There's widespread agreement among modern scholars that not every early Christian church had a monarchical episcopate. But Orthodox, characteristic of what he often does, has taken contradictory positions on the issue. He writes:
"And even if it [the monarchical episcopate] wasn't the earliest practice, that wouldn't refute my actual proposition, which is that it was an apostolic command that the church should have a monarchial episcopate at a later date....Firstly I didn't claim they [the apostles] did it [commanded the monarchical episcopate] later, I said that had they done it later you are not off the hook. Why might they have done it later? Because the age of the monarchial rule by the apostles was ending....There is no solid evidence for anything other than the monarchial episcopate....I'm saying nobody knows exactly how it played out, but the church witnesses that the monarchial episcopate is an apostolic teaching. Exactly what when and how that came to be is something we may not know, but that it so is what we do know....Obviously, because it [the monarchical episcopate] is the Apostolic Tradition and it is a command. It was always done this way. James in Acts is the single leader of the Jerusalem church." (sources here and here)
As those who have read much of Orthodox's material should know, he's a poor communicator, he often contradicts himself, and he frequently makes assertions without any supporting argumentation. But part of what he's saying in the comments above seems to be that the monarchical episcopate is required in all post-apostolic churches and was the form of government that existed during the time of the apostles. Orthodox argues that the apostles could have commanded that every church have a monarchical episcopate after their (the apostles') death, even if the monarchical episcopate hadn't existed everywhere during apostolic times, but he seems to think that such a scenario isn't the most likely one.
In the first thread quoted above, Orthodox also makes the following claims about Jerome:
"Jerome doesn't 'attest' to anything other than a monarchial episcopate. He gives an opinion it wasn't always so, but he gives no reason to believe he has any inside knowledge that we don't have....I've seen no evidence cited against the monarchial episcopate apart from a theory Jerome had."
So, he acknowledges that Jerome referred to something other than the monarchical episcopate existing early on, but he dismisses that view as "a theory Jerome had" without "any inside knowledge that we don't have". Yet, in the second thread cited above, Orthodox contradicts himself:
"All Jerome comments on is the naming. It doesn't help you at all."
First Orthodox claims that Jerome did acknowledge an early form of church government other than the monarchical episcopate. Then he claims that Jerome didn't do so, but instead only comments on the terminology of "presbyter" and "bishop" ("the naming").
Why would Orthodox want to change his argument? Because, as I pointed out to him, he's argued that Jerome was Eastern Orthodox and that the ancient church accepted the monarchical episcopate as something required of every church. If Jerome refers to early churches as not having a monarchical episcopate, as Orthodox originally acknowledged he does, then that raises doubts about Orthodox's claim that the ancient church always required the monarchical episcopate as something commanded by the apostles.
Before I go on to address the evidence relevant to Jerome, I should note that Jerome isn't the only patristic source who acknowledged that presbyter and bishop were originally the same office. Roger Beckwith comments:
"Other fourth-century writers, besides Jerome, who continue to recognise that bishop and presbyter were originally one, include Ambrosiaster, Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia." (Elders In Every City [Waynesboro, Georgia: Paternoster Press, 2003], n. 13 on p. 24)
Let's first look at Jerome's Letter 146. In that letter, which addresses matters of church government and whether presbyters and bishops were originally the same, he writes:
"Do you ask for proof of what I say?" (Letter 146:1)
As the Eastern Orthodox patristic scholar John McGuckin notes (see here), Jerome was arguing for something that had been largely neglected in his day. He wasn't just addressing a matter of terminology that would have been relatively uncontroversial. That's why he thinks his audience might be so skeptical of what he's saying.
Jerome goes on to comment:
"When subsequently one presbyter was chosen to preside over the rest, this was done to remedy schism and to prevent each individual from rending the church of Christ by drawing it to himself." (Letter 146:1)
Jerome tells us that what Orthodox has argued for was a "subsequent" development. And Jerome uses that reference to "subsequent" just after discussing the last apostle to die, John. He's referring to a change in church government that at least generally occurred after apostolic times.
Below are two other passages from Jerome that David King brought to my attention a number of years ago. I'm posting them as I received them from him:
"A presbyter, therefore, is the same as a bishop, and before dissensions were introduced into religion by the instigation of the devil, and it was said among the peoples, ‘I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, and I of Cephas,’ Churches were governed by a common council of presbyters; afterwards, when everyone thought that those whom he had baptised were his own, and not Christ’s, it was decreed in the whole world that one chosen out of the presbyters should be placed over the rest, and to whom all care of the Church should belong, that the seeds of schisms might be plucked up. Whosoever thinks that there is no proof from Scripture, but that this is my opinion, that a presbyter and bishop are the same, and that one is a title of age, the other of office, let him read the words of the apostle to the Philippians, saying, ‘Paul and Timotheus, servants of Christ to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi with the bishops and deacons.’" (Commentariorum In Epistolam Ad Titum, PL 26:562-563)
And:
"Therefore, as we have shown, among the ancients presbyters were the same as bishops; but by degrees, that the plants of dissension might be rooted up, all responsibility was transferred to one person. Therefore, as the presbyters know that it is by the custom of the Church that they are to be subject to him who is placed over them so let the bishops know that they are above presbyters rather by custom than by Divine appointment, and ought to rule the Church in common, following the example of Moses, who, when he alone had power to preside over the people Israel, chose seventy, with the assistance of whom he might judge the people. We see therefore what kind of presbyter or bishop should be ordained." (Commentariorum In Epistolam Ad Titum, PL 26:563)
Notice that Jerome tells us that the monarchical episcopate was a later development from "custom" and not a "Divine appointment". Notice, also, that above I've cited the Eastern Orthodox patristic scholar John McGuckin referring to the monarchical episcopate as a gradual development. If Eastern Orthodoxy has always recognized the monarchical episcopate as a requirement for every church by commandment of the apostles, then why would ancient sources like Jerome and modern Eastern Orthodox scholars, like John McGuckin, be unaware of that fact and even deny it?
Let's analyse what Jerome actually wrote. Jason quotes Jerome from letter 146. Let's read some more shall we? Because Jason cuts off the text at the very point where his position would fall into tatters...
ReplyDelete"When subsequently one presbyter was chosen to preside over the rest, this was done to remedy schism and to prevent each individual from rending the church of Christ by drawing it to himself. For even at Alexandria from the time of Mark the Evangelist until the episcopates of Heraclas and Dionysius the presbyters always named as bishop one of their own number chosen by themselves and set in a more exalted position, just as an army elects a general, or as deacons appoint one of themselves whom they know to be diligent and call him archdeacon."
Wow, that's puts a different perspective on things. Jerome is saying that this practice of having one presbyter in charge has ALWAYS been practiced from the time of Mark. When was Mark alive, at least by Jerome's reckoning? St. Jerome ("De Vir. Illustr.", viii) assigns it to the eighth year of Nero (62-63). Presumably then, Jerome ascribes this change over to some time well before AD 63. Clearly then, Jerome assigns the monarchial episcopate as being ALWAYS practiced since apostolic times.
Let's look more closely at Jason's other quotes:
"A presbyter, therefore, is the same as a bishop, and before dissensions were introduced into religion by the instigation of the devil, and it was said among the peoples, ‘I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, and I of Cephas,’"
This of course is a reference to events that Paul describes in 1 Corinthians. This book is typically dated to around AD 51, and presumably refers to events prior to that. So Jerome is saying that he thinks this practice of having one presbyter in charge has ALWAYS been practiced, starting sometime between around AD 50 and AD 60 to his time.
As I stated already, many people see development in ecclesiology taking place even within the book of Acts. It wouldn't necessarily be unreasonable to say that the apostolic chuch continued in development during the time between when the Acts narrative ends and the apostles themselves die. As I said already, if things played out that way, that does not in any way refute the proposition that it was an apostolic command. I again point out the total lack of controversy in the historic record about the monarchial episcopate, which would be inexplicable if it weren't an apostolic command. Power is always controversial. Power in the church doubly so. That the elders in hundreds of churches would just give up their power with no ripple in the record would be extraordinary.
Now as to the question of Jerome saying the bishop does not have a position above presbyters "by divine appointment", this too is entirely orthodox. The bishop does not have a different divine charisma, it is the same as the priest. The priest has no more or less divine prejogatives. This however in no way refutes that the custom of having one bishop over the others is an apostolic command.
So there's nothing here at all to help Jason's case in Jerome. Whether he now at least conceeds some things will be a test of whether he has any semblance to being a fair and objective scholar, or whether it is only polemics that he wants.
Good post guys. I am a friend of Paul Manata's, and I have studied Eastern Orthodoxy and critiqued it, but not nearly as well or as in-depth as you guys have.
ReplyDeleteI remember talking to an Eastern Orthodox priest once. I brought up the fact that the early church had a plurality of elders leading the congregation, and that that is what I have as a Reformed Baptist. Amazingly, all he did was concede the point!
It is clear from church history that the monarchial bishop came about not because of Scriptural reasons, but because the church thought it would be more practical. But God in His wisdom established a plurality of elders for the apostolic church for many reasons in His infinite care for His Bride.
Orthodox keeps giving us more examples of his carelessness and dishonesty. He writes:
ReplyDelete"Wow, that's puts a different perspective on things. Jerome is saying that this practice of having one presbyter in charge has ALWAYS been practiced from the time of Mark. When was Mark alive, at least by Jerome's reckoning? St. Jerome ('De Vir. Illustr.', viii) assigns it to the eighth year of Nero (62-63). Presumably then, Jerome ascribes this change over to some time well before AD 63. Clearly then, Jerome assigns the monarchial episcopate as being ALWAYS practiced since apostolic times."
Where does Jerome say "always"? In the context of what occurred "at Alexandria from the time of Mark the Evangelist". How does a comment about what happened in one city, something you refer to as a "change", justify your previous argument that the monarchical episcopate existed everywhere as a requirement of the apostles? It doesn't.
And you're assuming that "from the time of Mark the Evangelist" means that what Jerome is referring to occurred "well before" the year 63. Why should we make that assumption? How do you know that Jerome meant that the change occurred "well before" the time of Mark's death? The phrase "from the time of Mark the Evangelist" allows that interpretation, but doesn't require it, and the previous sentence makes it unlikely. What you're referring to comes just after what I cited from Jerome regarding what happened "subsequent" to the time of the apostles. Here's what I said in the first post in this thread:
"He's referring to a change in church government that at least generally occurred after apostolic times."
Perhaps Jerome thought of Alexandria as an exception ("even at Alexandria", as he puts it), which is why I used the term "generally", but it's also possible that Jerome meant to refer to the change occurring shortly after Mark's lifetime without specifying that it began immediately at the time of Mark's death. That would make more sense of what Jerome argues prior to that sentence.
Regardless, his comments about Alexandria don't justify ignoring his other comments about how presbyters and bishops were initially the same and how the change was gradual and at least generally post-apostolic and not a Divine appointment. You're attempting to use some portions of Jerome to justify a modified form of your earlier argument, but you're ignoring other portions of what Jerome said and you aren't defending what you initially argued.
You write:
"This of course is a reference to events that Paul describes in 1 Corinthians. This book is typically dated to around AD 51, and presumably refers to events prior to that. So Jerome is saying that he thinks this practice of having one presbyter in charge has ALWAYS been practiced, starting sometime between around AD 50 and AD 60 to his time."
Once again, you've taken Jerome out of context, have read multiple assumptions into the text, and have ignored the remainder of what Jerome says. Jerome doesn't say that the events of 1 Corinthians 1 mark the time when the monarchical episcopate was established, much less does he claim that it was established everywhere and "always" at that time. He's using 1 Corinthians 1 as an example of divisiveness. He's not claiming that the monarchical episcopate began and existed everywhere at the time described in 1 Corinthians 1 or just afterward. (If you're assuming that it happened afterward, then how can you possibly know that it was between the years 50 and 60 rather than later? You can't possibly know that.) Your interpretation contradicts what Jerome goes on to say. Just after what you're citing, he goes on to refer to Philippians 1 as an illustration of presbyters and bishops being the same. Philippians was written after the timeframe Paul is addressing in 1 Corinthians 1. The fact that divisiveness like what's described in 1 Corinthians 1 brought about the change in church government doesn't prove that the change occurred roughly between the years 50 and 60 in even a single location, much less everywhere, nor does it prove that the change was by apostolic requirement.
My second quote from Jerome's commentary on Titus specifically states that the change in church government occurred "by degrees" and "rather by custom than by Divine appointment". These comments by Jerome are a contradiction of what you argued earlier. You're now acknowledging that a change in church government occurred, but you're trying to date it as early as possible, and you're assuming that it must have been more widespread early on than Jerome suggests. You do so by reading unjustified assumptions into some portions of what Jerome wrote while ignoring other portions. And even after interpreting Jerome in such a dubious manner, you're still left with multiple contradictions of what you originally argued.
You write:
"As I stated already, many people see development in ecclesiology taking place even within the book of Acts. It wouldn't necessarily be unreasonable to say that the apostolic chuch continued in development during the time between when the Acts narrative ends and the apostles themselves die."
What you "stated already" was incoherent and contradictory, as I documented. You're now abandoning some of what you said while emphasizing the portions you think you can salvage. In your latest post, you give us timeframes like "well before" the year 63 and "starting sometime between around AD 50 and AD 60". I've already explained why some of your dating is unreliable. But even if a monarchical episcopate had formed in one place or multiple places around the middle of the first century, it wouldn't therefore follow that the monarchical episcopate existed everywhere or was an apostolic requirement. Jerome specifically denies that it was, and his language suggests that at least most of the shift to the monarchical episcopate occurred subsequent to the death of the apostles.
Readers should keep in mind, also, that Orthodox's admission that there wasn't initially a monarchical episcopate (assuming that he now agrees with Jerome) makes dubious his previous assumptions about documents like First Clement. When a document like First Clement (or Philippians, 1 Timothy, The Didache, etc.) refers to a twofold form of church government rather than the threefold form of Ignatius of Antioch (bishops and deacons rather than bishops, presbyters, and deacons), why should we assume that a monarchical episcopate had already developed in such regions and that "bishops" is meant to include a lower office of presbyters (or that the authors in question repeatedly left out one of the three offices when addressing church government)? If churches initially didn't have a monarchical episcopate, then why should we interpret a document like First Clement in a less natural manner in order to arrive at the conclusion that a monarchical episcopate existed in Rome at the time?
Orthodox writes:
"I again point out the total lack of controversy in the historic record about the monarchial episcopate, which would be inexplicable if it weren't an apostolic command. Power is always controversial. Power in the church doubly so."
You've admitted, above, that there may have been changes in church government during the timeframe addressed by the book of Acts. You went on to comment:
"It wouldn't necessarily be unreasonable to say that the apostolic chuch continued in development during the time between when the Acts narrative ends and the apostles themselves die."
So, if it's not unreasonable to think that a change to a monarchical episcopate occurred during that timeframe without leaving any records of "controversy" in the relevant literature, then why is it unreasonable to think that the same could have occurred in later decades as well? How do you know that the reason why the monarchical episcopate doesn't seem to have developed until later in some regions (Rome, for example) wasn't because there was some controversy? We know that other changes in church government occurred. You've acknowledged that there were changes in other contexts. Some of the patristic sources refer to church offices that ceased to exist, didn't exist initially, or were altered in some manner. There wasn't always a controversy in the extant historical record every time such a change occurred. If there was a general consensus that it would be beneficial to set one presbyter over the others, for example, then why would we expect much of a controversy?
Readers should keep in mind that I haven't objected to the monarchical episcopate in itself. I've argued that it's one acceptable form of church government among others, and that it (the monarchical episcopate) might have existed during the time of the apostles. It may be one form of apostolic church government, but not the only one. I don't consider the popularizing of the monarchical episcopate to be something that ought to bring about major controversy, and I see no reason to think that the early Christians would have viewed it as something highly controversial. If one acceptable form of church government gradually becomes widespread, we shouldn't assume that there would be a major controversy over it, much less should we assume that the form of government that became popular is required in all churches by apostolic command.
Orthodox writes:
"Now as to the question of Jerome saying the bishop does not have a position above presbyters 'by divine appointment', this too is entirely orthodox. The bishop does not have a different divine charisma, it is the same as the priest. The priest has no more or less divine prejogatives."
Where does Jerome offer the explanation you're offering? He doesn't. He's addressing how bishops were set above presbyters. He says that it happened "by degrees" and by custom rather than Divine appointment. He says that bishops and presbyters were initially the same, but that a change occurred over time. Jerome is making these comments in the context of explaining why bishops should be humble in exercising their power. If they received their power by apostolic command, which is Divine, then what sense does it make for Jerome to distinguish between such a Divine apostolic commandment and "Divine appointment"? Where's your evidence that "Divine appointment" has the specified meaning you're assuming? You're ignoring some portions of what Jerome wrote and reading concepts into the text that he doesn't mention.
And you still, after all this time and after repeated requests, haven't documented your assertion that the monarchical episcopate was an apostolic commandment. Telling us that it's "Tradition" doesn't prove that it's an apostolic command. Again, if some patristic sources and Eastern Orthodox scholars think that the earliest churches didn't have a monarchical episcopate, and documents like First Clement suggest that some churches still didn't have one in the late first century and beyond, why should we think that the monarchical episcopate is required in every church by commandment of the apostles? Are Eastern Orthodox scholars like John McGuckin ignorant of this Tradition that your denomination supposedly has always held?
>Where does Jerome say "always"? In the context of
ReplyDelete>what occurred "at Alexandria from the time of Mark
>the Evangelist". How does a comment about what
>happened in one city, something you refer to as a
>"change", justify your previous argument that the
>monarchical episcopate existed everywhere as a
>requirement of the apostles?
Well he does say "EVEN at Alexandria", which would imply that Alexandria was the slowest off the mark compared to the other cities in having a monarchial episcopate.
>And you're assuming that "from the time of Mark
>the Evangelist" means that what Jerome is
>referring to occurred "well before" the year 63.
>Why should we make that assumption?
???
When you say "the time of XXX person", it implies when they were active, it hardly means just as they had died.
>What you're referring to comes just after what I
>cited from Jerome regarding what happened >"subsequent" to the time of the apostles.
Pure fabrication on your part. Jerome never refers to anything as subsequent to the apostles.
>Perhaps Jerome thought of Alexandria as an
>exception ("even at Alexandria", as he puts it),
The only way to interpret this is if Alexandria was the exception of being the slowest to become monarchial.
>but it's also possible that Jerome meant to refer
>to the change occurring shortly after Mark's
>lifetime without specifying that it began
>immediately at the time of Mark's death. That
>would make more sense of what Jerome argues
>prior to that sentence.
So now the time of Mark means not the time of Mark? Pure desperation setting in.
>Regardless, his comments about Alexandria
>don't justify ignoring his other comments about
>how presbyters and bishops were initially the
>same and how the change was gradual and at
>least generally post-apostolic
The only way to interpret this is that the changes happened slowly over time and even took place in Alexandria in the time of Mark, who was the slowest. So it took place over time with Alexandria at the time of Mark last.
>but you're ignoring other portions of what
>Jerome said and you aren't defending what you
>initially argued.
Nonsense.
>Jerome doesn't say that the events of 1
>Corinthians 1 mark the time when the
>monarchical episcopate was established
?????
Are you reading the same text I am?
"A presbyter, therefore, is the same as a bishop, and BEFORE DISSENSIONS were introduced into religion by the instigation of the devil, and it was said among the peoples,"and it was said among the peoples, ‘I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, and I of Cephas,’ Churches were governed by a common council of presbyters; AFTERWARDS, it was DECREED in the WHOLE WORLD that one chosen out of the presbyters should be placed over the rest"
What are the facts according to Jerome?
1) Before the "Apollos" dissension there were multiple presbyters.
2) After the dissension there was one presbyter set above the others.
3) This change was "decreed" in "the whole world". WHO HAD THE AUTHORITY TO DECREE SOMETHING IN THE WHOLE WORLD EXCEPT AN APOSTLE?
>When a document like First Clement (or
>Philippians, 1 Timothy, The Didache, etc.) refers
>to a twofold form of church government rather
>than the threefold form of Ignatius of Antioch
>(bishops and deacons rather than bishops,
>presbyters, and deacons), why should we assume
>that a monarchical episcopate had already >developed in such regions and that "bishops" is
>meant to include a lower office of presbyters (or
>that the authors in question repeatedly left out
>one of the three offices when addressing church
>government)?
Because, as I've explained to you repeatedly, and even your Jerome quote attests to, originally the one presbyter who was set above the others was still referred to as both episcopos AND presbyter. The refinement of the terminology is what developed, not the ecclesiology itself.
>If churches initially didn't have a monarchical
>episcopate, then why should we interpret a
>document like First Clement in a less natural
>manner in order to arrive at the conclusion that a
>monarchical episcopate existed in Rome at the
>time?
There is nothing whatsoever "less natural" about it. What you are assuming a-priori, that it is the eccesiology that deveoped and not the terminology that developed.
>So, if it's not unreasonable to think that a change
>to a monarchical episcopate occurred during that
>timeframe without leaving any records of
>"controversy" in the relevant literature, then why
>is it unreasonable to think that the same could
>have occurred in later decades as well?
Because Jason, the only people with the respect and power in the church to make such a change world wide with no controversy in a tiny period of time would have been the apostles.
>How do you know that the reason why the
>monarchical episcopate doesn't seem to have
>developed until later in some regions (Rome, for
>example) wasn't because there was some
>controversy?
Assuming what you have yet to prove, that Rome changed later, or changed at all.
>If they received their power by apostolic
>command, which is Divine, then what sense does
>it make for Jerome to distinguish between such a
>Divine apostolic commandment and "Divine
>appointment"?
Because Jason, Orthodoxy now and in Jerome's time recognized the charism or sacrament or divine appointment to the ranks of the priesthood. That there is one divine charism and not two is Orthodox today, and it was Orthodox back then. That you want to read your protestant world view into a world view where there is apostolic succession and a sacrament of the priesthood is the problem here.
What we have here is Jason, who doesn't even believe that 4th century church fathers have received any accurate tradition, appealing to a church father (and failing) to back up his world view. But can he PROVE that the apostles didn't institute the monarchial episcopate? No he can't. He has to try and throw as much mud as he can, and try and draw inferences, but he can't PROVE it wasn't an apostlic command. But what if he is wrong? What if he is disobeying the apostolic tradition that was passed on down to the church?
3) This change was "decreed" in "the whole world". WHO HAD THE AUTHORITY TO DECREE SOMETHING IN THE WHOLE WORLD EXCEPT AN APOSTLE?
ReplyDeleteAhem, a common council of presbyters, as in the Jerusalem Council, composed of presbyters from the various churches would be able to do that sort of thing. That's a key argument for conciliar government, not the monarchial episcopate; and if the bishops were elected from the presbyters and local churches could, indeed, refuse their bishops, then you're left with something closer to Presbyterian polity than the monarchial episcopate as such Once again, Orthodox has assumed something that he needs to prove. Jerome does not say that the Apostles made this decision and decreed it.
Notice, that, for at least the second time, Orthodox has avoided interacting with McGuckin...
ReplyDelete>Ahem, a common council of presbyters, as in the
ReplyDelete>Jerusalem Council, composed of presbyters from
>the various churches would be able to do that sort
>of thing.
They could, but NOT WITHOUT A MAJOR CONTROVERSY. Only the apostles could just decree something by fiat and have it accepted without discussion. If it were done without the apostles there would have been a big ripple in the historical record about the controversy.
>Notice, that, for at least the second time,
>Orthodox has avoided interacting with
>McGuckin...
What is there in McGuckin worth interacting with? Just a lot of waffle and assertions about his own particular views.
Orthodox wrote:
ReplyDelete"Well he does say 'EVEN at Alexandria', which would imply that Alexandria was the slowest off the mark compared to the other cities in having a monarchial episcopate."
No, the comment doesn't have that implication, and reading such an implication into the text would contradict other portions of what Jerome wrote, as I explained earlier. The phrase "even at Alexandria" could have an implication the opposite of what you're assuming. Jerome was just discussing how presbyters and bishops were initially the same, and he cited New Testament passages in support of his argument, including passages as late as the writings of John. He then makes his reference to "even at Alexandria", and he refers to how the bishop there was chosen by the presbyters from among themselves. If Alexandria was thought to have shifted to a monarchical episcopate earlier than other churches, then Jerome would be commenting on how even there the bishop was chosen by the presbyters from among themselves, thus reflecting how prominent the presbyters remained even in a location that had shifted to a monarchical episcopate so early. Or the "even at Alexandria" reference may have something to do with some other factor we don't know about, something Jerome doesn't explain, but which would have been known to the original audience. Maybe Jerome is alluding to a reputation Alexandria had, the fact that it represents a church geographically distant from where Christianity began, or something else. Whatever the case, nothing in the passage makes your reading the most plausible, and your interpretation contradicts what Jerome writes elsewhere in the same letter and in his commentary on Titus.
Jerome had just referred to presbyters and bishops being the same in multiple New Testament passages, and he includes passages from the late first century (the letters of John). He then refers to how the change in church government occurred subsequently. It's the next sentence that contains the phrase about Alexandria that you keep citing. For you to ignore the sentences that came just before, ignore alternate plausible interpretations of the phrase you keep citing, then assume that the monarchical episcopate must have existed everywhere else before it arose in Alexandria, is absurd.
You write:
"When you say 'the time of XXX person', it implies when they were active, it hardly means just as they had died."
No, "from the time of" a person can include some portion of the time when the person was active, but it need not. Nothing in the phrase requires your earlier assertion that Jerome is referring to something "well before" the year 63, an assertion that you have yet to justify. You keep assuming that whatever reading you prefer must be true, without argument.
You write:
"Pure fabrication on your part. Jerome never refers to anything as subsequent to the apostles."
Just after he cites the letters of John, which probably were among the last New Testament documents written, Jerome comments:
"When subsequently one presbyter was chosen to preside over the rest, this was done to remedy schism and to prevent each individual from rending the church of Christ by drawing it to himself." (Letter 146:1)
As I documented in my first post in this thread, Jerome also refers to the change as a custom of the church rather than a Divine appointment. Given Jerome's view of apostolic authority, it wouldn't make sense to interpret a comment about something happening "rather by custom than by Divine appointment" as a reference to an apostolic command.
You write:
"1) Before the 'Apollos' dissension there were multiple presbyters.
2) After the dissension there was one presbyter set above the others.
3) This change was 'decreed' in 'the whole world'. WHO HAD THE AUTHORITY TO DECREE SOMETHING IN THE WHOLE WORLD EXCEPT AN APOSTLE?"
You keep ignoring what you've already been told. Again, Jerome's reference to 1 Corinthians 1 doesn't require that the monarchical episcopate arose in Corinth at the time of the events described in that passage, much less does it require that the monarchical episcopate arose in most or all other places by or around that time. As I explained to you before, Jerome goes on, just afterward, to cite Philippians 1 as an example of a passage in which presbyters and bishops are the same. In his Letter 146, he even cites the letters of John from the late first century. You keep taking portions of Jerome out of context, ignoring alternate plausible interpretations of those passages and ignoring other passages that contradict your interpretation of the portions you comment on.
You write:
"Because, as I've explained to you repeatedly, and even your Jerome quote attests to, originally the one presbyter who was set above the others was still referred to as both episcopos AND presbyter. The refinement of the terminology is what developed, not the ecclesiology itself."
If terminology is all that developed, then why do you repeatedly refer, above, to how the monarchical episcopate itself, not just terminology, developed? For example, concerning 1 Corinthians 1, you said:
"After the dissension there was one presbyter set above the others."
If terminology is all that developed, then why do you say that "one presbyter [was] set above the others"? That's a change in the structure of church government, not just a change in terminology. Similarly, when commenting on Jerome's reference to Alexandria, you referred to how "Alexandria was the slowest off the mark compared to the other cities in having a monarchial episcopate". Again, you weren't just referring to a change in terminology. Yet, above you tell us that "The refinement of the terminology is what developed, not the ecclesiology itself".
To be consistent with your most recent comments, you would have to at least acknowledge that there was some development in the structure of church government early on. And if there were some churches without a monarchical episcopate around the middle of the first century, why are we supposed to assume that there couldn't have been any around the end of the first century, such as when First Clement was written? Jerome cites the letters of John, written around the same time as First Clement, as examples of documents in which presbyters and bishops are the same. And we know, from what Jerome goes on to say just afterward and elsewhere, that he's referring to the structure of church government, not just terminology.
You write:
"Because Jason, the only people with the respect and power in the church to make such a change world wide with no controversy in a tiny period of time would have been the apostles."
Again, if the apostles allowed freedom on such matters of church government, then why should we think that only the apostles could bring about a popularization of the monarchical episcopate? And where are you getting the concept of a "tiny" period of time? You aren't getting it from the historical record or from modern scholarship. See my comments on John McGuckin in the other thread I linked to. And Jerome doesn't refer to a "tiny" period of time. He refers to the change occurring "by degrees", not by one apostolic command. From the records we have, it seems that in some places, such as Rome, the change didn't occur until well into the second century. I've discussed some of the relevant evidence in other threads, and, as you so often do, you've ignored much of what I said. As McGuckin notes, even in the third century we see that "[Cyprian's] own church wavered greatly over whether he, or the assembled presbyters, or the confessors had the higher standing" (The Westminster Handbook To Patristic Theology [Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004], p. 121). You keep assuming more consistency among the patristic sources than the evidence suggests.
You write:
"Because Jason, Orthodoxy now and in Jerome's time recognized the charism or sacrament or divine appointment to the ranks of the priesthood. That there is one divine charism and not two is Orthodox today, and it was Orthodox back then."
Why are you repeating that argument without interacting with what I said in response to it previously? Go back and interact with what I said earlier.
Readers should note that Orthodox frequently ignores what other people tell him. He recently wrote in response to Gene:
ReplyDelete"They could, but NOT WITHOUT A MAJOR CONTROVERSY. Only the apostles could just decree something by fiat and have it accepted without discussion. If it were done without the apostles there would have been a big ripple in the historical record about the controversy."
There are problems with Orthodox's line of reasoning above, and I explained some of those problems to him in an earlier response. He ignored much of what I told him.
Readers should keep in mind that Jerome, in his commentary on Titus quoted in the first post in this thread, refers to how the change to a monarchical episcopate occurred "by degrees", not at one time as a result of an apostolic command. And Jerome refers to the change occurring "subsequently" to what he had just cited from various New Testament documents, including the letters of John, which probably were written late in the first century. Furthermore, Jerome comments that the change to a monarchical episcopate was by church custom rather than Divine appointment. If the change occurred by degrees and occurred at least generally subsequent to the letters of John and by church custom rather than Divine appointment, then why should we accept the scenario Orthodox suggests above?
Here, below, is what I wrote in response to Orthodox on this subject earlier in the thread. Notice that he keeps ignoring much of it:
"So, if it's not unreasonable to think that a change to a monarchical episcopate occurred during that timeframe [the New Testament era] without leaving any records of 'controversy' in the relevant literature, then why is it unreasonable to think that the same could have occurred in later decades as well? How do you know that the reason why the monarchical episcopate doesn't seem to have developed until later in some regions (Rome, for example) wasn't because there was some controversy? We know that other changes in church government occurred. You've acknowledged that there were changes in other contexts. Some of the patristic sources refer to church offices that ceased to exist, didn't exist initially, or were altered in some manner. There wasn't always a controversy in the extant historical record every time such a change occurred. If there was a general consensus that it would be beneficial to set one presbyter over the others, for example, then why would we expect much of a controversy? Readers should keep in mind that I haven't objected to the monarchical episcopate in itself. I've argued that it's one acceptable form of church government among others, and that it (the monarchical episcopate) might have existed during the time of the apostles. It may be one form of apostolic church government, but not the only one. I don't consider the popularizing of the monarchical episcopate to be something that ought to bring about major controversy, and I see no reason to think that the early Christians would have viewed it as something highly controversial. If one acceptable form of church government gradually becomes widespread, we shouldn't assume that there would be a major controversy over it, much less should we assume that the form of government that became popular is required in all churches by apostolic command."
>>They could, but NOT WITHOUT A MAJOR CONTROVERSY. Only the apostles could just decree something by fiat and have it accepted without discussion. If it were done without the apostles there would have been a big ripple in the historical record about the controversy.
ReplyDeleteThis is a glaring non-sequitur. A. There were controversies with or without apostolic authority, Orthodox. The New Testament testifies to it. The Jerusalem Council met with resistance. Apostolic authority doesn't mean that there would have been no conflict, since there were those in the churches who questioned the authority of the Apostles in the NT itself. An apostolic command does not self-select for a lack of controversy. You asked "WHO HAD THE AUTHORITY TO DECREE SOMETHING IN THE WHOLE WORLD EXCEPT AN APOSTLE?" Answer: a conciliar church government with or without the Apostle's provides such authority would have been able to do so. The Jerusalem Council is a prime example. This is a key argument for something closer to Presbyterian or cosistorial polity in the period in question. Apparently you agree with that answer, since in your response you add the caveat "but not without a major controversy." B. The period of history in question is a period about which exceedingly little is known. You have no idea what the historical record would or would not show, because there is so little of it extant. You are, once again, making assumptions and reading that into the record.
>>What is there in McGuckin worth interacting with? Just a lot of waffle and assertions about his own particular views.
Then the onus, Orthodox, is on you to show his waffling and assertions. What is his "waffling?" What "assertions?"
>And Jerome refers to the change occurring
ReplyDelete>"subsequently" to what he had just cited from
>various New Testament documents, including the
>letters of John, which probably were written late in
>the first century.
Jason confuses the issues to suit his point. The issue is not when John's letters were written, the issue is when Jerome thinks John's letters were written. When I pointed out Jerome's reference to Mark, I pointed out when Jerome himself thought Mark died. I didn't overlay modern scholarship onto Jerome's world view.
However I think it questionable that you want to link the quote from John to the following statement the way you do. Remember Jerome's aim is to refute someone who want's to make presbyters equal to deacons. In doing so, Jerome quotes John referring to himself as a presbyter. But was Jerome's point that John the apostle couldn't be higher in the church than other presbyters? I hardly think that is his point. I think he is referring back to his earlier general assertion about the early church situation, not specifically to being later than John.
It should also be noted that Jerome is inconsistent with himself in ascribing this passage to John the apostle, since in De viris illustribus he ascribes 2 and 3 John to another John "John the Elder". "The other two [Epistles] of which the first is "The elder to the elect lady and her children" and the other "The elder unto Gaius the beloved whom I love in truth," are said to be the work of John the presbyter to the memory of whom another sepulchre is shown at Ephesus to the present day, though some think that there are two memorials of this same John the evangelist."
Of course, Jason will conveniently ignore this viewpoint, since to give it credence he would admit he has no canon.
>Here, below, is what I wrote in response to
>Orthodox on this subject earlier in the thread.
>Notice that he keeps ignoring much of it:
No, don't lie. I adressed the fact that the only people with enough authority in the church to enact a change that drastic with no ripple in the historical record and in so short a time (if such a change did take place at all) would be the apostles. You are the one who ignores this argument.
>There were controversies with or without apostolic
ReplyDelete>authority, Orthodox. The New Testament testifies to
>it. The Jerusalem Council met with resistance.
>Apostolic authority doesn't mean that there would
>have been no conflict, since there were those in the
>churches who questioned the authority of the
>Apostles in the NT itself.
Exactly, which is why my personal position is that there never was ANY change at all, since a controversy of such importance would leave a mark in the historical record.
But *IF* you are going to say that a change took place, then the only *possible* way it might happen without too much ripple would be via the full strength of the apostolic prejogative and the respect it had in the church.
>You asked "WHO HAD THE AUTHORITY TO
>DECREE SOMETHING IN THE WHOLE WORLD
>EXCEPT AN APOSTLE?" Answer: a conciliar church
>government with or without the Apostle's
>provides such authority would have been able to
>do so. The Jerusalem Council is a prime example.
I note with amusement your presbyterian world view is directly at odds with Jason who argues that the Jerusalem Council cannot be used as a model for Church government because it was attended by apostles which Presbyterians don't have.
Oh why oh why can't protestants see the flaws in their sola scriptura thesis?
>The period of history in question is a period
>about which exceedingly little is known.
Is it? Are you prepared to front up and tell us exactly what period we are talking about? How long did it take?
And let's make ourselves a mental model here. If a group in the Presbyterian church argued for a change to a monarchial episcopate, how many years would that be likely to take to make root, let's say throughout the entire United States, with not a lot of controversy? Are you proposing something believable here?
And what does it say about a presbyterian ecclesiology that in no time at all it voted its own ecclesiology out of existance? Not a very successful world view I'd say.
Notice that Orthodox keeps ignoring large portions of what's written in response to him. And he continues to contradict himself. He writes:
ReplyDelete"The issue is not when John's letters were written, the issue is when Jerome thinks John's letters were written. When I pointed out Jerome's reference to Mark, I pointed out when Jerome himself thought Mark died. I didn't overlay modern scholarship onto Jerome's world view."
But here's what Orthodox wrote earlier in this thread concerning 1 Corinthians:
"This book is typically dated to around AD 51, and presumably refers to events prior to that."
He makes no reference to Jerome's view of the dating of 1 Corinthians, but instead appeals to when the book "is typically dated". Yet, now he tells us that we should only be concerned with what Jerome said about the dating of these books.
But if Jerome doesn't give us a date for the letters of John, then we have to estimate a likely dating. We know that John was commonly thought to have lived until an old age in patristic sources, and we know that his letters are commonly dated late in the first century. Jerome himself accepts the reports of John's old age and his work in Asia Minor late in life (Lives Of Illustrious Men, 9).
Orthodox refers to what Jerome reported regarding authorship of the letters by a different John, but the theory of another John involves a John who lived late in the first century. People who speculated about another John often attributed Revelation to that other John, and Revelation is commonly dated to the late first century. Jerome himself dates Revelation to the closing years of the first century (Lives Of Illustrious Men, 9). Papias speaks of what the Elder John "says", as if he was still living in Papias' time (Eusebius, Church History, 3:39:3-4). The apostle John and the Elder John (among those who distinguished between the two) were both commonly thought to have written late in the first century. Neither John gives us a dating consistent with Orthodox's argument.
Jerome's reference to the theory of another John doesn't change the fact that he tells us in his Letter 146 that he accepts authorship by the apostle. He says the same elsewhere (Letter 53:9). And the common belief of the patristic era was that John wrote late in the first century. That's also the popular view of modern scholarship. And Jerome's listing of John's writings last in the relevant section of Letter 146 (after citing Paul and Peter) is consistent with a later dating for John's writings. Why, then, should we assume that Jerome meant to date the letters of John early? In order to defend his previous argument that Alexandria was the last place where the monarchical episcopate arose, happening "well before" the year 63, Orthodox would have to argue that Jerome thought that John wrote "well before" the year 63. Why should we think that Jerome held such a view?
And if all of these things happened "well before" 63, then how do you, Orthodox, explain Jerome's reference to documents like Philippians and 1 Timothy, which aren't usually dated "well before" 63? Should we assume that Jerome held earlier than usual dates for those books as well? And how do you explain the other problems with your interpretation of Jerome, which I discussed in previous responses and which you keep ignoring?
You write:
"However I think it questionable that you want to link the quote from John to the following statement the way you do. Remember Jerome's aim is to refute someone who want's to make presbyters equal to deacons. In doing so, Jerome quotes John referring to himself as a presbyter. But was Jerome's point that John the apostle couldn't be higher in the church than other presbyters?"
John could be higher than other church leaders as an apostle, yet still be equal to other leaders in the sense of being a fellow presbyter, similar to what we see in 1 Peter 5:1-4. And if Jerome didn't intend to cite the letters of John in support of his argument about presbyters and bishops being the same, then why does he cite those letters in that context? Your suggestion that we should assume that Jerome cited John's letters for some other reason, without explaining to us what that other reason supposedly would be, doesn't make sense. Your reading of Jerome is getting increasingly ridiculous.
You write:
"No, don't lie."
I think that most readers can easily discern which of the two of us is being dishonest, and it's not me.
You write:
"Exactly, which is why my personal position is that there never was ANY change at all, since a controversy of such importance would leave a mark in the historical record."
Then do you disagree with Jerome concerning the fact that a change did occur? And why don't you interact with what I said previously, repeatedly, concerning how a change in something the apostles left as a matter of freedom wouldn't have been as significant as you've suggested? You keep acting as if everybody in the early church would have viewed a shift to the monarchical episcopate as having the significance you assign to it. That's an assumption you'll need to justify, not just assert. I and others, including scholars of your own denomination, have explained repeatedly how such a change could have occurred without the results you keep claiming we should expect.
>He makes no reference to Jerome's view of the
ReplyDelete>dating of 1 Corinthians, but instead appeals to
>when the book "is typically dated". Yet, now he tells
>us that we should only be concerned with what
>Jerome said about the dating of these books.
Fair enough, except I think it's fair to assume that Jerome knew the Tradition that Paul died around AD60 and thus 1 Corinthians was written some years before that. That's a lot different to assuming 2 John was not written before Paul's death, which is a lot trickier judgment.
>In order to defend his previous argument that
>Alexandria was the last place where the
>monarchical episcopate arose, happening "well
>before" the year 63, Orthodox would have to
>argue that Jerome thought that John wrote "well
>before" the year 63. Why should we think that
>Jerome held such a view?
Notice that Jason keeps ignoring large portions of what's written in response to him.
I don't see Jerome's comment about "subsequently" referring to the John quote, but to his overall argument in the first half of the letter about a change subsequent to dissension.
>And if all of these things happened "well before"
>63, then how do you, Orthodox, explain Jerome's
>reference to documents like Philippians and 1
>Timothy, which aren't usually dated "well before"
>63? Should we assume that Jerome held earlier >than usual dates for those books as well?
????
Paul is considered to have died around AD 63. Are we to understand you don't consider them Pauline?
>And how do you explain the other problems with
>your interpretation of Jerome, which I discussed
>in previous responses and which you keep
>ignoring?
There are no "other problems". This is just your usual strategy of "pretend you made a lot of good arguments 'somewhere out there'".
>John could be higher than other church leaders
>as an apostle, yet still be equal to other leaders
>in the sense of being a fellow presbyter, similar
>to what we see in 1 Peter 5:1-4.
OH! OH! Just like I've been saying that a bishop is equal to other leaders as far as being a fellow presbyter. You just conceded the whole ball game.
>And if Jerome didn't intend to cite the letters of
>John in support of his argument about
>presbyters and bishops being the same, then
>why does he cite those letters in that context?
[sigh] And you accuse me of not listening to what was said.
Jerome's overall aim is to prove presbyters are not the same as deacons. Thus to show that John is a presbyter, and clearly John is not a deacon, that is a good argument for Jerome's overall thesis.
>Then do you disagree with Jerome concerning
>the fact that a change did occur?
Why shouldn't I disagree with Jerome?
>And why don't you interact with what I said
>previously, repeatedly, concerning how a change
>in something the apostles left as a matter of
>freedom wouldn't have been as significant as
>you've suggested?
Assuming what you havn't proven.
>You keep acting as if everybody in the early
>church would have viewed a shift to the
>monarchical episcopate as having the
>significance you assign to it.
I don't assume it, I know it because the whole church accepted this teaching.
>I and others, including scholars of your own
>denomination, have explained repeatedly how
>such a change could have occurred without the
>results you keep claiming we should expect.
You keep assuming on this issue and many others, that the entire church can undergo major shifts without any blip in the historical record. For someone who supposedly derives their theology from the historical record, it's a position that makes no sense whatsoever.
You write:
ReplyDelete"Paul is considered to have died around AD 63. Are we to understand you don't consider them Pauline?"
I accept Pauline authorship. But the documents are usually dated close to the time of Paul's death. Why should we consider that "well before" the year 63?
You write:
"There are no 'other problems'. This is just your usual strategy of 'pretend you made a lot of good arguments 'somewhere out there''."
I didn't refer to "somewhere out there". I'm referring to my posts in this thread. You've repeatedly ignored large portions of what I've written, such as some of my responses to your claims about the "even at Alexandria" phrase in Jerome, the "Divine appointment" reference, church government at the time of Cyprian, etc.
You write:
"Just like I've been saying that a bishop is equal to other leaders as far as being a fellow presbyter. You just conceded the whole ball game."
No, I didn't. My argument has never been that a bishop can't be considered a fellow presbyter. Rather, my argument has been that you've failed to give us sufficient reason to conclude that references to "bishops" are meant to include a lower office of presbyters. Why should we assume that a monarchical bishop and presbyters under his authority are in view when a document like Philippians or First Clement refers to "bishops"? Your comments above don't demonstrate that I've "conceded the whole ball game". Rather, they demonstrate that you're still thinking poorly about the issues involved in this discussion.
You write:
"Jerome's overall aim is to prove presbyters are not the same as deacons. Thus to show that John is a presbyter, and clearly John is not a deacon, that is a good argument for Jerome's overall thesis."
The comments in question come in the first section of Jerome's Letter 146. He's discussing the fact that presbyters and bishops were initially the same. He discusses presbyters and deacons in the letter, but the immediate context is the discussion of presbyters and bishops, not presbyters and deacons. The fact that you would ignore the immediate context and appeal to some other context within the letter reflects how bad of a position you're in. Here's the sentence in question with the context leading up to it and the sentence after it:
"We read in Isaiah the words, 'the fool will speak folly,' and I am told that some one has been mad enough to put deacons before presbyters, that is, before bishops. For when the apostle clearly teaches that presbyters are the same as bishops, must not a mere server of tables and of widows be insane to set himself up arrogantly over men through whose prayers the body and blood of Christ are produced? Do you ask for proof of what I say? Listen to this passage: 'Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi with the bishops and deacons.' Do you wish for another instance? In the Acts of the Apostles Paul thus speaks to the priests of a single church: 'Take heed unto yourselves and to all the flock, in the which the Holy Ghost has made you bishops, to feed the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.' And lest any should in a spirit of contention argue that there must then have been more bishops than one in a single church, there is the following passage which clearly proves a bishop and a presbyter to be the same. Writing to Titus the apostle says: 'For this cause left I you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain presbyters in every city, as I had appointed you: if any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless as the steward of God.' And to Timothy he says: 'Neglect not the gift that is in you, which was given you by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.' Peter also says in his first epistle: 'The presbyters which are among you I exhort, who am your fellow-presbyter and a witness of the sufferings of Christ and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: feed the flock of Christ…taking the oversight thereof not by constraint but willingly, according unto God.' In the Greek the meaning is still plainer, for the word used is επισκοποῦντες, that is to say, overseeing, and this is the origin of the name overseer or bishop. But perhaps the testimony of these great men seems to you insufficient. If so, then listen to the blast of the gospel trumpet, that son of thunder, the disciple whom Jesus loved and who reclining on the Saviour's breast drank in the waters of sound doctrine. One of his letters begins thus: 'The presbyter unto the elect lady and her children whom I love in the truth;' and another thus: 'The presbyter unto the well-beloved Gaius whom I love in the truth.' When subsequently one presbyter was chosen to preside over the rest, this was done to remedy schism and to prevent each individual from rending the church of Christ by drawing it to himself." (Letter 146:1)
The immediate context is the sameness of presbyters and bishops. The "one presbyter" in the sentence just after the one we're discussing is a reference to the monarchical episcopate. Jerome specifically says that he's citing Paul and Peter to "prove a bishop and a presbyter to be the same". He then cites John as a further example. For you to ignore the immediate context and appeal to something further removed, without any justification, reflects how unreasonable your position is.
You write:
"I don't assume it, I know it because the whole church accepted this teaching."
Whether "the whole church" accepted the monarchical episcopate is under dispute. You've ignored much of what I've cited and discussed from the New Testament, First Clement, The Didache, etc. And the fact that the monarchical episcopate eventually became popular doesn't prove that the apostles commanded that all churches have a monarchical episcopate. You ignore large portions of what's written in response to you, then you repeat your earlier assertions, as if the responses hadn't been written.
You write:
"You keep assuming on this issue and many others, that the entire church can undergo major shifts without any blip in the historical record."
You've repeatedly ignored what I said earlier about why the popularizing of the monarchical episcopate that I've argued for wouldn't involve the sort of controversy you've suggested. You need to interact with what I said.
>But the documents are usually dated close to the
ReplyDelete>time of Paul's death. Why should we consider that
>"well before" the year 63?
You're arguing about a year or three, which is irrelevant to the overall argument. Merely "before" or "well before" is irrelevant.
>I didn't refer to "somewhere out there". I'm
>referring to my posts in this thread. You've
>repeatedly ignored large portions of what I've
>written, such as some of my responses to your
>claims about the "even at Alexandria" phrase in
>Jerome, the "Divine appointment" reference,
>church government at the time of Cyprian, etc.
And we see how confused you really are. I responded very specifically to your comments about Alexandria, which you ignored. And I responded to the "Divine appointment" question, you just didn't like the answer and in the end had no response.
[cue: "Somewhere, out there... "]
>Why should we assume that a monarchical
>bishop and presbyters under his authority are in
>view when a document like Philippians or First
>Clement refers to "bishops".
[sigh]
And we go back to my original thesis: You cannot prove that the monarchial episcopate wasn't either always practiced, nor commanded by the apostles.
I have no control over what you "assume". I only point out you have not refuted my original thesis. That it all comes down to who assumes what is a concession to my original thesis.
>For you to ignore the immediate context and
>appeal to something further removed, without
>any justification, reflects how unreasonable your
>position is.
[sigh]
This isn't just a rambling document where Jerome wanders from thought to thought. He wrote the letter FOR A REASON. He has a SPECIFIC point he wishes to refute. The WHOLE document was written to address this ONE point.
Thus it is ALWAYS valid to refer back to Jerome's overall purpose in writing. We can never assume, without reason, that Jerome must always be chaining one argument onto the previous one. Jerome is grabbing a selection of arguments always with the aim of proving his original thesis.
>Whether "the whole church" accepted the
>monarchical episcopate is under dispute.
Really. Point to someone in... oh let's say the 3rd century who did not accept the monarchial episcopate.
>You've ignored much of what I've cited and
>discussed from the New Testament, First
>Clement, The Didache, etc.
[cue: Somewhere, out there...]
I responded to your two-fold thesis by pointing out your a-priori assumption that the development that took place was in ecclesiology and not in terminology.
>And the fact that the monarchical episcopate
>eventually became popular doesn't prove that the
>apostles commanded that all churches have a
>monarchical episcopate.
See the original thesis. You've forgotten what you're arguing about.
>You've repeatedly ignored what I said earlier
>about why the popularizing of the monarchical
>episcopate that I've argued for wouldn't involve
>the sort of controversy you've suggested. You
>need to interact with what I said.
[cue: Somewhere, out there...]
Orthodox writes:
ReplyDelete"You cannot prove that the monarchial episcopate wasn't either always practiced, nor commanded by the apostles."
You asserted that the monarchical episcopate was commanded by the apostles. Therefore, you carry the burden or proof. It's not my responsibility to prove that they didn't command it. If there's an absence of proof that they did command it, then why would I have to go on to prove that they didn't command it?
You write:
"Thus it is ALWAYS valid to refer back to Jerome's overall purpose in writing. We can never assume, without reason, that Jerome must always be chaining one argument onto the previous one. Jerome is grabbing a selection of arguments always with the aim of proving his original thesis."
In other words, the immediate context of Jerome's comments is a problem for your argument, so you want to ignore the immediate context.
Do you deny that Jerome discusses the sameness of presbyters and bishops in Letter 146? If he does discuss that issue in Letter 146, then how is it relevant to point out that the letter is primarily about another issue? The immediate context of the comment Jerome made can be a secondary issue. The fact that the letter has a primary issue doesn't mean that we can ignore the presence of secondary issues within it.
You write:
"Point to someone in... oh let's say the 3rd century who did not accept the monarchial episcopate."
You're distorting the context of my comment. When you originally used the phrase "whole church", you were responding to something I said. I had referred to "everybody in the early church". I was addressing the early church in general, not just one timeframe, such as the third century. That's why I mentioned documents outside of the third century, such as Philippians, First Clement, and The Shepherd Of Hermas. I have mentioned the third century in the context of discussing disagreements over church government involving Cyprian's church, for example, but I never suggested that I had just one later timeframe in mind, like the third century.
You write:
"I responded to your two-fold thesis by pointing out your a-priori assumption that the development that took place was in ecclesiology and not in terminology."
And I responded to your argument that it was only a matter of terminology. Why should we believe that the most natural reading of the term "bishops" is "one monarchical bishop and some presbyters under his authority"? The fact that such an interpretation is possible doesn't make it probable. And you're proposing that multiple early sources used the terminology in such a manner. If they thought that the monarchical episcopate is as important as you claim it is, then why would they refer to presbyters under the authority of the monarchical bishop as "bishops" and include those presbyters with bishops without making any distinction between the two when discussing matters of church government?
>You asserted that the monarchical episcopate was
ReplyDelete>commanded by the apostles. Therefore, you carry
>the burden or proof. It's not my responsibility to
>prove that they didn't command it. If there's an
>absence of proof that they did command it, then
>why would I have to go on to prove that they didn't
>command it?
If all the churches follow a particular practice, don't you have a burden of proof to show it wasn't the apostles who set up this structure?
If you live in a country, and the system of government is set up a particular way, and you think there is something constitutionally wrong with how it is done, you're going to have to front up at the Supreme court and prove your case. You can't just say "I'm going to ignore all the laws of the land, because I don't agree".
>In other words, the immediate context of
>Jerome's comments is a problem for your
>argument, so you want to ignore the immediate
>context
In other words, the overall context of Jerome's comments is a problem for your argument, so you want to ignore the overall context
>If he does discuss that issue in Letter 146, then
>how is it relevant to point out that the letter is
>primarily about another issue?
Paragraphs, and the idea of separating groups of arguments: I don't know if there were used in antiquity. If they were, they are unlikely to be preserved. They were probably using scripta continua. Separating lines of thought is always a matter of judgment.
>And I responded to your argument that it was
>only a matter of terminology. Why should we
>believe that the most natural reading of the term
>"bishops" is "one monarchical bishop and some
>presbyters under his authority"?
I never made that argument. In fact it's the opposite of what I said. If the terminology of using episkopos to refer to the head bishop hadn't evolved yet, then there is no reason to believe episkopos refers to a monarchial bishop.
>If they thought that the monarchical episcopate
>is as important as you claim it is, then why would
>they refer to presbyters under the authority of
>the monarchical bishop as "bishops" and include
>those presbyters with bishops without making
>any distinction between the two when discussing
>matters of church government?
What else are they going to refer to them as? You can't as an individual force a terminology refinement onto the entire church. Those things take time to evolve. You can't just fabricate a new word, no one would know what you are talking about.
Orthodox wrote:
ReplyDelete"If all the churches follow a particular practice, don't you have a burden of proof to show it wasn't the apostles who set up this structure?"
If the "all the churches" in question are from a later timeframe, and the evidence pertaining to the earlier churches suggests that different forms of church government existed earlier, then we don't just assume that whatever existed later was in existence earlier as well. If, furthermore, there are people later on who comment that the situation was different earlier (like Jerome), then we have further reason to question the later situation. And if we know that such matters of church government aren't given the sort of emphasis that your position suggests they should have been given among the earliest Christians, then we, once again, have reason to doubt that the situation later in church history has the significance you claim it has. When people like Jesus, Paul, and Justin Martyr addressed the most important issues in the Christian life, the monarchical episcopate wasn't among them. In fact, they don't mention the concept at all.
You write:
"In other words, the overall context of Jerome's comments is a problem for your argument, so you want to ignore the overall context"
My interpretation of Jerome makes sense of both contexts, since the immediate context is related to the larger context. Your interpretation of Jerome, on the other hand, makes nonsense of the immediate context and the specific words Jerome chose to use. I demonstrated that fact earlier in this thread. I quoted Jerome's comments and pointed to the verbal connection Jerome made between his comments on Paul and Peter and his comments on John. You ignored what I demonstrated and chose, instead, to make an appeal to the primary issue Jerome was addressing, as if appealing to that primary issue is a justification for ignoring the text and the immediate context.
You write:
"Paragraphs, and the idea of separating groups of arguments: I don't know if there were used in antiquity."
What I argued has nothing to do with paragraph divisions. Go back and reread what I said.
You write:
"If the terminology of using episkopos to refer to the head bishop hadn't evolved yet, then there is no reason to believe episkopos refers to a monarchial bishop."
Again, if the two offices that would later be called "bishop" and "presbyter" were recognized as being different offices from the start, then why would the same term be used to refer to one bishop and multiple presbyters under his authority? People usually utilize different words to describe different things. That would especially be true if distinguishing between a monarchical church leader and other church leaders under him was as important as you claim it was.
You write:
"What else are they going to refer to them as? You can't as an individual force a terminology refinement onto the entire church. Those things take time to evolve."
The earliest Christians were already using multiple terms ("overseer" and "elder" in Acts 20:17-28, Titus 1:5-7, etc.). If the two offices in question were different from the start, as you're claiming, then no "refinement" would be needed. They would name them differently from the start. If people could use "bishop" and "deacon" from the start, then they could also use "presbyter" for a third office from the start. But they didn't. If the earliest Christians were able to distinguish between bishops and deacons with different terminology, then why are we supposed to believe that they needed several decades to distinguish between bishops and presbyters with different terminology? If using a word like "presbyter" would have been too difficult (a ridiculous suggestion), then why couldn't they have used a phrase like "the bishop and the leaders under him" rather than referring to the monarchical bishop and the presbyters together as "bishops"?
Again, the best explanation for why the early sources repeatedly refer to only two church offices, treat "bishop" and "presbyter" as interchangeable terms, and don't place the sort of emphasis on the monarchical episcopate that you do is that they didn't view church government the way you do.