Sheshbazzar

Some groups know better than to allow their 'leadership' devolve into a dictatorship ruled over by a single tyrant.
That is why councils of elders were formed, with each member being of equal authority and respect, with decision by majority deciding the issues.

sotto voce

'Checks up on'? 'Enforcement'?

Read my post. Not ludicrous circular arguments.

sotto voce

Like a waiter at table.

The word 'deacon' meant nothing more than 'helper', and was used of menials. In the church, overseers were required to be able to teach, i.e. they were to be well versed in Scripture, as well as being of good character. Deacons needed only to be of good character, though the requirement was scarcely more than was required of any church member. They were originally added to the church in order to carry out 'non-spiritual', practical tasks, and were chosen by the whole congregation, as, no doubt, were overseers, who would not only be dismissed but expelled from the church had they behaved like Justin, Clement, Jerome and a million more examples of leaders of fake churches who were despised even by pagans.

Sheshbazzar

All deacons can minister to the group, and being equal members of the group, minister to one another. It never requires any dictator to be minister.

DCHindley

That is not the correct underlying word. I think you have confused "δ" for "σ."

ἔπειτα προσφέρεται τῷ προεστῶτι τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἄρτος καὶ ποτήριον ὕδατος
Then deals the presiding (one) of the brethren bread and wine watered.

προεστῶτι part sg perf part act masc dat of προίστημι

εὐχαριστήσαντος δὲ τοῦ προεστῶτος
given thanks but from-the presiding (one)

προεστῶτος part sg perf act masc gen raw_preverb of προίστημι

προίστημι

A. Causal in these tenses, as also in pres. and aor1 mid., to set before or in front, προστήσας [σε] Τρωσὶ μάχεσθαι Il.
2. to set over others, c. gen., Plat.
II. Mid., mostly in aor1, to put another before oneself, choose as one's leader, Hdt.: c. gen., προΐστασθαι τουτονὶ ἑαυτοῦ to take as one's leader, Plat.
2 to put before one, put in front, Hdt., etc.
3. metaph. to put forward as a pretence, use as a screen, τὰ τῶν Ἀμφικτυόνων δόγματα προστήσασθαι Dem.; c. gen. to use one thing as a pretext for another, id=Dem.
4. to prefer, value one above another, τινά τινος Plat.
B. Pass., with aor2 act. προὔστην: perf. προέστηκα, ionic 2nd pl. προέστατε, inf. προεστάναι, part. προεστώς: aor1 pass. προεστάθην:—3 to put oneself forward, come forward, Dem.
2. c. acc. to approach, Soph.
3. c. dat. to stand before or face another, id=Soph.
II. c. gen. to be set over, be the chief power, τῆς Ἑλλάδος, τῶν Ἀρκάδων Hdt.:— to be at the head of a party, act as chief or leader, τῶν παράλων, τῶν ἐκ τοῦ πεδίου id=Hdt.; τοῦ δήμου Thuc.: hence absol., οἱ προεστῶτες, ionic -εῶτες, the leading men, chiefs, leaders, Hdt., Thuc., etc.
2. in various relations, to govern, direct, manage, οὐκ ὀρθῶς σεωυτοῦ προέστηκας you do not manage yourself well, Hdt.; πρ. τοῦ ἑαυτοῦ βίου Xen.
3. to stand before so as to guard him, Hdt.; πρόστητε τύχης be our defence against fortune, Soph.; ὁ προστὰς τῆς εἰρήνης the champion of peace, Aeschin.;—also, προὐστήτην φόνου were the authors of death, Soph.:—absol., βέλεα ἀρωγὰ προσταθέντα id=Soph.

DCH

TedM

My recent reading does not support your claim of an evolution within these epistles: I get the following from 'first to last' Bishop Mentioned Bishop Exalted:

Ephesians (1st): 16times, 12 times
Magnesian: 11 9
Trallians 9 6
Romans 1 0
PHiladelphians 9 7
Smyrnaeans 7 7
Polycarp 6 4


The 'first' one - Ephesians greatly exalts the role of the bishop.

But, really they all exalt the bishop. I agree that these may have been written AFTER Justin, but I am not seeing the progression you are seeing.

Bernard Muller makes a lot of points in favor or forgery -- to the point where he thinks probably a different person wrote each of them. I find that position unlikely, although he raises many interesting points. I do tend to agree with him that Ignatius himself probably was NOT a bishop.

Interestingly, the Philadelphians epistle has a reference to bishops in the plural which sounds to me like some churches may still have had multiple bishops at the time:

Chapter 10:
The same Epistles mentions Judaism as the heresy to watch for instead of a Docetic or Gnostic heresy that seems to deny the virgin birth, which appears to be the concern in several of the others. Perhaps the Philadelphia letter is 'more' likely to be legit?

That could be, although heresy is mentioned in several of the letters too, as a major concern.

If the Pastorals were written after Justin because 'Paul' didn't exist until after Justin, then how does one explain the apparent lack of ONE bishop per church in the Pastorals since Justin seemed to have no knowledge of multiple bishops in a church--but just ONE 'president' who presided over all? Wouldn't the hierarchy in the Pastorals be a step backward's from Justin?

sotto voce

The evolution of polity from the original democratically controlled polity of the apostles was probably as follows. Instead of several bishops per congregation, elected (as per Didache) from and by their own congregations, just one was effectively appointed, by governmental threat or by real Christians being killed or forced to flee. By that stage, the real church was no longer present where these monarchical bishops ruled. It may have still existed elsewhere, but is undetectable to history. In no other field of history is it so necessary to remember that history is not the story of what happened. Where money and sex are concerned, the stakes are the highest. The Roman imperium was infamously interested in both, and totally disagreed with the church.

The single bishop modified teaching and practice in line with governmental policy, which was mainly to change the communal, ordinary agape meal into the ritual, sacrificial offering made for many centuries by the government sacerdos, a role totally alien to the church. In time, the local leader was called presbyter (elder), but was actually sacerdos (one has to use the Latin word, because the English 'priest' is ambiguous).

The title of bishop was given to a regional controller of many congregations, in a diocese, coterminous with government administrative areas. So the multiple bishops controlled by local people disappeared, and a bishop became an unknown absentee, imposed, not selected. That alone tells us that the real church by then had disappeared, even if the theology that was developed, that eventually became thoroughly antichrist, does not.

stephan huller

But it is evident in the expansion of the Ignatian canon. Polycarp may be called 'bishop' in the preamble to the Syriac epistle directed to him but the concept of the importance of the bishop goes off the chain in the short and long Greek

Sheshbazzar

I almost took time to post all of those 'Bishop' verses in another thread yesterday, but figured anyone who gave a tinkers damn would read the Ignatian Epistles.
I'll add a few more tidbits for our readers enjoyment, these are presented in the order that I came across them in my reading of the texts.

First The Set Up;
A smooth introduction..
not to much noticable going on here....yet.
This is only a few words latter, Ignatius wants to be very sure we don't forget about those 'Bishops'.
Only some dozen more words and we get;
Just forget the indwelling guidence of the Holy Spirt, and of Christ that dwells within you folks, ya now gotta do what de 'Bishop' wills.

Oh and please forgive 'the Kings English' folks, I'm just quoting it as I find it.

Not gonna give that 'ol 'Bishop' line a bit of rest.
In other words keep your pie-hole shut unless he asks you to say something.

Perhaps realizing they were laying it on the 'Bishop' shtick a bit thick they leave off other than a couple of more small 'obey the bishop' statements.

Moving on then to The Epistle to the Magneasians

Again The Set Up:
Interpretation: if 'The Organization' chooses to put a snot-nosed kid in charge as 'Bishop', that still don't know how to wipe his own ass, but will do whatever the Papal mafiaso wants, you better not get in the way. Capice?
Not much wonder in that ....when he is nothing more than a tool installed by Rome. Chapter V is a death threat from the Roman Papacy to anyone who will not suck up to their installed stooge.
Unh huh. 'God' has now became the man that the Roman Papal mafiaso set in place.
Interpretation; Don't use any common sense, or pay any attention to maintaining decent ethics. Just fall in line with whatever 'The (Papal) Organization' instructs. If the 'Bishop' tells you to burn a few Jews, what the hell. He's boss man.

Now on to the Epistle to The Trallians

First The Set Up;
Got to make everyone think that there was a Papal 'Bishop' back then.

The Papal stooge has taken the place of Jesus Christ to be obeyed.
There is an echo in here. ^^
=Total Papal control.
Well folks enough of this for tonight, yet there are even more powerful or damning ones yet to be brought forward, either you see it or you don't.

I stick with my assement that the Roman Papacy, or what was to become known as the Papacy, forged these Ignatian writings either in whole or in part, introducing the title 'Bishop' as a means of creating a religious heirarchy that could claim to have held absolute authority over the Christian faith and Church from its inception.
A forged Church 'History' that would make the Catholic Doctrine of 'Apostolic Succession' a fait accompli.
And some are willing to let them get away with it.

TedM

Thanks for the quotes, but this isn't addressing what I was responding to, is it? I said I don't see much if any of an evolution. They are all VERY PRO-BISHOP.

It could be a retrofit, but isn't there another possibility? If Ignatius was on death row for his beliefs, and heresies were threatening churches, what better solution to the threats to unity than to encourage them to live in unity against heresies and in submission to their bishop? And, wouldn't this be all the more plausible if several bishops had visited him themselves and those issues of concern were discussed? Ignatius only naturally would have an affinity with them, and a desire to see that his own death was of some value for the Church and wasn't in vain.

You referred several times to the Papal. From what I can tell NONE of the Ignatius letters show any awareness of a Pope--or a all-powerful Roman bishop. Perhaps this can help with the dating? Is there a date for the first strongly-supported Pope, ie the earliest document that references the current Pope or perhaps the one just prior?

There are plenty of sticky issues with the epistles, so I'm not arguing for authenticity here. Just proposing an alternative to the idea of a post-Justin conspiracy.