hakeem wrote:The internal evidence in the so-called 1 Clement places the writing at least no earlier than the last quarter of the 2nd century. The letter contains anachronisms. One such anachronism is the title of "bishops".
Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2018 6:07 pm
"Bishops" (root: episkopos) in 1 Clement does not mean city-wide (with surroundings) bishop, but just overseers. Notice the plural in 1 Clement 42:4 & 5. Could Corinth have several city-wide catholic/orthodox) bishops then? See also that the word "bishops" is closely associated with the lowly deacons. Same meaning in Philippians 1:1. Also in Acts 20:28 where "bishops" means the elders/presbyters of the Christians of Ephesus (20:17).
According to my extensive study on the Ignatian letters (
http://historical-jesus.info/ignatius.html), the title & function of city-wide bishop among orthodox Christians started around 130 CE., at least in Asia minor.
Your claims appear to be inventions and are without corroboration.
The very first paragraph of the letter refers to the Churches of the whole cities of Rome and Corinth and in Christian writings it is claimed Clement was bishop of the entire city of Rome.
In any event, the use of the anachronisms "bishops" and "Churches of Rome and Corinth" are internal evidence that the so-called Clement letter are 2nd century or later writings.
Well, based on my research, the so-called Ignatius letters are forgeries or false attribution and products of fiction. It is simply implausible that a person who was imprisoned for the crime of preaching and teaching about Christ would be allowed to continue the very same criminal activity while under arrest especially in the 1st century.
Where would this Ignatius get pen, paper and ink to carry out his crime in the presence of guards?
In the writings of Josephus, a character called Jesus, the son of Ananus, was beaten to a pulp and was not even imprisoned.
In effect, there was no bishop named Ignatius of any city who wrote letters to anyone while he was incarcerated.
hakeem wrote:Christian and non-Christian sources of the 2nd century state that the leader of the Church was called the President.
Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2018 6:07 pmThat's no surprise, because then "bishop" had started to be understood as city-wide bishop and could not be used for leader of a congregation. Apparently in Rome, in the times of Justin, the leader/overseer of a congregation was called "president".
Cordially, Bernard
In the time of Justin there were no such title of bishop and no bishops of entire cities like Rome or any other city.
Justin supposedly writing after c 130 CE did not acknowledge any bishop of any Church and knew nothing of letters by bishops.
We know there were no bishops up to even the 3rd century by looking at the teachings in Christian writings up to that time period.
The teachings and beliefs of Christians are expounded by writers who were not known to have been bishops like Aristides, Justin Martyr, Origen, Athenagoras, Bardesanes, Tertullian, Hippolytus , Lactantius and Arnobius.
The title of Bishops appear to have commenced sometime in the 4th century when the Roman Government took control of the Christian religion.
It is easily seen on research that it was in the 4th century and later that Bishops shaped the teachings and beliefs of Christians.