The ministry and order of the primitive church has long been a subject of serious scholarly attention as the extensive bibliographical references in this volume attest. J.B. Lightfoot popularized the notion that bishops (episkopoi) and elders (presbyteroi) referred to the same office under different names (J.B. Lightfoot, St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, 4th ed. [London, 1878]), and this thesis achieved a certain consensus. That consensus is challenged strongly by the current work of Alistair Stewart, whose scholarly work on various aspects of the primitive church (e.g. Hippolytus: On the Apostolic Tradition [New York: SVS Press, 2001] and Paschal Homily of Melito of Sardis [Leiden: Brill, 1998]) has been noteworthy.
Stewart's basic thesis for the confusion of episkopoi and presbyteroi (i.e., that these are synonymous) is that at least in the first and second century Roman scene bishops were the heads of individual house churches who came together in a loose federation in the city and in that role were called elders. He refers to these elders throughout as presbyteroi kata polin (city elders or city presbyters). Contrary to common scholarly opinion he finds no evidence that there ever existed collective leadership—a governing council of presbyters—in any particular church, even in Alexandria where the prevailing hypothesis has been that the city was governed by a group of presbyters. Even there, Stewart posits that they were presbyteroi kata polin, i.e. representing a federation, rather than a governing council of a single unified church.
Another central feature of Stewart's argument is that the episkopoi and diakonoi were originally designations for householders or patrons and their stewards who were responsible for the communal meals which were central to the Christian movement. In other words, the Christian movement was significantly caritative. Thus they had an economic function more than anything else. Thus leitourgia for Stewart retains its original significance of service for others rather than a “liturgical” meaning. Gradually this economic function of bishops and deacons was obscured by two developments. First, the meals became more symbolic with the transfer of the Eucharist from the evening to the morning (as witnessed in Pliny the Younger, ca. 110). Second, in the course of the second century Christianity was considerably “scholasticized,” i.e. teaching, doctrine and schools became more important in the face of competing versions of Christianity. Here Stewart follows a common hypothesis that apostolic succession was invented to guarantee the authenticity of Christian doctrine.
The book begins with Stewart's refutation of the synonymy of episkopoi and presbyteroi, primarily with regard to Rome (e.g., in I Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas) but also with regard to Corinth, Ephesus and Philippi. The second chapter takes up the theme of the original economic function of episkopoi and diakonoi. Here Stewart studies the earliest Christian communities in light of the household and civic associational practices of the Hellenistic world. This is where he describes episkopoi as patrons of a substantial meal (Sättigungsmahl) in a household. He goes on to treat diakonoi, hypothesizing, “In the cult, we may imagine, the diakonos served from side tables, whereas the episkopos acted as oikonomos” (116).
In a third chapter Stewart examines the evidence for presbyters in the early communities. Contrary to received opinion he finds no evidence for the office of presbyter in the Jewish synagogue anywhere in the first century. Rather he concurs with R. Alistair Campbell (The Elders: Seniority within Earliest Christianity [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994]) that “elder” was a term of honor in the synagogue rather than an office. He then turns to associations in the Hellenistic world, e.g., the gymnasium, as a possible model for presbyters. Investigating the pastoral epistles he finds the usage of presbyter differs in I Timothy 5:17–19 and in Titus 1:5. The latter, he argues, correspond to the presbyteroi kata polin described above while those in I Timothy seems to function within an individual congregation made up of a number of households, a congregation that then appointed an episkopos. This, he thinks, was the situation at Ephesus and in an Asian émigré community in Rome. But we have still not reached the point of identifying a monepiskopos, understood as the sole bishop in a city.
The usual designation of Ignatius of Antioch as a monepiskopos comes under scrutiny in the next chapter. In the course of an argument far too complex to outline here (not to mention extremely hypothetical—which he admits), Stewart concludes that Ignatius was not a monepiskopos in the received sense at all because he could not have governed a city that had both Jewish-observant and non-observant congregations. Therefore he regards Ignatius as the bishop of a single congregation within an Antioch that is still divided. He sums up his argument very concisely (297–298).
A final chapter deals with the possible causes of monepiscopacy. Stewart distances himself from the commonly held Weberian interpretation of the routinization of charismatic figures into officers. His analysis yields no evidence that there ever was a time when there was no official leadership in the community. He does find that there are two possible reasons for the development of the monepiscopate. The first is the practice of succession that came with the need to settle on doctrine. The second is the need for increasing centralization given threats from the outside, to wit persecution. Of these he finds the first more compelling.
Stewart concludes the book with a postscript that cautions against the narratives that have been used by both episcopal and presbyteral churches as warrants for their polity. He clearly denies that the development of Christian ministry can be understood as a “decline” from a pristine state of charismatic preachers and congregational democracy.
This book is densely argued and the product of an enormous amount of erudition. It argument merits a good deal more analysis than a review of this sort can do. The author wisely admits that his conclusions are tentative. It seems to me that there are three issues which bear a lot of weight in the argument that need further study: the extent to which household communities were loosely federated in cities like Rome, the primacy of the economic role of early bishops and deacons, and the importance of the shift of the main Christian service from an evening meal to a morning Eucharist. In any case it seems to me that no serious student of the organization and ministry of early Christianity can afford to ignore this impressive piece of scholarship.
