Protestant View of Church History

[Bill_Pick]

That’s rather rude, considering I was merely asking for an explanation. I fail to see the difference between a bishop then and a bishop now.

How did a Bishop get the power to call him self a Bishop in the first place

 

[Contarini]

by “significant liturgical documents” I suspect that the site means a document that contains more than what is contained in Hippolytus’s anaphora.

No, that wouldn’t make sense. In terms of how much it contains, Hippolytus’s text is clearly significant. Probably the reason he counts the Apostolic Constitutions as the first significant document is that Hippolytus’s text has not come down to us in its original form–it exists in several versions in different languages, and the only Greek version that we have is in the fourth-century document that Williams cites. So I suppose that it depends on what you mean by a “document.” But the earliest liturgical text that we have is clearly from the early third century.

And? The point is that AdrianP thinks that by producing a liturgy from the 12th century, that he has demonstrated the continuous practice of the church from Christ to the Reformation.

I apologize for not reading the original exchange. AdrianP’s example certainly wan’t ideal, and it’s probably useless for the purpose for which he cited it unless the Greek text reads “hiereus.” If it reads “presbuteros,” then obviously “elder” is a legitimate translation of that word (even if AdrianP doesn’t like it).

However, your mistake is to confuse a 12th-century manuscript with a 12th-century liturgy. Our earliest complete manuscripts of the NT are from the fourth-century, but the NT was not written in the fourth century. Our oldest OT texts are in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are far from complete, but obviously the OT was written long before.

Furthermore, in 1928 a fragment of the original text of the Liturgy of St. Mark was found, so it’s no longer true that we are dependent on this 12th-century manuscript for it. However, according to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, this original liturgy was quite different in some respects.

I’m not quite sure what we are disputing about at this point–I just want to make sure that we all have our facts as straight as possible!

Edwin

 

[Radical]

So I suppose that it depends on what you mean by a “document.” But the earliest liturgical text that we have is clearly from the early third century.

well, I would think that it has to be how they are using either “significant” or “document” as the site had this to say about Hippolytus:

By the year 251 the Church at Rome began to experience significant changes. It is estimated the Christians in the city numbered from 10, 000 to 30, 000. People listed in the financial care of the church included the bishop (Pope Cornelius), 46 presbyters, 7 deacons, 7 subdeacons, 52 members of minor orders (readers, exorcists and doorkeepers), and 1500 widows and other people in need. Also at this time Latin was replacing Greek as the liturgical language in Rome as it had earlier in the Roman provinces of northern Africa. Thus the Roman oratorical style began to make its mark on Roman liturgy — a rhetoric characterized by its simplicity, sobriety, terseness and juridical wording in contrast to the more effusive Greek. The Apostolic Tradition of this period, often attributed to the Roman Presbyter Hippolytus, contains much liturgical information, including a complete Eucharistic Prayer; however, many questions remain unanswered as to its true authorship, which parts may have been later additions, and if it represents an Alexandrian rather than Roman practice.

However, your mistake is to confuse a 12th-century manuscript with a 12th-century liturgy. Our earliest complete manuscripts of the NT are from the fourth-century, but the NT was not written in the fourth century.

I admit I was very brief in my dismissal of AdrianP’s link, but I don’t think your comparison here is very good. We have the one manuscript wrt the liturgy (from the 12th century) and many, many, many more (from various locations) wrt the NT. We also have many, many quotes from the NT books in the Apostolic Fathers and in the ECFs who wrote prior to the fourth century. As such, scholars can use those resources to try to determine the original form of the NT books. Although tens of thousands of differences exist among those early NT manuscripts the situation is so much better than it is for a single 12th century manuscript that is viewed as being rather polluted with later additions. Wrt 1 Cor (for example) I believe that scholars can confidently say that, “Here is what a letter, written by Paul, in the mid-first century actually looked like with only a relatively few uncertain passages”. Please correct me if you know more, but can scholars say with any confidence a) who first recorded “Mark’s” liturgy, b) when it was written and c) that they can say what the original looked like (except for a few uncertain passages)? I don’t think the comparison is close.
.

Furthermore, in 1928 a fragment of the original text of the Liturgy of St. Mark was found, so it’s no longer true that we are dependent on this 12th-century manuscript for it. However, according to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, this original liturgy was quite different in some respects.

and that difference is the problem…I suspect that what we can say is that, assuming the fragment(s) are accurate, we know what (small?) portions of the liturgy looked like in the ?th century.

I’m not quite sure what we are disputing about at this point–I just want to make sure that we all have our facts as straight as possible!

Edwin

I suspect that there is very little that we actually disagree on…I suspect that it is more a matter of explaining ourselves more fully so that we see that we are actually on the same page….

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It’s very clear in the NT that the term presbyter and episkopos are used interchangeably at times. Paul and Peter both call themselves presbyters at times and episkopoi at other times. Even my Catholic bible has footnotes pointing out that the terms were used loosely and interchangeably and that the roles were not totally hammered out. And the term presbyter does translate originally to “elder” and episkopos to “overseer…” Acts 20:17, Titus 1:5,7 and 1 Peter 5:1

πρεσβύτερος (presbyteros) compared to πρέσβυς (presbus)

And in the Didache only the term presbyter and diakonos are used to describe that community worship…

 

[Non_Serviam]

It’s very clear in the NT that the term presbyter and episkopos are used interchangeably at times. Paul and Peter both call themselves presbyters at times and episkopoi at other times. Even my Catholic bible has footnotes pointing out that the terms were used loosely and interchangeably and that the roles were not totally hammered out. And the term presbyter does translate originally to “elder” and episkopos to “overseer…” Acts 20:17, Titus 1:5,7 and 1 Peter 5:1

πρεσβύτερος (presbyteros) compared to πρέσβυς (presbus)

And in the Didache only the term presbyter and diakonos are used to describe that community worship…

This type of church leadership in the NT has been contrasted with those roles that seem to have functioned in multiple assemblies, such as apostles, evangelists and prophets, such as Agabus mentioned in Acts. With the exception of Apostles (note the capital to distinguish the 12 and Paul) the other apostles, evangelists and prophets appear to have relied on introductions from one local church to another and their ministry was always tested and subjected to the authority of the local elders/overseers. Acts and I Corinthians provide information with regard to how this relationship was developing at the time of Paul.

One of the weaknesses of this decentralized approach to ministry discussed in the later Epistles was that often false workers were attempting to gain entrance into local assemblies to spread their beliefs. Peter, James and John all refer to these problems becoming more prevalent.