While “radical skepticism” in historical investigation strengthened the historical foundations of the Bible and Christianity, it undermines “apostolic succession”

I’m continuing to have an ongoing discussion with an individual named Nick Trosclair, at the tail end of old Green Baggins thread, on the topic of Apostolic Succession. The discussion has prompted me to go back and collect some links where I worked through the accounts of both F.F. Bruce and Roger Beckwith on what you might call “the authority structure of the earliest church”.

Nick Trosclair seems to me to be a “traditionalist” Roman Catholic, someone who grew up believing that Christ founded something like the Roman Catholic Church, that there have always been popes and bishops (which maybe didn’t quite look like medieval popes and bishops, but the authority structure was similar), and that the Roman Catholic Church has proceeded triumphantly, per Christ’s promise that “the gates of hell will never prevail”, and it is today what it was back then.

Now that historical research has really shattered that view, he is having trouble accepting the historical account (even though Joseph Ratzinger and the official Roman Catholic Church have incorporated it into their thinking), and he wants to chalk it up to “radical skepticism”.

Well, not only “apostolic succession” but the life and death of Christ, the Bible, and all of Christianity, have been subjected to the same kind of “skepticism”, with the result that Christ, the Bible and Christianity all rest on firmer historical evidence than ever before. The fact that “apostolic succession” and “papal suggestion” are radically undermined, just speaks to the overall weakness of the Roman Catholic claims to authority.

Here’s my most recent exchange:

The witnesses who speak of Apostolic Succession reveal that it was essential to the structure of the Church and not an ad hoc structure….

Given what I know about our Lord and his promises, it’s hard for me to believe that he would make the Apostles shepherds over His Body, then have them bestow that authority (as shepherds) to other men, and then within three generations have those shepherds UNIVERSALLY misunderstand the very nature of that Church over which they guided as true shepherds Do you believe that the Church as a whole had an identity crisis at the end of the 2nd century and fabricated the idea of Apostolic Succession? The protestant skepticism on this topic reminds me of the epistemological skepticism of Descartes, Hume, and modern philosophy in general.

I’m not saying it was “ad hoc”. I’m saying that the essential structure of presbyters, over a period of 150 years or so, lost its essentially Jewish flavor and adopted essentially what was a Gnostic/pagan structure. You can follow that through these four links, where I track F.F. Bruce’s account (and others, I think) along with Roger Beckwith’s account (references are contained within):

Elders Teachers Chairs 1

Elders Teachers Chairs 2

Elders Teachers Chairs 3

Elders Teachers Chairs 4

This is not a radical skepticism. In 1960, Joseph Ratzinger even accepted this historical account as valid. His point was that the structure change came before the “canon” of the New Testament. Doctrinally, even Rome between Vatican I and Vatican II and the Anglican Prayerbook acknowledged the historical differences.

The history behind this is not attributable to “radical skepticism”. The history is not in question, in its broad outlines, as well as in many of the details. It is well documented. Yes, individuals like Brown and Sullivan (whom you don’t like) report on the structure:

Change in teaching on holy orders.

See also:

Roman bait-and-switch on orders

But the doctrinal and theological import of all of this is that the “Episcopal structure” was optional, not integral, to “the church that Christ founded”. The Reformers were right and justified to challenge it and even get rid of it when it would not uphold Biblical teaching (substituting its own “Tradition” as somehow being the correct “interpretation” of genuine Biblical teaching).

And keep in mind, when you talk about “radical skepticism”, that Christianity as a whole, including the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the validity of the Old and New Testaments, all have gone through this “radical skepticism” and have survived and even thrived. On the other hand, the “Episcopal structure” and especially the early papacy have not survived. As I’ve noted above, teachings on these things have, even in their official, “doctrinal” forms, undergone “modification”.

No. I’m saying, given your method, you should reject them as inspired unless you can prove that they were commissioned by Christ to write an inspired text. Given your rejection of an authoritative Church and the methods you have presented, I do not see another option.

All along, you’ve mischaracterized what the “method” is. Apostolic authority does not strictly mean “an Apostle wrote it”. These men were also authorized by Apostles to carry their message. But that authorization certainly does not imply “apostolic succession” as Rome teaches it today.

Note, it is “the message” which constitutes “the succession” – the message, not necessarily the messengers. It is the “apostolic testimony”. I’ll go into this in more detail, but see Luke 1, just for example: Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they [the many accounts] were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, … so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught”. The “account” is what’s paramount. The Gospel message.

It does not matter what term you use, the fact is that bishops/presbyters (I know the terms were fluid early on) were shepherds over the whole Church.

Right, and the account I’ve given shows just precisely how “fluid” they are.

Again, are you suggesting that the office of bishop was no longer part of the Church in the 2nd – 21st centuries?

No, I’m suggesting the office of “bishop” as it existed in the late second century, was a development of the second century, in no wise integral to the presbyterial structure of the New Testament church (as was outlined in the “Elders Chairs” links above.

the fact that St. Jerome believed in Apostolic Succession and explicitly stated that the bishop alone can ordain.

It does not surprise me that the writers of the fourth century were clouded by earlier development. The fourth century is much less useful in determining what when on in the first and second centuries, compared with what the first and second century writers wrote.