Enforcing priesthood. The struggle for the monopolisation of religious goods and the construction of the Christian religious field

Drawing on a Bourdieusian framework, this paper aims to sketch out the main strategies by which the ‘ ecclesiastical party ’ of successive bishops from the mid-second to the late third century CE managed to establish itself as mainline, to make its normative claims effective, and to see off the major forms of religious competition, thereby constructing the Christian religious field of the imperial era. To accomplish all this, what we might call the bishop ’ s viewpoint had to be brought to prevail over that of specialists endowed with different types of religious capital. Among these, three categories of religious providers were particularly competitive: the ‘ charismatics ’ , the ‘ great laymen ’ and those who viewed themselves as ‘ enlightened ’ , usually known as Gnostics.

Letnoone do anythinginvolvingthe church without the bishop (Μηδεὶςχωρὶς ἐπισκόπου τι πρασσέτω τῶν ἀνηκόντων εἰςτ ὴ νἐ κκλησίαν). Lett hat Eucharist be considered valid that occurs under the bishop or the one to whomh ee ntrusts it.L et the congregation be wherever the bishop appears;just as whereverJesus Christ is, therealso is the universal church. It is not permitted either to baptize or to hold al ovef east without the bishop (Οὐκ ἐξόν ἐστιν χωρὶς ἐπισκόπου οὔτε βαπτίζειν οὔτε ἀγάπην ποιεῖν). But whatever he approvesisacceptable to God, so that everythingy ou do should be securea nd valid.
These are not descriptive texts,s ince they do not reproducea ne xistent historical-empirical reality.They point rather to the ought-to-be of the world to come, which is not satisfied by being uttered, but rather strivest obecome the medium through which the present world is at once perceivedand valued (Squarcini 2012, 22).These openlyp rescriptive words help us to grasp how the bishop sought to achieveh is dominant position as ruler of the ἐκκλησία essentially "by making the field in which ap lace could be found for him" (Bourdieu 1996,7 6). Ignatius of Antioch can be considered the 'legislator' (Bourdieu 1996,6 2: 'nomothète')o ft he Christian religious field as socio-symbolics pacew hose key term is the slogan χωρὶςτοῦἐπισκόπου μηδέν,that is, "nothing without the bishop".The slogan summarises acollective struggle to transformahitherto anomic and fluid space, criss-crossed by the effortso fawhole variety of different subjects to manipulate the sacred, into as tructured universe of transactionsa nd struggles between objectively related positions. By the same token, the bishop's presencewill bring order and visibility to aconfused and blurred socio-religious space: "Wherever the bishop appears,therel et the congregation be";f or,a sI gnatius puts it,t he visibleb ishop represents the invisibleC hrist (Magn. 3.2).
This transformativevisibility corresponds to the bishop'sstatus at the pinnacle of at hreefold structure of church government (bishop-priests-deacons).³ For his 'vision' (cf. ἐθεώρησα)t ob ecome the sole legitimate standpoint -the very principle of 'seeing as Christians' as it were -,h is view of the salvation-game must be diffused throughout the field. Optical metaphorsa side,t his means that the theocratic-messianic idea, namelythat the Jesus-followersubmits solely to an immediatelya pprehensible divine power thato verwhelms anyh uman power (Taubes 1987, 5), has now been tempered by the claim thatt he religious services provided by as ingle ex officio specialist have au nique value and privilege. The very enjoyment of Christian liberty consists thus in the practical recognition of this primacy implying religious submission to the bishop alone. In other words, the eschatologicall ordship of Jesus is in the process of beingh is-toricised and institutionalised in the primacy of the bishop,while the authority of the apostles can be usedt oc over the time in between.⁴ 1.2. The 'shamanistic complex' "Χωρὶςτοῦἐπισκόπου μηδὲνποιεῖτε" is Ignatius' pastoral mantra(see Philad. 7. 2;also Trall. 2.2;Smyrn. 8.19). The claim is that the freedom acquired by the believer in Jesusc an onlyb es afeguarded by being transferred to the bishop as both provider of salvation-services and rights-holder: Forwhen youare subject to the bishop (τῷἐπισκόπῳὑποτάσσησθε)astoJesus Christ,you appear to me to live not in ahuman waybut according to Jesus Christ,who died for us that youmay escape dyingbybelievinginhis death. And so-as is alreadythe case-youmust not engageinany activity apart fromthe bishop (᾿ Aναγκαῖον οὗν ἐστίν, ὥσπερ ποιεῖτε, ἄνευ τοῦἐπισκόπου μηδὲνπ ρ άσσειν ὑμᾶς), but be subject also to the presbytery as to the apostles of Jesus Christ,o ur hope.
The practical motto of the Jesus-likelifestyle is thus "that none mayenter here!", i. e. into the ecclesiastical space of eschatological freedom, withoutf irst being subjectt ot he bishop by adhering to his vision of the salvation-game.⁵ Who is the Christian?H ew ho "do [es] [no]thing apart from him" (Magn. 4.1). How does the Christian think?A so ne with his bishop: Forthis reason it is fittingfor yout orun together in harmonyw ith the mind of the bishop (συντρέχειν τῇ τοῦἐπισκόπου γνώμῃ), which is exactlywhaty ou aredoing. Fory our presbytery,which is both worthyo ft he name and worthyo fG od, is attuned (συνήρμοσται)t o the bishop as stringst ot he lyre.ThereforeJ esus Christ is sung in your harmonya nd symphonic love(ἐντῇὁμονοιᾳὑμῶνκαὶσυμφώνῳἀγάπῃ). 2. And each of youshould join the chorus,t hat by beings ymphonic in your harmony, takingu pG od'sp itch in unison, you maysing in one voice(Καὶ οἱ κατ' ἄνδρα δὲ χορὸςγίνεσθε, ἵνα σύμφωνοι ὄντες ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ, χρῶμα θεοῦ λαβόντες ἐν ἑνότητι, ᾅδητε ἐνφ ῶ ν ῇμιᾷ)t hrough Jesus Christ to the Father, that he mayb oth hear and recognize yout hrough the things youd ow ell, sincey ou are members of his Son. Eph.4 .1-2; see also 20.2.
The struggle for the monopolisation of religious goods The imposition of the monopolyo fasymbolic power (here: religious authority) depends on the ability of the institution that claims it "to make known to those who are excluded from it the legitimacy of their exclusion" (Bourdieu 1991, 25). The work of transfiguration of the relations of religious production and subordination into euphonious chords of ac horal melodyh elps to conceal -abovea ll from the writer -"the arbitrarinessofthe monopolization of apower and acompetencei np rinciple accessible to anyone" (ibid.).⁶ Bourdieu takes over from Claude Lévi-Strauss what the latter called the 'shamanisticc omplex' (ibid.,p .2 1). This can be defined as the "quasi magical circulation of powers in the course of which the group producesa nd projects the symbolicp ower thatw ill be exercised upon itself and in the terms of which is constituted" (Lévi-Strauss 1963, 179). Applying Bourdieu'sterms to Ignatius' text,u nanimity between religious dominants and dominatedi sc alled the harmony (συμφωνία)o ft he church body, just as the concord (συναρμογή) among the dominants (i. e. the presbyteral college) is attuned to the bishop's will.⁷ The overall effect is to efface the arbitrary character of the accumulation of both material and symbolicr esourcest hati sn ecessary for the construction of asymmetrical religious power.I ti st his effacement that allows the dominant point of view to establish itself in the dominated vision: "It is necessary,a s your practice (ὥσπερ ποιεῖτε), to do nothing without the bishop";o r" it is right for yout or un togetherw ith the purpose of the bishop, which youi ndeed do (ὅπερ καὶ ποιεῖτε)".A sa ncient epistolographya ttests,t ou rge others to do what they are alreadyd oing is ad iplomatic means of asserting ac ertain type of demand, one whose legitimacy is accepted by both sides, but whose implementationi su ncertain, or at least delicate (Shoedel 1985, 51).⁸ Some recent contributions relievemeofthe task of sketching abrief genealogyo fm onespicopacy (seee .g.S tewart 2014). Nor do Ii ntend to deal with the struggles within what Ignatius calls the presbytery (πρεσβυτέριον;s ee Eph. 4.1; Trall. 7. 2; 13.2; Philad.4;5 .2; Smyrn.8.1), that is, the collegeo ft he clergy. Ii nterpret here the inchoate clergya sabody,t hat is, as ac ollective agent,r uled by forces of fusion that unify its ranksa nd synchronise its movements within the competitive space of ab roader Christian religious field. Consequently, this very social unit is not scrutinised as a field,thatis, asocial universe shaped by forces of fission arising from "the interests of the various members of the group [= of  This is the mechanism that the youngB ourdieu (1958, 453 -458) tracedb ack to the Sartrean concept of bad faith.  On ὁμόνοια as the principle of ChurchU nity,s ee Brent( 2006,2 96 -308).  Schoedel( 1985, 51) reportsaparallel drawnf romaprivatel etter (P. Freib. 39). See also 1Thess. 4.1, which can hardly be consideredasubtext.
the clergy], who maybemore or less inclined to accept the common vision[=of the bishop] and more or less capable of imposingt heir 'selfish' point of view" (Bourdieu 1998,7 0). 2. The Christian religious field: ab rief sketch 2.1. The marketplaceo fC hristian servicesa nd religious goods In Ignatius' view,the bishop must prevail over other providers of religious goods and services in some wayr elated to the saving figure of Jesus of Nazareth, in order to establish both his ownp oint of view and his specific religious capital within the growings ymbolic market of Jesus-followers.A st he emergent leader of the clergy -first de facto and then de jure -,t he bishop must enforceh is power in twod ifferent ways.H emust first mark out and defend the boundaries of the field as he understands it,a nd then he must define the functions of the clergy,w hich involves enteringi nto conflict with other religious agents over the leadership of the ἐκκλησία. Ihavechosen to discuss threetypes of challengers to the emergent power of bishops on account of their significant positions within the Christian religious field. As in the case of the bishop,each of these categories of religious providers disposed of powerful resources in the competition for domination over the field. They are: 1. the charismatics, endowedw ith ecstatic-prophetic capital; 2. the great laymen, able to deploy ample social and economic capital; 3. the enlightened, claiming ontological capital signalled by 'true knowledge' achieved through discipline (hereafter termed 'gnoseo-ontological').
Note that my choice of the term 'enlightened' here deliberatelyavoids terms such as Gnostics and Gnosticism, which derive from the discourse of the ancient polemical texts and have subsequentlyb een naturalised by modern scholarship based on standard theological assumptions,which until very recentlysimplyreproduced the agenda of the ancient texts viewed as 'sources'.⁹ The following passages, read against the background of Ignatius' governmental project,provide an initial insight into these three different forms of challenge: The Lord has sent me as ap artisan,r evealer,a nd interpreter of this suffering, covenant, and promise. Ia mc ompelled to come to understand the knowledge of God whether I want to or not Maximillaa p. Epiph. haer.48.13.1.¹⁰ "Believeus, Brother Peter",they [i. e., the brethren]said, "none amongmen was so wise as this Marcellus. All the widows whohoped in Christ took their refuge in him; all the orphans weref ed by him. Will youk now more, brother?A ll the poor called Marcellus their patron; his house was called the house of the pilgrims and poor.T oh im the emperor said, Iw ill give youn oo ffice,l est your ob the provincest ob enefit the Christians. Acts Pet. 8.1¹¹ Those whose name he knew in advance werecalled at the end, so that one whohas knowledge is the one whose name the Father has uttered. Forhew hose name has not been spokenisignorant.Indeed, how is one to hear if his name has not been called?F or he whois ignorant until the end is acreature of oblivion, and he will vanish alongwith it. Both Maximilla,t he co-leader of ap rophetic and apocalyptic movement (the 'New Prophecy',i.e.Montanism), and the senator Marcellus,afictitious character in the Acts of Peter -whom we can take as ar epresentative of well-off and socially influential Jesus-followers -,believei nt he authority and final jurisdiction of Christ just as Ignatius does.¹³ This commitment matters to all three, the bishop, the prophetess and the wealthyp atron. Yet, in the course of the second century CE, i. e. the period between the beginning of Ignatius' authoritative teachinga nd the composition of the Acts of Peter,astruggle has broken out in the main urban areas whereo rganisedC hristian groups had established themselves. The conflict is about who has the authority to interpret the implications  Tr.H eine (1989).  Tr.E lliott (1993). All other citations from the Acts of Peter are from this version.  Tr.A ttridge and MacRae (2000,vol. 1).  As recognised, for example,inPaul's Romans and 1Corinthians. On Maximilla and Paul, see Trevett (1996,1 30). On the familiarity of the Acts of Peter with the Pauline letters, see Thomas (2003,2 8).
of Christ'sl ordship for believers' conduct.Who decides?W ho interprets?( see Schmitt 1963). By contrast,the enlightened author of the third passage, taken from the Coptic GospelofTruth,¹⁴ seems to have neither ajudicial-jurisdictional conception of the role of Jesus nor of the otherworldlyorder to which he belongs. As as uperhuman agent senttoreveal acompleteand all-encompassingsalvific knowledge, Jesusd oes not dominate,r eign, or rule; rather he teaches that whereh ec omes from, which is alsothe place to which he aims to bring his disciples back, no one dominatesorrules.¹⁵ Messiahswho erase the laware all false messiahs. However,eventhough this Jesuologytones down messianic theocracy,including its peculiar scenario of astruggle for jurisdictional dominance over the world, its representatives -here, possibly, the Gnostic teacher Valentinus -are objectively involved in the struggle within the emergent Christian social universe; just as Ignatius, Maximilla and Marcellus are.
An alternative wayofrepresenting the situation might be to draw on the languageofpolitical economy: what kind of capital (A:juridical-divineand apostolic, B: ecstatic-prophetic, C: social and economic, D: gnoseo-ontological) is capable of endowing its owner (A:l eaders of the ordained clergy,B :c harismatics, C: great laymen, D: enlightened) with the right to occupy the dominant position in the new religious field?

Conflict witht he charismatics
Since the time of Max Weber,ithas become atruism thatbishops prevailed over charismatics by enforcing and imposing the principle of the charisma of office over personal charisma as the basis for defining both those who are authorised to produce religious capital and the nature of religious capital itself as an institutionalised resource. Such precious capital, sayt he winners, must be in the hands of the mainstream clergy,a bovea ll the bishops, and cannot be allowed to float freelyf rom one location to another.
The victory of the ordained clergy over the motley rangeofits extra-ordinary competitors -wandering prophets,i nspired leaders of grouplets,m artyrs and confessors claiming sacramental and disciplinary authority,etc. -is the outcome  Ic hoose the Valentinians as ap rototype of the enlightened preciselyo nt he accounto ft he centrality of Jesus in their systems,b yc omparison with the so-called Sethian texts. On this point,s ee King( 2003,159)a nd Brakke, (2010,102). Ir eturn to this issue below.  On the monarchic representation of the divine Pleromaand the transcendent God, see Filoramo (2002, 198 -199). An example is providedb yC lement of Alexandria, Exc. Theodot. 72.2.
The strugglef or the monopolisation of religious goods of aconflict that we can alreadysee smouldering in some earlyprescriptive passages such as Didaché 12-13 and 15 (apparentlyw ritten in Syria-Palestine and dated to the first half of 2 nd century) between sedentary groups dependent on farming,w ith their hierarchy, and itinerant prophets,w ho relyo nt hem for food.¹⁶ Control of what we mayw ith Foucault call the 'modes of veridiction' or the 'alethurgic forms'¹⁷ of the charismatics, and so establishing the criteria for differentiating between true and false prophecy( προφητεία), distinguishing true from false possession( ἔ κστασις) ( Tabbernee 2007,8 7 -105), or even denouncingp rophecya ltogether ( Trevett 1996,6 5),¹⁸ went hand in hand with the reinforcement of the bishop'sruling power by appeal to his own charisma of office. The institutionalisation of an ecclesiastical command-structure headed by elected officers was thus successfullyc ombined with the charismatisation of the office. The rapid spread of ordination by the laying on of hands is clear evidence of this double strategy ( Stewart-Sykes 2002,124-125).
The conflict between ordinary organisation and extraordinary action,b etween banalising and de-banalising (Bourdieu 1991, 24)religious powers,iscarried on by means of bans, excommunications and anathemas on the one hand, disavowals and schismsonthe other.Atthe sametime, in the case of earlyChristianity we can alsodiscern the exchangerelations and the strategic compromises by which the extra-ordinary could be incorporated into the dominant institution. In Bourdieu'sv iew, bothk inds of relations (competition and exchange) "constitute the principle of the dynamic of the religious field" (Bourdieu 1991, 17). Idiscuss two such cases here.
(1) To start with the relation of competition, one can see how,atsome stage, measures to control 'pseudo-prophecy' came to be associated with strategies for safeguardingorthodoxy.Among the so-called architects of the Great Church, Irenaeus of Lyon provides agrotesquelydistorted account of the prophetic performances of the Marcosian women: It appears probablee nough that this man [i. e., Marcus, an 'enlightened' figure of the 'school' of Valentinus active in the Rhone valley]¹⁹ possesses ademon as his familiar spirit, by means of whom he seems ablet op rophesy (προφητεύειν δοκεῖ)a nd also enables as manyashecounts worthytobepartakers of his charis themselvestoprophesy (προφητεύ- See Alikin (2010,7 3); Niederwimmer( 1989,2 43).  See Foucault( 2011,8and 3): "Etymologically, alethurgy would be the production of truth, the act by which truth is manifested".The coinagew as part of his latei nterest in 'le souci de la vérité'.  See the vibrant protest in Pass.Perp. 1and the rejection of the ShepherdofHermas in the late second-century Roman Muratorian Fragment/Kanon Muratori (see e. g. Hahnemann 1992).  On this figure,s ee Förster (1999). ειν ποιεῖ). He devotes himself especiallyt ow omen, and those such as arew ell-bred, and elegantlyattired, and of great wealth, whom he frequentlyseeks to drawa fter him, by addressing them in such seductive words as these [the quotationo ft he ritual formula for transmittingp rophetic skills follows] […]S he then, vainlyp uffed up and elated (χαυνωθεῖσα και κεπφωθεῖσα)b yt hese words,a nd greatlye xcitedi ns oul (διαθερμανθεῖσα τὴν ψυχήν)b ythe expectationt hat it is herself whoist oprophesy,her heart beatingviolently from emotion, reaches the requisite pitch of audacity,a nd idlya sw ella si mpudently (κενῶςκ α ὶτολμηρῶς)u tters some nonsense as it happens to occur to her,s uch as might be expectedf romo ne heatedb ya ne mpty spirit… But such spirits as are commanded by these men, and speak when they desire it,are earthlyand weak, audacious and impudent, sent forth by Satan for the seduction and perdition of those whodonot hold fast that wellcompacted faith which they receiveda tf irst through the Church.
Iren. haer.1 .13.3a nd 4.²⁰ Rich women, suggests the bishop, have more than wealth. They are also ambitious and unrestrained, that is, inclined to vanity (Gr.: κεπφωθεῖσα;²¹ the Latin version has elata)a nd shamelessness (Gr.: τολμηρῶς;L at.: audaciter),²² at rait that is typical of their class. They have the right amount of what Lenski has termed "status inconsistency" (Lenski 1961, 485 -494) to arouse expectations about their own religious talent -especiallyi fi ti so riented towards one of the less gendered religious acts, namely prophecy.²³ The onlya ntidote for this diabolical deception is to cling to the faith of the church, which is embodied and transmittedb ym inisters who teacht hat it is not possible to prophesy on command (haer.1 .13.4, ll. 69 -73). It is not by chance that the most faithful women "have withdrawnfrom such avile companyofrevellers" (ibid. ll. 65 -69).
The struggle for the monopolisation of religious goods haps the modus operandi of Cyprian of Carthaged uringa nd immediatelya fter the Decian persecution (from May2 50 to March 251).
To appreciateits subtlety,one must consider the context in which this strategy was adopted: on the one hand, there is the uncertainty regardingthe penalties to be imposed on thosew ho have sacrificed, on the other,weh avet he objective pastoral weakness of the bishop (who had himself fled) over against those who remained, had not sacrificedbut actuallybeen tortured, and are now visited in prison by 'fallen' and anxious believers. Having little room for manoeuvre, Cyprian opted for recognisingt he power of the charismatic intercession of martyrs and confessors concerning penance, reconciliation and readmission of the lapsi into the church. Yet, at the same time, he tried to limit the forceofthe concession in three ways:a )b yl imiting it formallyt ot he recommendation of individual penitents (nominatim)and not groups ( Cyprian'si nterpretation of the Decian persecution as divine punishment (e. g. ep. 11) underpins the 'sociodicy' of the bishop'sf action, insofar as it provides am eans of re-affirming the religious 'good fortune' of the clergy.²⁵ The bishop is under pressurefrom two sides, on the one hand from the self-interested charismaticism of the lapsi and laxist priests, and on the other from the spiritual aristocracy and rigour of martyrs and confessors (Brent 2010,1 0). Parto ft he bishop'sstrategy to securehis position is to assert his right to discharge and readmit apostates: Fort his the fallen can certainlyb ep ardoned. Who would not,w hen dead, hasten to be broughtt ol ife? Who would not makes peed to gain his own salvation?B ut it is the duty of the appointed leaders to adheret ot he commandments and give instructions to both the hasty and the ignorant.Otherwise thereisthe dangerthat those whoought to be shepherds of their flock maybecome the butchers. To grant concessions which lead to destruction is to deceive. This is not the wayt olift the fallen to his feet; rather,byoffendingGod, he is beingdrivent owards total ruin. And so let those whoought themselvest ohavebeen the teachers be taught at least by you[i. e., the confessors]. They should keep your petitions and requests for the bishop, awaitingthe seasonable time (when peacehas been restored)  Brent suggests (2010,55-68) that we should view pax domini as the counterpart within the constitutional church of the traditional Roman pax dei.  Bourdieu'sc laim that "theodicies are always sociodicies" (Bourdieu 1991,16) is the resultof applyingt he Weberian concept of theodicyd ifferentiallyt od ifferent social groups.
for granting the peace which yourequest.The mother needs first to receive peacefromthe Lord and then the question of peacefor her son can be considered, in the wayyou desire.²⁶ Cyprian is here groundingh is claim to jurisdiction over penitential matters in an ormative tradition that actuallyd oes not exist.Alegal epistemologist would see ar ule (praeceptum)b eing enforced here through its infraction. The rule of ecclesial readmission through episcopal reconciliation is historically and existentiallysecond, but logicallyand theologicallyfirst (i. e. priortothe infraction that it sanctions): 'logically' because, according to anormative order,infraction is always the violation of an existingp rohibition;²⁷ 'theologically' because, as the 'episcopal' Jesus of Nazareth claims, "the churchi sf ounded upon the bishops" (ep. 33.1; see also 59.4).
Anyway,o nce their 'religious capital' has been granted legitimacy,s ome confessors seem willing to recognise the fullnesso fabishop'ss acramental and disciplinary prerogatives.²⁸ Moreover,t he rapid relaxation of the principle established in the synod of Carthage( Spring2 51 CE) reduces 'the explicit price of entry' into the field still further (Bourdieu 2004,5 0), in that reconciliation and immediate re-admission could be obtainedb ym eans of the 'minimum requirement' of public penance and episcopal blessing. An on-negotiable offer is made to all the charismatic positions deemed at odds with the main-line ecclesiological vision: either integration -under much more favourable conditions than before -or schism.
The struggle for the monopolisation of religious goods capital and distinguish in practical terms between producers and consumers of religious goods and services.
It would be quitew rongt oi magine that it was the loss of the traditional means of religious production experienced by awealthy paterfamilias on becoming aJesus-follower thatensured the dominance of the bishop over the high-status patron. Forearlyon, and probablyfor manydecades, ἐπίσκοποι and πρεσβύτεροι are found in charge of Jesus-groups inasmuchasthey bothorganised and largely financed ad omestic cult in which the patronage model wast aken for granted.³⁰ Yet, however much his religious capital mayhavederivedfrom his activities as patron, the bishop'spoint of view could trulyprevail onlywhen the principle of the separation of the religious office from the candidate'seconomic and social assets came to be formallyestablished. That is the point when the government of the church turned into aprofessional office,thereby evolving towards an autonomousstatus independent of anydutiesassociated with the material support of the congregations (Stewart-Sykes 1991).³¹ As they grew in sizeand number, such groups became more and moree xpensive to sponsor,s ot hat,i nt he end, it is they who began to pays alaries to their own ministers.
The (ecclesio)logical foundations of this principle seem alreadyt ou nderlie the paraenetic discourse of the canonised Pastoral Letters,as ingle block of pseudonymous textsf rom Asia Minor possiblyd ating to the ageo fH adrian (117-138 CE): Tell the rich in this world not to be arrogantand not to put their hope upon the uncertainty of wealth, but rather upon God whos upplies us with all things richlyf or our enjoyment. Tell them to do good work, to be wealthyi nn oble deeds,t ob eg enerous in giving, to be sharers of possessions, thereby storing up for themselvesanoble foundation for the future, so that they can layh old of real life.
1Tim 6:17-19.³² Under the name of Paul, the author of 1Timothy urgesthe rich to getrid of their own class pride (μὴὑ ψηλοφρονεῖν), to make their resourcesa vailable and to place all their hopes (ἠλπικέναι)i nt he generous patronage of God by investing in the special fund (θεμέλιον)offuture salvation. This call to surrender aportion of one'so wn assets for an eschatological profit -i. e. for the sake of af uture  On this aspect,s ee Maier (1991). On the roleo fp atronagei nt he rise of monepiscopate, see Lampe (1989,e sp. 334 -345) and, in an opposites ense, Brent (1995, 409 -412).  Yet, in Cyprian'sA frica, where the bishop continues to operatea spatronus,event he riteo f ordination suggests af ramework of patronage: see Stewart-Sykes (2002, 115 -130).  Tr.J ohnson (2001). All other citations from 1T imothy aref romt his version.
'treasure' (ἀποθησαυρίζοντας) -contains an implicit demandt ot urn economic capital into spiritual capital³³ ("be wealthyi nn oble deeds!")a nd possibly shows af irst textual hint of the imposition of as pecific conversion-rate of economic capital into religious capital.³⁴ Theoretically, then,t he aim of transferring some economic assets to the ἐκκλησία is to garner at reasure in heaven. Yett his does not exclude investing afraction of this treasure in order to make adouble 'profit' in this world, helping donors to increase their own spiritual capital and so reassert their social position within the religious group. In other words, spiritual capital, which is specifically associated with Christ'ss aving patronage of well-off Christian benefactors, can cover part of the cost of their ecclesiastical patronage;t og ain the other part, one has to await the real life (τῆς ὄντωςζωῆς), that is, the afterlife. This deferral is not however compatible with hopes oflet alone claims tochurch leadership strictlyb ased on one'sf inancial resources.
The author of 1Timothy separatesthe injunctions regardingthe bishop from those for the rich, placing them in two different sections of the text (ἐπίσκοπος: 1Tim 3:1-7; πλουσίοι:6:17-19). This seems to indicate that for him the short-term convertibility of financial resourcesand social power into symbolic capital (gratitude, loyalty,p restige,evens piritual adequacy) is irrelevant to the right to dispense the goods of salvation and so to the legitimate exercise of religious power. Economic assets maybecome religious capital onlyi fr outed through the 'clearing house' of the clergy.³⁵ Those who date the lettera fter the middle of the second century are prepared to find throughout the text some allusions to Marcion, the shipowner from Pontus who, thanks to an initial donation of 200,000 sesterces (Tertullian, Praescr.30.2),issupposed to have launched his own takeover bid for control over the unstable and contested Christian regula fidei.³⁶ One of these  Pace Verter(2003), the non-Bourdieusian notion of 'spiritual capital' can hardlyreplace the original notion of 'religious capital'.Whereas the latter amounts to the legitimatea uthority to rule the group, the former maydesignate the set of religious competences, preferences, credentials and markers for distinguishingl ay benefactor fromt he layg roup of recipients.  The flexibility of the conversion-rate is indicated by the not uncommon election to the rank of bishop by 'popular will' of some honestiores lacking ecclesiastical qualification, such as Fabianus in Rome (Euseb. Hist eccl. 6.29.2-3). As Istressbelow,evenC yprian of Carthage himself lacked specificallyr eligious qualification (Pontius, Vit. Cypr. 5).  Idonot shareL.W.Countryman'sassumption that "in the Pastorals,the intent was clearlyto co-opt such men into the clergy" (Countryman 1980,167).  See e. g. Hoffmann (1984,2 87-288); Vinzent (2011,1 25-127). Ar eferencet oM arcion'sp urchase of the Christian faith in 1Tim 6r emains conjectural.
The strugglef or the monopolisation of religious goods supposedreferences is preciselyabout deluded people who think that godliness is am eanso ff inancial gain:³⁷ If anyone teaches otherwise and does not attend to the healthyw ords of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accordswith godliness,that person is deluded, understanding nothing. Instead, he is sick from debates and controversies,f romw hich comee nvya nd strife and reviling speech, evil suspicions,the constant wrangling of people with corrupted minds.And defrauded from the truth, they think that godliness is ameans of financial gain (νομιζόντων πορισμὸνε ἶ ναι τὴνε ὐ σ έ βειαν).
The general principle of the ideal independence of the authorised production of Christian religious goods and servicesf rom social and economic capital can be seen at work in the Acts of Peter,at ext written in Asia Minor and dating from a few decades afterthe Pastorals (late second century CE). Awork of popularreligious propaganda, intended to promotebut alsoreshape the role of Christian patrons,i ts basic messagem ay be summarised as follows: No donor becomes a leader in the community (Stoops 1986,9 5). All the well-off and well-adjusted characters of the story,starting with the senator Marcellus, whom Ihavealready mentioned, are represented as unsteady, naive and unperceptive:they are disastrous as leaders,s ince they are liable to drag the whole group into the spiritual bankruptcyo fh eresy.³⁸ Someo fM arcellus' clients are made to ascribe their 'apostasy' to the influenceo fS imon Magus over the senator: This,brotherPeter,weknow and report to you, now that the great benevolenceofthe man has been turned intoblasphemy. Forhad he not been changed(versatus non fuisset)wecertainlys hould not have left the holyf aith in God our Lord. Now this Marcellusi se nraged and repents of his good deeds and says, "So much wealth have Is pent for such al ong time in the foolish belief that Is pent it for the knowledge of God." Acts Pet. 8.
Had Cyprian been like Marcellus,the history of Christianity in Africa would have taken adifferent turn. Between 248and 249CE, this man, anewly-converted but wealthypatron, was appointed bishop in Carthagebythe vote of the 'whole people' (populi universi suffragio), but in reality with the endorsement of other influential benefactors and the acclamation of their numerous clients within the  Vinzent'sm uch moree xpressive translation of the passage is "(people who) think religion should yield dividends" (Vinzent 2011, 127).  See also the rich and "honesta nimis in seculo hoc" Eubula, whow as swindled by Simon's men in Jerusalem (Acts Pet. 17).
Christian populace (ep. 59.6,but also 43.1:2;5.4;Pontius, Vit. Cypr. 5).³⁹ Moreover, this bishop-patronusc ontinued regularlyt os upport the most needyo ft he congregation out of his own pocket (de quantitate [su]apropria)evenafter his flight to escape the Decian persecution (ep. 7. 2; 13.7;4 1.1e tc.), while the presbyters receive wage-like sportulae in the normalm annero fc lients (ep. 39.5.2). In Carthage, then, the Christian religious field seems to have been shaped by the logic of patronage relations,such thatthe exchangebetween socio-economic capital (patronal power)a nd religious capital (episcopacy) appears highlyf avourable to the former.H owever,t he competition between the bishop-patronus and other laydonorsinduced Cyprian to take anumber of steps to professionalise the clergy and reduce its dependence on non-episcopal support.T he three most important are: (a) the claim that episcopal electionisanexpression of popular and divinew ill (e. g. ep. 43.1; 67.4 -5), (b)adeliberate recruitment strategy for the clergy (ep. 38;39; 40), and (c) the establishment of arudimentary cursus honorum (e. g. ep. 29). ⁴⁰ In general, all that ecclesiastical hierarchies needed to impose was am inimum threshold to hinder the conversion of social power into specificallyr eligious leadership. They opposed the purchase of religious capital (i. e. what will be later be termeds imony), since it negates the differenceb etween patron and clergy by nullifying the religious labour of the latter.A nother danger they perceivedw as that patronage might support the enemies of the faith, such as the misguided patrons of the Acts of Peter,o rt he alleged vanity of the rich women lured by Marcus the Valentiniana nd his followers (Iren. haer.1 .13.3).⁴¹ Despite such conflicts between socio-economic and religious power,e arly Christianitye scaped becomingw hollyp roletarianised. To be sure, mediocritas would remain the "solid keel of the Christian congregations" (Brown 2012,8 1) even in the fourth and fifth centuries, but was not incompatible with agrowing number of wealthyindividuals,even egregii and clarissimi. Religious hierarchies,  Forthe initial donation to the poor,see Pontius, Vit. Cypr. 2. 7. On the semantic evolution of suffragium from the end of the Republic onwards, see still de Ste. Croix( 1954,3 3-48).  In this case it is amatter of appointing presbyteri doctores for the instruction of the catechumens and lectores to assist the priests involved in teaching.  Another example might be the case of case of Theodotus,the Roman money-lender who paid Natalius,abishop of his 'heresy' (ἐπίσκοπος […] ταύτης τῆςαἱρέσεως)asalary of 150 denarii a month to takecareofthe groupthat followed his adoptionist doctrine, which had split off from the main congregation led by Zephyrinus (Euseb. Hist. eccl. 5.28.8 -10). On 'disguised patronage' see further Stoops (1986); Perkins (1995, 133).
The strugglef or the monopolisation of religious goods fullya ware of the value of awealthypatron, never hesitated to procurepossible benefactors for needyg roups.⁴² Forwell-off people to be personallyinterested in church affairs, thereneeded to be areliable trade-off between them and the clergy. The symbolic and material support provided by the 'great laymen' to the structures ruled by the religious hierarchyw as rewarded by pastoral teachingsa nd training in which the social order is barelyq uestioned.S uch teachingc onfined itself for the most part to ar eligious reassessment of privated omination (over wives, children and slaves) and the role of patronus (vis-à-vis clients and subalterns in general). In 1Tim 'Paul' claims that it is God'sw ill that the proper asymmetry between slavesa nd masters be not upset,aposition that encourages the mischievous metaphorisation of the conventional languageo fp atronage: Letthose who areslavesunder ayokeregardtheir own masters as worthyofall respect,so that the name of God and the teaching mayn ot be blasphemed. And those whoh aveb elievers as masters should not despise them (μὴ καταφρονείτωσαν), because they are brothers. Rather they should servet hem better( μ ᾶ λλον δουλευέτωσαν), because those who are receivingtheir benefaction⁴³ arebelievers and beloved (ὅτι πιστοί εἰσιν καὶἀγαπητοὶ οἱ τῆς εὐεργεσίας ἀντιλαμβανόμενοι).

The struggle against the enlightened
We have seen thatcharismatics maybeabsorbed into the church, and the wealth of the great laymenco-opted to servechurch structures for the common good. Yet there still remains ome opponents who cannot be integrated by such strategies and even try to movet he goalposts (seeB ourdieu 1993, 134): they dispute the clergy'sd omination of the field,a nd refuse to accept the principles thata re claimed to legitimate that dominance. What these people seem to question is the very idea that ἐκκλησίαι/ecclesiae must be structured, organised and dominated by appeal to anyt ype of sociosymbolic property,whether it be institutional grace, gift of the spirit,e xtraordinary resistance to intimidation and torture, wealth and social influence, skill in  See Lampe'sreadingofthe apocalyptic paraenesis in TheShepherdofHermas (Lampe 2003, 90 -99).  It is hard to agreet hat the author is here "using conventional shame/honour languagei na manner subversive of the system itself" (Johnson 2001,285). The exegetical disputeoverthe alternative between 'masters-as-benefactors' and 'slaves-as-benefactors' is old as the Vulgatea nd John Chrysostom. exegesis, family relationship to the founder.Their ownm ystic knowledge of the divinea nd its relation to the world is founded upon ad ifferent readingo f( almost) the same series of cosmic and historical events from which the bishop drawsh is knowledge-power.T his readinge ntitles them to downgrade clericalepiscopal authority,w ithout claiming that they themselvesa re entitled to rule or concern themselvesw ith visiblel eadership. While admitting the circulation of different Christian currencies,t hey in effect denyt hat such an admission legitimates anyc laim to definitive religious power.
The Valentinians, that is, the various disciples who understood themselves as influenced by the Egyptian master Valentinus (see Thomassen 2006), who was active in Rome between c.135 and 169CE, considered ideological dissent regarding proper beliefs, experiences and conducts anaturalfact,perhapsevenan anthropological given.⁴⁴ They mayevenhavelooked upon such differences with some soteriological optimism and confident missionary zeal. Otherwise they would not have 'lovingly' (Lampe 2003,3 88, also Brakke 2010 mixed with the non-enlightened ('Psychic')g roups of Jesus-followers in order to invite them to theirown meetings and perhaps put them through asystematic course of instruction (Layton 1987, 306,r eferringt oP tolemy's Letter to Flora [ap. Epiph. haer. 33.3 -7), as though they werei nfiltrating ac lass of promisings tudents taught by an unsatisfactory master.

The struggle for the monopolisation of religious goods
In the course of his teachinginaValentinian 'community house' on the ViaLatina Florinus expounded to the illuminandi the gospel of Valentinus, that is, the advanced version of the revelation. But when he worked with Victor and celebrated the Eucharist in the congregation of the 'Psychics',h is teaching "resembl[ed]t he doctrine of the faithful" (Iren. haer. 3 .17.4), in full accordance with what Polycarp usedt op reach and Irenaeus now professes.
These 'enlightened' persons held to atriadic anthropology,optimistic soteriology, and a 'concentric', soft ecclesiology. Their view of religious knowledgepower did not include monopolistic claims on the government of congregations. Personalc areer plans did not implye xclusive rights to all church leaderships. This weakly-developed conception of governance was as erious challenget o those who, like Irenaeus,wereintent on constructing and policing an institution tailored so that they might hold leading positions. Such ap rogrammatic invisibility and indifferencet oi nstitutionalised prominence,w hich blurred the ecclesiastical space of representation, was an affront to the church'se mergent hierarchy. Their claimed 'gnoseo-ontological' capital infiltrated structures that hierarchs wishedt oc ontrol by means of juridico-apostolic capital. From Irenaeus' standpoint,t hese people werew orse than enemies: they weref alse friends and deceivers.
The Valentiniansthus gave improper answers to questions about representation, organisation, and the internal hierachisation.⁴⁷ How can the hierarchs combat those unwilling to show themselves, let alone fight?How werethey to create ac lear line of separation against thosewho actuallyt olerate different opinions, and in their own systems permit different visions and even different principles of vision (Dunderberg2 005,9 4)? Valentinians did not even believet here was an 'outside the church' (ἔξω τῆς ἐκκλησίας), and thus rejected the use of descriptive tagsand labels apart from 'Christians' (see Gos. Phil. [NHC II,3] 52:24;62:31;64:25; 67:26). Perhaps they did not even care much about those who decided to defect: "Make steadythe feetofthose who have stumbled and stretch out your hands to those who are sick […]F ocus your attention upon yourselves. Do not focus your attention upon others, that is, ones whom youh avee xpelled" (Gospel of Truth 33.1-3a nd 12-15).⁴⁸ Such as truggle required an ew discursive formation, a  On aprobable Valentinian textsuch as the Apocryphon of James (NHC I,2), see Rouleau(1987, 17-22).  If ollow heret he version of Layton (1987) rather than Attridge and MacRae, whot ranslate: "do not be concerned with other things which youh aver ejectedf romy ourselves" (italics mine). Orlandi too thinks the Coptic word hnkaye ('others')r efers to people rather than things: Orlandi (1992, 67). unique 'regulatory scheme' (Le Boulluec 1985, 1:15 -16) capable of generating a specific set of enunciative strategies aimed at detectinga nd suppressingdoctrinal dissent.I no ther words, it required an ew device and an ew engine: 'heresy'.⁴⁹ Of course, Idon ot claim that heresy and heresiologyw erei nvented to neutralise preciselythis 'enlightened' view of church order.Infact,asIrenaeus says of his predecessors, "they did not know enough about their systems",⁵⁰ and so their attacks failed to hit home. Indeed, the inventor of heresy,J ustin (Martyr) of Neapolis,probablydid not includethe followers of Valentinus among the heretics until his lastw ork, the Dialogue with Trypho (Lampe 2003,3 90;m orec autiously, Dunderberg2 005,7 7).⁵¹ As au niversal passe-partout for decoding division by emphasising differences,h eresy was as yett he onlyw eapon capable of warding off the challengelaunched by such aspiritual elite, whose centrifugalism mocked the identitarian narcissism championed by the leaders of the Great Church.
When he writes that Valentiniand octrine is the recapitulatio […]o mnium haereticorum (haer.4praef. 2),I renaeus is suggesting that the ontogeny of this particulars pecies of heretic sums up the entire phylogeny of the genre. Target and device virtuallyo verlap. Although it fits the excesses of the charismatics and the claims of some great laymen to specificallyreligious capital, the heresiological frame is particularlya ssociated with the Great Church'sw restlingw ith the 'enlightened' and their subtle strategies of recruitment.Other formso fc ontrol were simplyt oo crude for the intellectual skills of these masters.⁵² They too could cite apostolic authorities and traditions (Koester 1987, 1 -16);⁵³ they too wereu nquestionablys killed exegetes of biblical texts;t heyw erec areful not to challenget he principle of internal hierarchyf or defining the legitimate producers of religious capital; they could speak of the Biblical creator in an on-dismis- Le Boulluec (1985, 1:88) rightlyuses the word artifice,defined by the PetitRobert as "moyen habile, ingénieux".  ….ignorabant regulam ipsorum: Iren. haer.4praef. 2.  Valentinusi sn ot mentioned among the heresiarchs in 1Apol. 1.26;w hile the Valentinian Ptolemyevenreceivespraise: see 2Apol. 2.9 -11. Although Justin'scharacter has often been identified with Valentinus' pupil, the case cannot be proven.  This is probablytrue for Valentinus, Heracleon, Ptolemy, Florinus,Theodotus.Conversely, it mayn ot be purec hancet hat Marcus' group is called θίασος not σχολή at Iren. haer.1 .13.4.  At some point,t he Valentinians began to link Valentinus with Paul via some intermediate figures likeT euda or Glaucia, whoa re however unknown to us (see Clem. Al. Strom.7 .106.4). In his Letter, Ptolemyt ellsF lorat ob e" worthyoft he apostolic tradition (τῆς ἀποστολικῆςπ ραδόσεως), which even we have receivedb ya postolic succession (ἐκδ ιαδοχῆς)" (ap. Epiph. haer.3 3.7. 9).
The strugglef or the monopolisation of religious goods These are: a) the imposition of institutional charisma; (b)the assertionofthe autonomyofs pecificallyr eligious power as against other socially-legitimatef orms of influence; and (c) the elaboration of heresy as at oolkit for producing exclusion from dissent and turning similarityinto otherness. In every market,the objective possibilitiesofprofit rest on the creation of collective expectations matching the intentions of certain producers.Anon-economic or,m ore precisely, an 'anti-economic' market such as the religious field,h owever,r equires the denial of interest and calculation by both producers and consumers.T op ut the point somewhat differently, the collective misrecognition of the true natureofthe religious exchange -thatits 'social logic' consists in the asymmetrical exchangeof religious goods and services -cannot be allowed to become common knowledge (Bourdieu 2000,192).⁵⁷