Episkopos, Presbuteros, Diakonos

[NoelFitz]

Were there two or three offices in the early Church?

What do the various words for these offices mean?

In the thread Authority of the Church I read;
1

There was no need for three offices.

Let’s look at the time-line.

A) In the early Church, there were only Apostles and a few Disciples, as the Church leaders.
B) The Church (you know, the guys with the Authority to Bind and Loose) realize that there needs to be a new office.
C) Deacons are born to help distribute the food and clothing.

Fast forward to the end of the 1st century.

A) Bishops are head of their local diocese.
B) As the local Churches grew, the Bishop would consecrate the hosts and distribute them through the diocese to be used the following week at Mass.
C) The Bishops realize that the Consecration Ceremony itself should be an integral part of the Mass, hence they (you know, the guys with the Authority to Bind and Loose) decide to use Priests to perform this Sacrament just as they do - In Persona Christ - or “In the person of Christ”

and 2

There were only two offices established for the church—elders, or Presbyters, and deacons. The elders are what has become the bishop today. The priest, as his duties indicate, is a fabrication of the RCC. And for your information, Paul writes what is expected from an elder, presbyter or bishop, quite definitively. Strange how the church, for the first 500 years or so, followed Paul’s teachings quite well…

There seems to me to be disagreement.

Could we try to sort out the problem?

Is it agreed the three words to resolve are EPISKOPOS, PRESBUTEROS and DIAKONOS?

The NT has the following (inflected forms included):

EPISKOPOS (overseer, guardian, bishop)
Acts 20:28; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:2; Tit. 1:7; 1 Pet. 2:25.

PRESBUTEROS (elder, old person)
Matt. 15:2; 16:21; 21:23; 26:3, 47, 57; 27:1, 3, 12, 20, 41; 28:12; Mk. 7:3, 5; 8:31; 11:27; 14:43, 53; 15:1; Lk. 1:18; 7:3; 9:22; 15:25; 20:1; 22:52, 66; Jn. 8:9; Acts 2:17; 4:5, 8, 23; 6:12; 11:30; 14:23; 15:2, 4, 6, 22f; 16:4; 20:17; 21:18; 22:5; 23:14; 24:1; 25:15; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:1f, 17, 19; Tit. 1:5; 2:2f; Phlm. 1:9; Heb. 11:2; Jas. 5:14; 1 Pet. 5:1, 5; 2 Jn. 1:1; 3 Jn. 1:1; Rev. 4:4, 10; 5:5f, 8, 11, 14; 7:11, 13; 11:16; 14:3; 19:4.

It may be noted that in the authentic letters of Paul PRESBUTEROS is used only once and translated usually as *old man. * None of the dictionaries I referred to translate PRESBUTEROS as priest. The Greek word used for priest was IEREUS.

DIAKONOS (servant, helper, monister, deacon)
Matt. 20:26; 22:13; 23:11; Mk. 9:35; 10:43; Jn. 2:5, 9; 12:26; Rom. 13:4; 15:8; 16:1; 1 Co. 3:5; 2 Co. 3:6; 6:4; 11:15, 23; Gal. 2:17; Eph. 3:7; 6:21; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:7, 23, 25; 4:7; 1 Tim. 3:8, 12; 4:6.

If we are agreed on this much the next step is to analyse the appropriate verses and see what English word fits best.

After that, if there seems agreement, we could go on to the use of these words in the Apostolic Fathers.

Are we agreed that the words APOSTOLOS and IEREUS need not be considered in this discussion?

 

[annem]

THis sounds really interesting,

God bless, Annem

 

[NoelFitz]

Annem

many thanks for your encouraging reply.

What I hope to do is slowly, with the help of all of you, work out what each term means. In this way we will be able to find out different interpretations early on, and thus, hopefully, arrive at agreement.

I will wait and see who else replies and then take one of the terms and see how it was used.

Perhaps EPISCOPUS woul d be the best to start with. Does it really mean bishop?

 

[Usagi]

Perhaps EPISCOPUS woul d be the best to start with. Does it really mean bishop?

It literally means “overseer.” (Epi-scopos, same root word as “telescope” or “microscope,” but with a different prefix.)

But the English word “bishop” is derived from the Greek word “episkopos.” (It’s the “-piskop-” part with some of the sounds modified over time.)

Not sure how much that helps, though.

Of course, the Eastern Churches that use Greek as their liturgical language still use the original word, so the real question is whether “episkopos” now means the same thing it did in the New Testament – and if not, what the process of development was, and whether it should be seen as legitimate development or not.

Usagi

 

[peary1]

Annem

many thanks for your encouraging reply.

What I hope to do is slowly, with the help of all of you, work out what each term means. In this way we will be able to find out different interpretations early on, and thus, hopefully, arrive at agreement.

I will wait and see who else replies and then take one of the terms and see how it was used.

Perhaps EPISCOPUS woul d be the best to start with. Does it really mean bishop?

**episcopate - Origin: 1635–45; < LL episcopātus the office of a bishop; Late Latin episcopātus, from episcopus, bishop.

bishop - Middle English, from Old English bisceope, from Vulgar Latin ebiscopus, from Late Latin episcopus, from Late Greek episkopos, from Greek, overseer : epi-, epi- + skopos, watcher; see spek- in Indo-European roots.

deacon - Origin: bef. 900; ME deken, OE diacon < LL diāconus < Gk dikonos servant, minister, deacon, equiv. to diā- *dia- + -konos *service.

priest - Origin: bef. 900; ME *prest(e), *priest, OE préost, ult. < LL presbyter; Middle English preost, from Old English prēost, perhaps from Vulgar Latin prester (from Late Latin presbyter; ) or from West Germanic prēvost (from Latin praepositus, superintendent.

One thing when discussing terms is to respect their origins. Most fundamentalists and avid protestants do not do this and sometimes refuse (or are totally ignorant of) the etymology of word usage, particularly with regard to church offices. I am a stickler on this because as words are used and translated into other languages, the words have a tendency to change their outward appearance giving the observer a totally different view, whereas, technically, their inner meanings remain the same. Priest, bishop, deacon have a long history as far as words go, and the above reveals the development of them into English and how they were derived from translations from other languages. **

 

[NoelFitz]

**Thank to all you have contributed to this debate.

The first concern was to study EPISCOPOS in the Bible.

I think we have reached a consensus here.

1. EPISCOPOS is used in the Bible as overseer.
2. An EPISKOPOS was not a Bishop in the modern sense.
3. An EPISKOPOS was a married head of a Household who lead the celebration of the Eucharist in his house.
4. EPISKOPOS and PRESBUTEROS were interchangeable terms.

If you do not agree with these conclusions, please contribute here. **

---

Contributions:

**Annem: **
Thank you for your rapid encouraging reply.

Usagi:
You wrote:

It literally means “overseer.” (Epi-scopos, same root word as “telescope” or “microscope,” but with a different prefix.)

But the English word “bishop” is derived from the Greek word “episkopos.” (It’s the “-piskop-” part with some of the sounds modified over time.)

I fully agree. These are very important points.

Peary1
You wrote:

One thing when discussing terms is to respect their origins.

I fully agree and hope you will agree with the general conclusions above.

---

General Observations:

This is a very important issue at the present time.

The Church, which is guided by the Holy Spirit, has decided that it is more important to have a celibate clergy than to have the Eucharist easily available. Thus there will be a need for new offices in the Church to fill the gap left by the lack of celibate clergy.

The system of dioceses and parishes will go. In our diocese parishes are being clustered and instead of a parish pastor there will be moderators, and each of the former parishes will have a priest-in-charge.

In Ireland we do not have permanent deacons. This is a welcome development, as they seem to be designed as second-rate clergy. A better model is parish assistants, which can be lay folk, men or women, married or unmarried.

A priest in our parish said he did not want deacons, as they would become pests, trying to take over power.

Thus, I believe, we will be going back to a model of the Church, similar to the early Church. Thus it is important to see what type of structures and governance the early church had.

---

Discussion:

Hence perhaps it is appropriate to focus on EPISKOPOS.

This person was the head of a prominent household and he led the Eucharist in his house. He was essentially a *paterfamilias. *Thus he was married and relatively wealthy and influential. The terms PRESBUTEROS and EPISKOPOS, both were used for this head of a House Church, and could best be described as an overseer, preferably not a bishop, as the latter word has modern connotations.

---

***The use of EPISCOPOPS in the NT ***

EPISKOPOS (overseer, guardian, bishop )
Acts 20:28; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:2; Tit. 1:7; 1 Pet. 2:25.

From Miletus he sent a message to Ephesus, asking the elders (PRESBUTEROS) of the church to meet him…Keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock, of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers (EPISKOPOS), to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son (NRSV, Acts 20:17 & 28).

Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons (NRSV, Phil 1:1).

Paul and Timothy, slaves of Christ Jesus, to all the holy ones in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the overseers and ministers (NAB, Phil 1:1).

Now a bishop must be above reproach, married only once, temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher (NRSV, 1 Tim 3:2).

An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach ( NASB, 1995 Ed., 1 Tim 3:2).

For a bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or addicted to wine or violent or greedy for gain (NRSV, 1 Tit 1:7).

For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain (NASB, 1995 Ed.,1 Tit 1:7).

For you were going astray like sheep, but now you have returned to the shepherd and guardian (EPISKOPOS) of your souls (1 Pet 2:25).

---

 

[Usagi]

The first concern was to study EPISCOPOS in the Bible.

I think we have reached a consensus here.

We have? I don’t recall most of these conclusions previously coming up in the discussion, which has been about four posts long.

1. EPISCOPOS is used in the Bible as overseer.

That’s the one we agree on, since that’s what the word literally means.

1. An EPISKOPOS was not a Bishop in the modern sense.

That would seem to be the entire issue, and I don’t think you can declare it settled just yet.

I tentatively agree with you, since there has been hstorical development in the office, though I will note that something very like the modern structure of three offices was in place by the first decade of the second century, not long after the New Testament was completed.

1. An EPISKOPOS was a married head of a Household who lead the celebration of the Eucharist in his house.

Whoa, hoss. I don’t remember that claim coming up in this dicussion before, and certainly no one has reached a consensus on it.

I can see where you get that from the NT data, but I don’t know that we can take it as read.

1. EPISKOPOS and PRESBUTEROS were interchangeable terms.

There seems to be evidence for that in the NT, yes. Though again, it didn’t take long for the distinction (episkopos as regional head, presbyteroi as his “lieutenants” leading individual congregations) to develop.

If you do not agree with these conclusions, please contribute here.

Doing so.

The Church, which is guided by the Holy Spirit, has decided that it is more important to have a celibate clergy than to have the Eucharist easily available.

Ouch. Not quite sure I agree that that was the decision process.

The system of dioceses and parishes will go.

Wow. Haven’t noticed that happening over here in the U.S., though my area doesn’t seem to be suffering from the priest shortage at this time.

In Ireland we do not have permanent deacons. This is a welcome development, as they seem to be designed as second-rate clergy.

As you undoubtedly know from studying the New Testament history of the various offices, the diaconate is one of the oldest recognized ministries we have, possibly founded before there were any “bishops” or “priests” separate from the apostles themselves. I don’t think we want to dismiss such a historic office so casually.

Thus, I believe, we will be going back to a model of the Church, similar to the early Church. Thus it is important to see what type of structures and governance the early church had.

It’s certainly possible that we’ll see further changes over time, and certainly the early Church would be a good place to look for models. The Church takes a looooong time to change, though, especially in a matter that’s been a fundamental aspect of her structure for (seemingly) all but the first few decades of her existence. So I’m not sure we’ll see this come to pass in our time, or anything.

Hence perhaps it is appropriate to focus on EPISKOPOS.

This person was the head of a prominent household and he led the Eucharist in his house. He was essentially a *paterfamilias. *Thus he was married and relatively wealthy and influential. The terms PRESBUTEROS and EPISKOPOS, both were used for this head of a House Church, and could best be described as an overseer, preferably not a bishop, as the latter word has modern connotations.

It’s true that “bishop” (and “priest”) have modern connotations, but it is important to acknowledge, I think, that they are direct descendants of the original words.Indeed, those churches (Catholic and Orthodox) that use Greek as their official language still use the original words.

I hadn’t seen the “married householder” idea before, though it’s clear that the very earliest episkopoi were chosen from married men. That does make sense, though, especially since this would have grown up in the Roman world where the paterfamilias was a fact of life.

Still, something much more like the current structure was in place (in multiple locations, and seemingly unchallenged), if not within the lifetimes of the apostles, then within the lifetimes of those who had known them personally and grown up in the “New Testament Church.”

I’m beginning to understand, though, that you are not so much challenging the “rightness” of the current structure as pointing out that it has changed over time and could well change again to adapt to the needs of believers. That’s certainly cool by me. I still think you came to your “consensus” a bit quickly and unilaterally, but I can see where you are coming from.

Usagi

 

[peary1]

**
The Church, which is guided by the Holy Spirit, has decided that it is more important to have a celibate clergy than to have the Eucharist easily available.

Celibacy is a Church discipline in the West. Eastern rite Catholic churches have married priests but celibate bishops. So do the Orthodox. Jesus was celibate.**

Thus there will be a need for new offices in the Church to fill the gap left by the lack of celibate clergy.

**That is what the diaconate is for. **

The system of dioceses and parishes will go. In our diocese parishes are being clustered and instead of a parish pastor there will be moderators, and each of the former parishes will have a priest-in-charge.

**A diocese is necessary for the Church. Parishes may come and go, or may even be clustered. But dioceses very rarely ever cease to exist. **

In Ireland we do not have permanent deacons. This is a welcome development, as they seem to be designed as second-rate clergy. A better model is parish assistants, which can be lay folk, men or women, married or unmarried.

This is probably one reason the Faith has become so weak there.

A priest in our parish said he did not want deacons, as they would become pests, trying to take over power.

The deaconate has been very successful over the past 40 years, especially here in the States. Your priest doesn’t know what he is talking about. It sounds to me as if he’s afraid to give up any of his own power in the parish. Deacons are there to help, not to hinder. And by not being open to this valid ministry, he is setting up to harm his flock in the long run.

Thus, I believe, we will be going back to a model of the Church, similar to the early Church. Thus it is important to see what type of structures and governance the early church had.

The early Church had a hierarchy.

 

[NoelFitz]

Peary1

Many thanks for your reply and for your participation in this thread.

Some of the views I expressed are peripheral to the main discussion here on EPISCOPOS, PRESBUTEROS and DIAKONOS.

If there are not serious opbections to the conclusions about EPISCOPOS, I would next like to discern about what PRESBUTEROS means in the Bible. Then (Deo volente) we will go on to study DIAKONOS, where the views you expressed will be very constructive.

I am sorry if you disagreed with some of the opinions I expressed. They were partially intended to encourage debate. Provocative views may encourage further participation.

 

[NoelFitz]

Usagi

Many thanks for your very constructive reply.

Arising out of your post I have modified the conclusions.

You wrote

There seems to be evidence for that in the NT, yes. Though again, it didn’t take long for the distinction (episkopos as regional head, presbyteroi as his “lieutenants” leading individual congregations) to develop.

I fully agree with you.

If this exercise is successful and agreement is reached, I would like to next study the use of these terms in the Apostolic Fathers.

You wrote:

I’m beginning to understand, though, that you are not so much challenging the “rightness” of the current structure as pointing out that it has changed over time and could well change again to adapt to the needs of believers. That’s certainly cool by me. I still think you came to your “consensus” a bit quickly and unilaterally, but I can see where you are coming from.

I do not want to make a judgement about any Church structures. I only want to find out what these terms meant in the early Church.

Thus I would now propose moidified conclusions.

**Tentative conclusions about EPISCOPOS in the Bible.

It is understood that the office of EPISCOPOS changed very soon after the NT was written.

1. EPISCOPOS is used in the Bible as overseer.
2. Tentatively it is concluded that an EPISKOPOS was not a Bishop in the modern sense.
3. It may be suggested that an EPISKOPOS was probably a married head of a Household who lead the celebration of the Eucharist in his house.
4. EPISKOPOS and PRESBUTEROS were interchangeable terms.**

 

[Spirithound]

1. An EPISKOPOS was not a Bishop in the modern sense.

1. Tentatively it is concluded that an EPISKOPOS was not a Bishop in the modern sense.

I would like you to tell us what you mean by “the modern sense” please.
IMHO, the defining characteristic of a bishop/episkopos/overseer is that he may impart all of the sacraments, whereas a “presbuteros” may not confirm or ordain.

 

[NoelFitz]

Dear Spirithound

Thank you so much for your contribution to this thread.
I am somewhat disappointed that more are not participating, especially since in the thread *Authority of the Church *there seemed to be different views on offices in the early Church.

I do hope you, and others, will continue to contribute to this thread when PRESBUTEROS and DIAKONOS are being considered.

You wrote:

I would like you to tell us what you mean by “the modern sense” please.
IMHO, the defining characteristic of a bishop/episkopos/overseer is that he may impart all of the sacraments, whereas a “presbuteros” may not confirm or ordain.

In our diocese priests carry out confirmations, as well as bishops. Bishops or priests do not “impart” marriage. The ministers are the couple being married. At its simplest a bishop is one in charge of a diocese. The Catholic Encyclopedia has for bishop:

The title of an ecclesiastical dignitary who possesses the fullness of the priesthood to rule a diocese as its chief pastor, in due submission to the primacy of the pope newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm

In the early Church, around about 100 AD, there were bishops somewhat similar to the modern ones, such as Clement (Rome), Polycarp (Smyrna) and Ignatius (Antioch). In this discussion I want to focus on EPISCOPOS in the NT.

Thus, unless you have very strong objections, I would like to stick with the previous conclusions about EPISCOPOS.

**Tentative conclusions about EPISCOPOS in the New Testament.
It is understood that the office of EPISCOPOS changed very soon after the NT was written.

1. EPISCOPOS is used in the Bible as overseer.
2. Tentatively it is concluded that an EPISKOPOS was not a Bishop in the modern sense.
3. It may be suggested that an EPISKOPOS was probably a married head of a Household who lead the celebration of the Eucharist in his house.
4. EPISKOPOS and PRESBUTEROS were interchangeable terms**.

 

[NoelFitz]

In this thread it s hoped to discuss, and see can agreement be found, about EPISCOPOS, PRESBUTEROS and DIAKONOS in the NT.

EPISCOPOS has been discussed and conclusions reached. These, of course, can be modified if wished. Now let’s start discussing PRESBUTEROS.

One of our previous conclusions which can be retained was

EPISKOPOS and PRESBUTEROS were interchangeable terms

.

Thus preliminary conclusions are:

**Tentative conclusions about PRESBUTEROS in the NT.

1. PRESBUTEROS in the NT is generally translated as an elder.
2. It can be used as a noun or an adjective (e.g. elder son).
3. PRESBUTEROS is also used for ancestor and old, or older, man in the NRSV.
4. Its feminine form is used as an older woman.
5. The authors of 1 Peter and 3 John refers to themselves as PRESBUTEROS (elder).
6. PRESBUTEROS and EPISCOPOS may be used interchangeably.
7. In different English versions various words have been used to translate PRESBUTEROS, namely *presbyter, ruler of the church, ancient *or leader.
8. PRESBUTEROS is never translated as priest.**

In the new testament (NA27), as noted previously, PRESBUTEROS (and its inflected forms) appears 66 times:

Matt. 15:2; 16:21; 21:23; 26:3, 47, 57; 27:1, 3, 12, 20, 41; 28:12; Mk. 7:3, 5; 8:31; 11:27; 14:43, 53; 15:1; Lk. 1:18; 7:3; 9:22; 15:25; 20:1; 22:52, 66; Jn. 8:9; Acts 2:17; 4:5, 8, 23; 6:12; 11:30; 14:23; 15:2, 4, 6, 22f; 16:4; 20:17; 21:18; 22:5; 23:14; 24:1; 25:15; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:1f, 17, 19; Tit. 1:5; 2:2f; Phlm. 1:9; Heb. 11:2; Jas. 5:14; 1 Pet. 5:1, 5; 2 Jn. 1:1; 3 Jn. 1:1; Rev. 4:4, 10; 5:5f, 8, 11, 14; 7:11, 13; 11:16; 14:3; 19:4.

I don’t think each of these references need be discussed. Some are:

NRS Matthew 15:2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands before they eat.”

NRS Matthew 27:12 But when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he did not answer.

NRS Mark 7:3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they thoroughly wash their hands, thus observing the tradition of the elders;

NRS Luke 7:3 When he heard about Jesus, he sent some Jewish elders to him, asking him to come and heal his slave.

NRS Luke 15:25 "Now his elder son was in the field; and when he came and approached the house, he heard music and dancing.

NRS Acts 2:17 'In the last days it will be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.

NRS Acts 11:30 this they did, sending it to the elders by Barnabas and Saul.

NRS 1 Timothy 5:1 Do not speak harshly to an older man, but speak to him as to a father, to younger men as brothers,

NRS 1 Timothy 5:2 to older women as mothers, to younger women as sisters – with absolute purity.

NRS Hebrews 11:2 Indeed, by faith our ancestors received approval.

NRS 1 Peter 5:1 Now as an elder myself and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as one who shares in the glory to be revealed, I exhort the elders among you

NRS 3 John 1:1 The elder to the beloved Gaius, whom I love in truth…

However in all versions considered (more than 30) elder is not the only word used to translate PREBUTEROS, eg in Acts 11:30 besides *elder *the following occur:

NAB Acts 11:30 This they did, sending it to the presbyters in care of Barnabas and Saul.

BBE Acts 11:30 Which they did, sending it to the rulers of the church by the hand of Barnabas and Saul.

DRA Acts 11:30 Which also they did, sending it to the ancients, by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.

GWN Acts 11:30 The disciples did this and sent their contribution with Barnabas and Saul to the leaders in Jerusalem

 

[Catholic_Dude]

The Canons (esp 2-3) of the Council of Nicea explicitly show there are three separate offices of Bishop, Priest and Deacon.

 

[Usagi]

The Canons (esp 2-3) of the Council of Nicea explicitly show there are three separate offices of Bishop, Priest and Deacon.

Right, but that’s almost 300 years after the period NoelFitz is discussing.

Usagi

 

[NoelFitz]

Catholic Dude and Usagi

Thank you so much for your posts.

I am very pleased to get contributions to this thread.

I read:

The Canons (esp 2-3) of the Council of Nicea explicitly show there are three separate offices of Bishop, Priest and Deacon.

I agree with Usagi. The Council of Nicea was held in 325 AD, while the texts in the NT were written prior to (approximately) the end of the first century.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I’m pretty sure Apostolic fathers St Ignatius of Antioch noted the distinction of priest and bishop. I have not done an indepth search into the terms as they are used exclusively in the NT.

 

[annem]

1. EPISCOPOS is used in the Bible as overseer.
2. Tentatively it is concluded that an EPISKOPOS was not a Bishop in the modern sense.
3. It may be suggested that an EPISKOPOS was probably a married head of a Household who lead the celebration of the Eucharist in his house.
4. EPISKOPOS and PRESBUTEROS were interchangeable terms.

Sorry to bring the discussion back to episcopos but I don’t think it was discussed enough.

Peter says of Judas, “His office let another take”–that means in this instance, surely, his office of bishop take. That’s as an apostle. Quite a big difference from that to mere overseer, although, as we all know, overseer is one translation of the word.

Then 1 Peter (regardless of who wrote it) refers to Christ as bishop of our souls. Christ is our episkopos. That brings an entirely different dimension to the word, a much higher dimension.

How can we regard episkopos as merely an overseer when, clearly, the evidence points to an episkopos also being an apostle? And how can we regard episkopos as merely an overseer when 1 Peter calls Christ the episkopos of our souls?

What does everyone else think?

God bless, Annem

 

[NoelFitz]

Annem

thank you so much for your post.

I hope that through discussions a consensus may be reached by an iterative process. Thus it is helpful to revisit EPISCOPOS.

You have a very good point. Please let me think about it and post a considered reply tomorrow.

 

[NoelFitz]

Catholic Dude

I agree with you fully.

There probably was a distinction beween EPISCOPOS and PRESBUTEROS in the Apostolic Fathers, especially Ignatius.

If we can reach some type of agreement and there is sufficient interest, I would very much like to extend the study beyond the NT into the Apostolic Fathers.