate in place at Corinth at the
time. The introduction of the letter which names its senders as “the Church of
God who sojourns at Rome,” the author’s constant use of “we,” his interchanging
use of επισκοπος and πρεσβυτερος,
and the fact that he never once appeals to the authority of his office as
an argument in favor of accepting the ousted presbyters back, all of this
points to the conclusion that we are dealing here with a piece of literature
which antedates the emergence of a recognizable monepiscopacy. (Thomas J.
Herron, Clement and the Early Church of Rome: On the Dating of Clement’s
First Epistle to the Corinthians [Steubenville, Ohio: Emmaus Publishing,
2008], 2)
The Episcopate
and Presbyterate in an Early 1 Clement
As was discussed above, 1 Clement
represents a stage of ecclesiastical organization in which the terms referring
to particular offices in the Church were not fixed. His use of επισκοπος and πρεσβυτερος
to describe the same persons and the same office is similar to that of the New
Testament itself. Since the presbyters to whom 1 Clement refer are plural, when
he applies the term επισκοπος
to these same people, it is clear that the term cannot be translated “bishop,”
as some modern translations of similar New Testament texts do. This insight is,
of course, hardly new but 1 Clement would give important conformation to the
scholarly insistence that “bishop,” despite its etymological affinity to επισκοπτος, is not the correct translation of
that term as used in circa AD 70.
The question, naturally arises
whether the monepiscopate existed at all in circa AD 70. It can be said that 1
Clement provides no proof that it did. This thesis has asserted that the
Apostle Paul would have exercised what is later understood to be the episcopal
role: individual personal oversight of the local church. He does this as a
function of his apostleship, not as a monepiskopos, strictly so-called.
Nor does this imply that he had necessarily to reside at Corinth while he
exercised the role of principal overseer of the Christian community there. He
did that rather by visiting that local church from time to time and by writing
letters to the faithful there. It does, however, imply that while Paul lived,
unless he himself relinquished or delegated this individual responsibility for
oversight to someone else, he himself was able to exercise it without prejudice
to his apostolic role. The rivalry within the Corinthian church, recalled by 1
Clement by citing the factionalism surrounding Cephas, Paul, and Apollos, may
even have been an early impulse toward the selection of individual leaders or “bishops”
in the later sense of the term. But with its circa AD 70 date, 1 Clement may
well reflect a period in which a monepiscopal successor to the Apostles
had not yet emerged at Rome or at Corinth.
It would be difficult to explain why,
if there had been a monepiskopos at Rome at the time, 1 Clement would
make no mention of him, nor allude to his authority. The same is true of the
situation in Corinth: it seems quite unlikely that a monepiscopal government existed
at Corinth since 1 Clement never mentions such a person, nor indicates that he
too had been ousted with the presbyters, nor appeals to him for his help in
setting the situation there right again. It is true that there may have
been an individual who, like Timothy and Titus in the New Testament, personally
exercised the role of overseer in Rome, but it is strange that 1 Clement never
alludes to such a thing. On the other hand, there is no need to insist that
monepiscopacy succeed to the apostolic government immediately, with no
interval. In this sense we can see that there was most probably no apostolic
appointment of a monepiscopal successor.
Since 1 Clement clearly makes the
point that the apostolic appointment of presbyters prevents their subsequent
removal by the community, it is unthinkable that, had the Apostles also designated
their monepiscopal successors, 1 Clement would have made no mention of the
fact. It would have greatly reinforced his argument that while his orders (that
the Corinthian presbyters be restored) likewise enjoyed apostolic authority and
should be obeyed. But it is striking that the argument from persona authority is
not made in 1 Clement. (Ibid., 84-86)
. . . there is much in 1 Clement
which even advocates of a strong Roman Papacy would not accept. His attitude
towards the presbyteral college appears to leave little room for episcopal
government as it is known today in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. (Ibid.,
89)
