The Original Bishops

Office and Order in the First Christian Communities

Alistair C. Stewart

• Publisher: Baker Academic
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN:
  9780801049217
• eBook ISBN:
  9781441245700
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: History of Christianity

A Jesus Creed 2015 Book of the Year

This work provides a new starting point for studying the origins of church offices. Alistair Stewart, a leading authority on early Christianity and a meticulous scholar, provides essential groundwork for historical and theological discussions. Stewart refutes a long-held consensus that church offices emerged from collective leadership at the end of the first century. He argues that governance by elders was unknown in the first centuries and that bishops emerged at the beginning of the church; however, they were nothing like bishops of a later period. The church offices as presently known emerged in the late second century. Stewart debunks widespread assumptions and misunderstandings, offers carefully nuanced readings of the ancient evidence, and fully interacts with pertinent secondary scholarship.

On Episkopoi and Presbyteroi

It is a fact now generally recognised by theologians of all shades of opinion, that in the language of the New Testament the same officer in the Church is called indifferently ‘bishop’ (episkopos) and ‘elder’ or ‘presbyter’ (presbyteros).” So wrote Lightfoot in 1868.1 That this should be a “fact” in the middle of the nineteenth century indicates that the hypothesis that the two terms are synonymous was already well established and entrenched. As Campbell comments, “Facts of that kind have proved to be in short supply in the century since Lightfoot wrote.”2

The Alleged Synonymy of Episkopos and Presbyteros

It is hard to say where exactly such a “fact” originated. According to Linton, this position has its roots in the seventeenth century,3 and we find synonymy argued by Salmasius in 1641, as by Stillingfleet in 1662, though it was hardly an undisputed position then.4 Here is certainly the foundation of the wider narrative that concluded that the episcopate was not a continuation of the apostolate, but that the “monarchical episcopate” had derived from the original order of undifferentiated and collectively governing presbyters and episkopoi, a narrative that seems to have attained a status approaching fact by the earlier part of the nineteenth century; in 1835 Baur describes this hypothesis as the usual one (gewöhnlich) and cites Neander as holding this common opinion.5 Baur himself was yet to be convinced,6 yet when Seyerlin, in 1887, set out what was by then the common ground for Protestant historical analysis (which he contrasted to dogmatic Roman Catholic attempts to derive the church order of the Roman church from apostolic precedent), this much was considered concluded.7 It is a consensus that, in spite of numerous attempts to overturn it, is alive and well.8

However, Lightfoot himself no doubt had some role in establishing the “fact” in the Anglophone world, not the least in that he was an Anglican and in time would become a bishop himself. In the history of the study of church order one constantly finds explicit or implicit statements of the writer’s own fundamental convictions and of the direct ecclesial interest motivating the work. Thus Lightfoot’s Anglicanism was significant because he was the first leading scholar from a communion claiming catholicity and retaining a historic episcopate to express what had, in Protestant circles, long been a prevailing orthodoxy.

However, although the identity of episkopoi and presbyteroi was an established part of the consensus established in the nineteenth century (and originating in the seventeenth) regarding the first emergence of office within the church, the explanation of the identity varied. For Lightfoot, the identity came about because the term episkopos derived from Gentile congregations and presbyteros from Jewish; but although of distinct origin, these institutions, episcopate and presbyterate, were nonetheless the same thing, precisely as Neander had argued. Although it has been questioned, and although the very rough division between Hellenistic and Jewish forms of Christianity would never be asserted today, this equation has never been satisfactorily overturned. It is the argument of this opening chapter that the terms were never synonymous. This provides the first step in dismantling the larger consensus and, by way of explaining many of the texts that allegedly demonstrate synonymy, the first step in constructing a new picture.

However, before discussing the texts, I must define “synonym.” The term here is employed to indicate two words that mean precisely and only the same thing and are therefore completely interchangeable. Whereas this may seem a statement of the obvious, we read in Ysebaert an argument that episkopos and presbyteros are synonyms but then meet the conclusion that they are “partial synonyms.”9 A partial synonym is not a synonym. We may term a partial synonym a “perionym,” a term coined to denote two words in unspecified relationship that inhabit the same semantic domain but are not synonyms. I will not deny that there is some overlap of meaning between the terms, but overlap is not the same as identity. Thus, in English an example of synonyms is “rubbish” and “garbage.” However, it is unlikely that the same person would use the two words, since one reflects British usage, the other American. An example of a pair of perionyms is “college” and “university” in British English. “College” is a term often used to refer to a university in general parlance (“I met my wife at college,” “My son is going to college”), but there are colleges that are not universities at all, and colleges that are constituent parts of universities. Thus, if one is speaking generally, “college” may refer to university, but “university” would not be used of a college that is not a university. One cannot correctly say, “My university is Anytown Technical College.” Presbyteros and episkopos, I will suggest, are perionyms but not synonyms. The relationship between the terms can be established only on the basis of close examination of their use in context. It is on the basis of such an examination of the texts employed to support synonymy that I will argue for a more complex relationship between the terms.

The idea that the terms presbyteros and episkopos are directly synonymous is still widely held. Thus we may observe (to take a random selection) recent assertions by Trebilco,10 by Knight (who refers to Lightfoot in support of his argument),11 and by Hawthorne (who also refers to Lightfoot),12 Jay’s summary of the position,13 and Merkle’s recent defense.14 As Merkle himself notes, as often as not, these assertions are not so much argued as taken for granted.15 It is also noteworthy that Lightfoot, rather than, say, Ritschl, should be counted the authority by these conservative scholars. However, in view of the status granted him, I may begin my own examination of the interrelationship of the two terms by noting that of Lightfoot. He bases his argument on a number of texts from the New Testament and one from 1 Clement. In doing so, he employs the same texts as did Neander, Rothe, and Ritschl before him,16 as indeed those employed by Salmasius, and the same as those many since who have followed the consensus of synonymy. In examining these texts, we will find that in all but two of the instances cited by Lightfoot the synonymy of episkopos and presbyteros is patently not the only possible interpretation of the texts, and that the explanation of these texts as indicating synonymy has been questioned in these cases. In the two cases where the equation does seem to be the most obvious explanation at first sight, a new alternative explanation is proffered here. It is with these two texts, Acts 20:17–18, 28 and Titus 1:5–8, which were central to Salmasius’s argument and therefore are the crown witnesses in this trial, that the examination begins.

On Acts 20, Lightfoot writes, “St Paul is represented as summoning to Miletus the ‘elders’ or ‘presbyters’ of the Church of Ephesus. Yet in addressing them immediately after he appeals to them as ‘bishops’ or ‘overseers’ of the church.”17 On Titus 1, Lightfoot writes, “the same identification appears still more plainly. . . . ‘That thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and ordain elders in every city, as I appointed thee; if any one be blameless, the husband of one wife, having believing children who are not charged with riotousness or unruly; for a bishop must be blameless etc.’”18 In other words, having directed Titus to appoint presbyters, the author gives the qualifications that are given elsewhere for episkopoi and then justifies his argument by stating that these are episcopal qualifications.

That there is a prima facie case to answer for those wishing to argue against synonymy at these points at least is unquestionable. However, there is a distinct possible explanation of the phenomenon that must be explored. Rather than starting with documenting the uses of the terms—a method that, after over three hundred years, appears to have achieved no unanimity beyond the vague notion of “partial synonymy”—I begin with an account of the development of church order in one city and then examine the manner in which the terms are used there. In that case, it is the history that leads us to comprehend the terminology rather than the other way around. On the understanding of the terminology thus supplied, I may then seek to determine whether other histories may be illuminated.

The Evidence for Synonymy Explained in Terms of Federation

Whereas the texts mentioned above tend to imply synonymy, in that the terms episkopos and presbyteroi are mentioned apparently in the same breath and referring to the same people, the apparent synonymy may be explained by suggesting that the scattered Christian communities of the first centuries might have operated some form of loose federation by which individual Christian officers from different communities in a city or area might meet together to deal with issues of common concern, and that the references to presbyters in the two instances that are fundamental to the consensus are references to gatherings of these leaders. However they may have been designated in their individual communities, I suggest that they were known as presbyters in their common gathering, and that references to presbyters in the texts adduced for synonymy are references to these people in that capacity. If this is the case, then the terms are not synonymous but overlapping; presbyteroi would be a collective term that might well include episkopoi.

There have been, however, other ways of attempting to explain the relationship without admitting complete synonymy but admitting a degree of relationship between the terms. These positions will be discussed more extensively in the course of the argument across the chapters, but it may briefly be summarized here to demonstrate the rationale for seeking a further explanation, namely, that no suggestion to date is entirely satisfactory. In laying out the positions, I follow the classification proposed by Merkle.19 It should be noted, however, that this discussion largely takes place in the context of interpreting the Pastoral Epistles. However, solutions that make sense in one context need to be transferable.

In the first instance it may be argued that the term presbyteros never denotes an office but refers simply to an older man.20 This argument, which is presented primarily in the context of the Pastoral Epistles, will be discussed in detail below; in particular it will be argued that this is the use intended in 1 Timothy. However, it is hard to reconcile this understanding of the term with the use of Acts 20, for we are hardly meant to understand that Paul is summoning all the elderly males of Ephesus. There is a degree of special pleading evident when Harvey, for instance, reads the appointment of elders at Acts 14:23 to mean that those who were already elders were appointed to bear particular responsibilities in the church.21

The same objection may be made to the position that episkopoi are presbyteroi who perform pa...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Preface
• Abbreviations
• Introduction
• 1. On Episkopoi and Presbyteroi
• 2. The Economic Functions of Episkopoi and Diakonoi
• 3. Presbyters in Early Christian Communities
• 4. Presbyters and Episkopoi in Emerging Christian Communities
• 5. The Causes of Monepiscopacy
• A Concluding Unscientific Postscript
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Ancient Writings Index
• Author Index
• Subject Index
• Back Cover