Vorkosigan

I read Peter's comments on Ellegaard's arguments on 1 Clement, and thought that the case against him was rather weak. I thought I'd lay out some arguments here.

Redating 1 Clement

In <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1585672521/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ</a>, Alvar Ellegaard provides a number of arguments that support a pre-70 date for 1 Clement. In this essay I will review his arguments, and the current consensus for the date of 1 Clement.*

1 Clement was written by Clement to the Church in Corinth. In it, Clement expresses disapproval of the Corinth Church's decision to remove some elders who had been governing the Church, and muses on various themes on his way to demonstrating this.

Peter Kirby provides cites that argue for the consensus date for 1 Clement of ~ 95 CE on his website, <a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1clement.html" target="_blank">Early Christian Writings</a>. It rests on several arguments:

• 1. The epistle refers to the Church at Rome as "ancient" and "blameless" as Christians "from youth to old age."
• 2. The presbyters install by the apostles have died and a new generation is governing the Church
• 3. Chapters 42 and 44 contain instructions for the appointment of bishops and deacons
• 4. The martyrdom of Peter and Paul appears to be a second-hand account
• 5. The references to "troubles" appear to be a reference to persecution under Domitian
• 6. The Church discussed by Clement appears to have given up hope that Jesus would return soon

Because Ellegaard's position is that the Roman Church had already been in existence as the "Church of God" for quite some time prior to the alleged death of Jesus, none of these points in and of itself contradicts his view, with the possible exception of (3), which I will deal with below. The reference to troubles could be persecution under any of several Emperors, or mere literary flourish, an apology for being late in getting back to the Corinthians, as Kirby says, citing Welborn.

It is important to grasp that Ellegaard gives two independent sets of reasons for dating the letter to the 60s: its content, and its vocabulary. In his view, the early Christian writings divide neatly into two groups: those written prior to the end of the first century which use one terminology, and those written after that time that refer to Christianity by terms that are more familiar to us.

Argument from Content
Ellegaard makes the following arguments.
1 Clement 41 contains a reference to the Jerusalem Temple offerings in the present tense:

• Not in every place, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered, or the peace-offerings, or the sin-offerings and the trespass-offerings, but in Jerusalem only. And even there they are not offered in any place, but only at the altar before the temple, that which is offered being first carefully examined by the high priest and the ministers already mentioned.

A reference to the Temple being in full operation is a strong indicator that the letter must have been written prior to its fall. However, Hebrews, often dated to the second century, also contains a reference to the Temple as being a living institution. Ellegaard also dates Hebrews into the 60s, for many of the same reasons that he applies to 1 Clement.

1 Clement 5 refers to Peter and Paul as recent:

• But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death.

The passage then goes on to discuss the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, although the language is incredibly vague. They are not merely "recent," they are of "our own generation." The usual reading is to explain this away by saying that generation refers to the time of Christianity, as opposed to the previous era of ancient Judaism.

This is a rather weak argument. As Ellegaard points out, if the post-Christian era is meant, then "our generation," born after the turn of the century and converted to Christianity in the 30s and 40s of the century like Paul and Peter, would be in their 80s and 90s by the time of this letter! Additionally, if 1 Clement is really in the context of a time when people had given up belief in imminent parousia so common in the early Church, and a whole generation of Church leadership had turned over, how could anyone refer to what was clearly the next generation as including the great years of Peter and Paul?

Further, in the same letter, Clement repeatedly uses generation in its more familiar sense:

• Chap 7
  Let us turn to every age that has passed, and learn that, from generation to generation, the Lord has granted a place of repentance to all who would be converted to Him.
  
  Chap 11
  This was done that all might know that those who are of a double mind, and who distrust the power of God, bring down judgment on themselves, and become a sign to all succeeding generations.
  
  Chap 19
  Thus the humility and godly submission of so great and illustrious men have rendered not only us, but also all the generations before us, better; even as many as have received His oracles in fear and truth. So, having so many great and glorious examples set before us, let us turn again to the practice of that peace which from the beginning was the mark set before us;
  
  Chap 50
  All the generations from Adam even to this day have passed away; but those who, through the grace of God, have been made perfect in love, now possess a place among the godly, and shall be made manifest at the revelation of the kingdom of Christ.

In each case, Clement is using generation to refer to the passage of time by succession from ancestor to descendent. It never stands for the Christian era in contrast to the Judaic one. The argument against the plain meaning here appears to fail.

However, there are other grounds for rejecting arguments against the plain meaning of the text. As Ellegaard notes, the mention of Peter and Paul falls in a section on the negative effects of jealousy. Remember, Clement is admonishing the Church in Corinth for deposing its elders; he is here reminding them of how jealousy can wreck relationships. In Chapter 4, Clement adduces a number of examples of the negative effects of jealousy from the OT. Having reached for the OT, Clement, conscious of his mission to convince Corinth that deposing the elders was a bad idea, then moves his readers into the present for a really telling example of jealousy:

• But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes.

Clement is about to put forth Paul and Peter as examples of those killed by jealousy. With that last line, he has moved us from the OT into the current period. Continuing that trajectory, Clement is obviously bring us into the now, for the next line says:

• Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation.

In other words, as a literary device to emphasize his point, this line only works if Peter and Paul have died recently. For if 1 Clement is writing in ~95, after several persecutions, the death of many apostles, and so on, why reach back in time 30 years? Seen that way, the "in our own generation" loses its literary force. It only makes sense if 1 Clement is reaching for today's news, not yesterday's, to enforce answers to today's problems.

The apologist could argue that Peter and Paul were killed much later, in the 80s. But there is no evidence for that.

Interestingly, Clement does not instance Jesus as an example of a person from "our generation" who was killed through jealousy, although he was certainly a contemporary of Paul and Peter, if Church history is correct.

Ellegaard identifies weaker support for an earlier date; namely, the mention of a Clement in Paul's letters. But it may only be a coincidence of name.

The Problem of Church Structure

Argument (3) above notes that Chapters 42 and 44 appear to contain instructions for the appointment of bishops and deacons. Note that while this certainly would conflict with Church history, it does not conflict with Ellegaard's thesis of extant communities converting to the new Messiah concept in the 30s, 40s and 50s at the behest of Paul and other missionaries.

However, let us look more closely at 42 and 44 to see what they really say.

Chap 42

• And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith."

This is extremely vague. It merely says that the apostles appointed people to run the show after they moved on. This is to be expected, and hints at nothing of a full-blown, or even primitive, Church hierarchy. Clement, like all of the first-century writers, reaches for an OT justification for this.

Chap 44

• Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blame-lessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.

This passage now connects up the previous ideas, in both 42, and 43 (which refers to Mosaic priestly service) to make an argument against the dastardly behavior of the Corinthians in removing their bishops. These are always referred to in the plural; there is no single Bishop overseeing his flock in Clement's time. This is odd because traditionally Clement is the Bishop of Rome.

In any case, the first few lines echo 42:

• Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.

Again, this is extremely vague. What were the instructions? How does succession take place? Clement, who as a bishop must know, is a little vague on the topic. Note that Clement is again reaching for the OT to explain this; in Chap. 43 he compared the contentions of Moses' time with then-modern ones. He then goes on to deal with Corinth:

• We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blame-lessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour

The remainder of the passage is devoted solely to the problem at hand; the overreaching by the flock of Corinth. Clement says basically that those the apostles have appointed, or who have come down from them, should not be removed if they have done their duty. That would be a sin. Then he says those bishops who have died are lucky, since they cannot be removed. But Corinth, in any case, has removed men who are blameless.

In short, there is nothing in 1 Clement that imagines a Church evolving a mighty structure. Quite the opposite; Clement's Churches are still in that quaint stage of direct transmission of authority from the apostles, and everything is sort of vague.

The Arguments from Terminology
For reasons of their internal references, vagueness about Jesus' life and their terminology, Ellegaard moves 1 Clement, Hermas, the Didache, Barnabas, Hebrews and Revelation of John into the first century. In this section we will look at the argument from terminology.

Ellegaard identifies several systematic usages that he believes place all these texts with Paul's letters in the first century, the first mentioned being sunagoge, synagogue. The word does not occur in Paul at all, but it is common in Acts and the Gospels. In fact, all non-Pauline letters in the NT exhibit this same trait: sunagoge is rare or absent in them. He takes this for a "rough dating criterion" (p32) that distinguishes between 1st and 2nd century texts.

According to Ellegaard, Paul and the Six Texts use the word "saints" or hagioi for members of the Christian communities (p33). There is only 1 instance in the Gospels, in Matthews remarks on the saints who wake up when Jesus is crucified. In Acts it occurs 4 times, only in connection with Paul's activities before or at his conversion. The term Christian is never used; instead, they refer to the Elect, the Saints or the Church of God. Again, the six texts and Paul never use the word for disciple, mathetes, instead, according to Ellegaard, they always use apostle, apostolos . Furthermore, when "apostle" is used the valuation is high and the context implies a teacher or missionary, as Paul sees himself and his co-apostles. For those interested in dating GThomas, it uses the Coptic loan-word for mathetes.

In short, there are two completely independent lines of evidence that converge on an early date for 1 Clement.

I'd just like to thank Peter Kirby for his wonderful site, whose description inspired me to write this post.

*<a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-roberts.html" target="_blank">All quotes from the Roberts-Donaldson translation</a>

Tharmas

Vorkosigan,
I’ve enjoyed your essay and I’d like to give you some feedback. Ellegaard looks like a must-read for me, but so far I haven’t had the time. Nor have I had the time to explore Peter’s web site with the attention it deserves. As for Clement I, it’s been three or four years since I’ve read it.

Since I am in the final couple of weeks of feverish preparation for the “vacation of a lifetime” I’m afraid I won’t have much time to pursue this (check contexts etc.) beyond these few comments, which I am confining to simply a reaction to your arguments as you present them. That said, I consider myself someone without much of an axe to grind on the issue.

If nothing else, at least I’m bumping this thread.

The weaker argument, I think, is the concentration on the word “generation.” The argument seems to rest on the belief that there can only be two meanings for “generation;” either Clement is contrasting the pre-Christian era to the present, or he is using “generation” to indicate more or less precise passages of historical time.

But surely some of the very passages you quote plainly offer other possibilities. For example, consider:

This is not “generation” as a linear marker of years passed, but as mythological marker of the cycle of ages.

The same holds true for your other quotes.

The plain fact is, when you are reading Clement or Justin Martyr, or Luke, you are simply not reading history in any modern sense or even by the standards of Josephus. You are reading someone whose sense of history is mythological.

That said, I’m not sure that this detracts from Ellegaard’s overall argument (as I said I haven’t read him). I just think this particular card is overplayed.

The argument about giving the temple offerings in the present tense is at first sight more interesting. To play Devil’s Advocate I could imagine contexts in which it would make sense to put it into the present tense even years (centuries!) after the destruction of the temple. I’ll have to look up the context in Clement. You mention that Hebrews (often dated in the second century!) also contains such a reference, mention that Ellegaard therefore also dates Hebrews early, and then move on. This strikes me as a little abrupt. I don’t get the sense of what your final take is on this. I for one am certainly left confused.

The arguments on early church structure, the use of the words apostle, saint, etc. strike me as the most interesting, and by far the strongest. (For my part I’ve always found the insights into the proto church to be the most interesting thing about reading the early church fathers.)

It could be that I find these the strongest arguments because they’re the ones I know the least about! It would worry me that one conclusion would be a late date for G Thomas. It worries me too that so much is made of word frequencies when we have relatively few texts to go by (but I know so little about the subject that even that is speculation on my part).

So there’s my 2 cents. I look forward to some fun reading in six weeks when I’m back from my vacation. Thanks for doing the work and giving us an enjoyable read.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan,
I’ve enjoyed your essay and I’d like to give you some feedback. Ellegaard looks like a must-read for me, but so far I haven’t had the time. Nor have I had the time to explore Peter’s web site with the attention it deserves. As for Clement I, it’s been three or four years since I’ve read it.

Well, you're one-up on me, since I had never read it until I did this, and then I read it most carefully....but no doubt still missed lots of stuff. Peter's website is like the Smithsonian of Early Christianity. Good luck exploring it all.

If nothing else, at least I’m bumping this thread.

The weaker argument, I think, is the concentration on the word “generation.” The argument seems to rest on the belief that there can only be two meanings for “generation;” either Clement is contrasting the pre-Christian era to the present, or he is using “generation” to indicate more or less precise passages of historical time.

Actually, I consider the argument from internal content to be the weaker of the two Ellegaard puts forth. The linguistic and historical aspects are stronger.

This is not “generation” as a linear marker of years passed, but as mythological marker of the cycle of ages.

The same holds true for your other quotes.

Yes, that is true; "generations" may also act as a metaphor for cycles of time. But to be clear, Clement does not use it in a simple bi-modal way to distinguish between the Christian era and the pre-Christian judaic era. I think that is the major point to be had from those quotes. Still any argument either way is bound to be weak.

That said, I’m not sure that this detracts from Ellegaard’s overall argument (as I said I haven’t read him). I just think this particular card is overplayed.

Yes, I agree. I thought the Temple being used in the present tense is far more convincing; I had meant to discuss that more, but forgot about it.

To play Devil’s Advocate I could imagine contexts in which it would make sense to put it into the present tense even years (centuries!) after the destruction of the temple. I’ll have to look up the context in Clement. You mention that Hebrews (often dated in the second century!) also contains such a reference, mention that Ellegaard therefore also dates Hebrews early, and then move on. This strikes me as a little abrupt. I don’t get the sense of what your final take is on this. I for one am certainly left confused.

Like I said, I forgot to put it down. But once you see that the linguistic evidence in both puts them in the first century, than the argument from Hebrews no longer applies. Then you have to use special pleading -- and assume Clement had no literary sense at all -- to say that he is referring to a past tradition as living so that he can criticize current events.

The key point about "Temple" and "Generation" is that both of those comparisons lose their force if the present time is not meant, because Clement is discussing current events in Corinth.

The arguments on early church structure, the use of the words apostle, saint, etc. strike me as the most interesting, and by far the strongest.

Me too.

Clement strikes me as odd no matter how I think about it. For example if we put it in the 60s, then how come it shows so little concern with the issues of Paul, like circumcision, and nothing from his letters? On the other hand, if we move it into the 90s, how come it knows nothing of the gospel stories? Jesus is an obvious candidate for discussions of killing for the sake of jealousy and misunderstanding. I mean, Mark is generally thought to have been written in Rome in ~75, and here's Clement in Rome 20 years later ignorant of anything in Mark!

More input, anyone?

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

1 Clement Chapter 46 says:

• Remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, how He said, "Woe to that man [by whom offences come]! It were better for him that he had never been born, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my elect. Yea, it were better for him that a millstone should be hung about [his neck], and he should be sunk in the depths of the sea, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my little ones.

This is found in all the Synoptics; here is Matthew:

Matthew 18:6 NIV
But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

This is invariably presented as Clement citing the Synoptics. Parallels are also present in Chapters 13 (Matt 7:2) and 24 (parable of farmer and seed). The former is only in Q, the latter is Synoptic.

Vorkosigan

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

not a theist

My comments on your Argument from Content
Could not this line of thinking have become so ingrained in the church while the temple was still in operation that it continued to be repeated by them even after the destruction of the temple? It may have been used as an illustration and later retained even when it was not longer applicable in a literal sense.
I really don't see this as that big a problem for a late date. If I Clement is dated c.95 C.E. then the 60's would be "our generation". Since Peter and Paul were alive in the early 60's, they would be alive in that generation. I don't see why they would have to have been born in Clement's generation. Perhaps "noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death." means that they were given as examples in his generation, i.e. were martyred.
If taken in the sense that I suggest above, we can retain this meaning and still keep a late date since their connection with his generation in that they were martyred during it rather than born into it.
I think that it's rather questionable if all that many apostles lost their lives during the persecutions. And if they (the other apostles) simply died natural deaths during the intervening time, why would he mention them as exemplars.
Perhaps there weren't that many exemplars during the intervening time that would really have stood out with such prominance as Peter and Paul.
Yes but Jesus wasn't killed during his generation. Jesus life ended before his generation while Peter and Paul's ended during his generation. Maybe all that was required for someone to be, in his mind, of his generation was for some of their life to extend into his generation.

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: not a theist ]</p>

Vorkosigan

I thought of this too, of course. But still, it seems a little odd that Clement refrains from instancing Jesus' death as a case of jealousy but instances two men who were killed 30 years before his time as being of "our generation." Still, I agree, the content evidence is much weaker than the linguistic evidence. "Generation" is an inherently ambiguous word; could span a long time, could span a little.

Could not this line of thinking have become so ingrained in the church while the temple was still in operation that it continued to be repeated by them even after the destruction of the temple? It may have been used as an illustration and later retained even when it was not longer applicable in a literal sense.

Maybe, but it seems somehow special pleading when the plain meaning of the text is clear. Clement after all reinforces the immediacy of the practice with the sentence "And even there...."

It seems incredible that he refers to the Temple without referring at all to its destruction.

Additionally, in Chap 36 he describes Jesus as "the High Priest of all our offerings."

*****
To add to my post above, Clement also quotes Jesus in Chap 22, but there appears to be no parallel in the Gospels.

Chapter 36 has this interesting quote:

• But concerning His Son the Lord spoke thus: "You are my Son, today have I begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will give You the heathen for Your inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Your possession." And again He says to Him, "Sit at My right hand, until I make Your enemies Your footstool." But who are His enemies? All the wicked, and those who set themselves to oppose the will of God.

Vorokosigan

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

not a theist

Continuing on:
This must have taken some time:

Stage 1.) "those appointed by them"- The apostles have here seen the need to start appointing successors. Maybe c.50-60 C.E.?

Stage 2.) "afterwards (appointed) by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church"- After the apostles are gone? 60+ C.E.?

Stage 3.) "who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all"- Served, etc. for a long time after being appointed. Well if they were appointed at Stage 2 (and he seems to be referring to both those of Stage 1 and 2 as having served for a long time) and served a long time, then anything much before 70 C.E. seems too early.

Some have even already died.

In order to date it early, one would have to start pushing the appointment process rather far back it would seem.

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: not a theist ]</p>

Vorkosigan

This is easily possible even if we take the conventional date, but Ellegaard's argument is that the Churches already existed for some time prior to Paul's reconfiguration of Jesus as the messiah and the beginning of his evangelical work. Thus, this is no objection to Ellegaard's position.

In any case, your date for the appointment of leaders -- not "successors" -- is years too late, for the apostles must have established Churches in the 30s and 40s, so that "a long time" would refer to 20-30 years since that time. The afterwards refers to those leaders (elders) who have since passed on -- obviously the apostles would not have chosen people in the twenties to head the flocks...and many must have passed on by Clement's time, leaving the church in a succession crisis with no clear rules.

Vorkosigan

not a theist

So 30-40 C.E. (do you really think it was so early?)
+ "those who were appointed afterwards" (how long afterwoard do you think?)
+ "a long time"
=??? C.E.

The reading seems to say that those who were appointed "afterward" also served for "a long time". Or am I reading this wrong?

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: not a theist ]</p>

Vorkosigan

So 30-40 C.E. (do you really think it was so early?)
+ "those who were appointed afterwards" (how long afterwoard do you think?)
+ "a long time"
=??? C.E.

Yes, I think it was that early. In Paul's time apostles were already spreading the good news; he was not the only one. Even if we use the 40s, that still gives us 20 years, more than enough time for turnover among elders to begin. I assume that the apostles appointed mostly adults/older people to run the local churches.

[b]The reading seems to say that those who were appointed "afterward" also served for "a long time". Or am I reading this wrong?[b]

I think maybe you are reading it wrong (but I may be wrong). Let's look at chapter 44 again.

• Chap 44
  Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.[i] We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blame-lessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.[i]

In this paragraph, in my view, Clement switches in mid-stream from a general discourse on instructions to specific comments about the Church in Corinth. I have italicized the second part which deals specifically with Corinth. An analogous paragraph about the firing of Paul Brown by Art Modell might run:

"Everyone knows the football coaches serve only if they win. Football ruthlessly eliminates coaches. But we shouldn't fire someone who has one seven championships in four leagues, and has revolutionized the game of football, and spent a lifetime studying the game."

This is how Clement works. In the opening lines of the paragraph, he makes a set of vague statements about the apostles' erecting leaders for the local churches. He then moves on to talk about the specific Corinth case. The "serving for a long time" remarks refers to the elders in Corinth, just as "spent a lifetime studying the game" specifically refers to Paul Brown in my imaginary complaint above. He's combining the general and specific in a way that comments on the specific case: "Look, these elders were appointed by the apostles, they've been serving forever, and we shouldn't remove them at a whim. You guys have screwed up."

In any case, like I said before, we don't know how the elders came into being. The apostles may have simply 'ratified' a pre-existing system of governance among the Churches they found. I suspect that Clement, in the second generation, already has only a hazy idea of how his Church came into being and how it is to be governed.

Vorkosigan