Dating the sacerdotal hierarchy

I'd like to point out respectfully that, from some perspectives, this question is based on a false assumption: "... if evidence of the hierarchy exists from the first century, a principle of historical continuity can be invoked to bring the institution quite near the earliest community." This assumes that the earliest community of organized Christianity was close to the first century.

Latter-day Saints (Mormons) believe that God has revealed His organization of priesthood offices since the creation of Adam, in many times, and to many people whom He set apart to restore and lead His Church: Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and others were all given the same plan, for the same church organization and teachings. These dispensations of the gospel and the priesthood generally followed the same trend. The full gospel was given and the church was organized; many people believed and lived the gospel under the direction of priesthood holders; they lived faithfully for some generations; and, sadly, they eventually fell into periods of apostasy as divisions arose or wickedness gained popularity.

The organization including Apostles, bishops, deacons, and other offices that Christ established during His mortal ministry followed the same pattern as He had given in previous dispensations. Although many titles and approximations of their functions have been propagated by both tradition and scripture, we believe that, just as in previous dispensations- more quickly, even- divisions and false teachings arose, and the world again entered a period of apostasy where key truths of the gospel, and authority to lead the church were not present.

This great apostasy lasted until the gospel of Jesus Christ and the authority to administer in its ordinances were again restored, for the final time, to Joseph Smith in the 1800s. As with all prophets, he was given many things to teach the world to bring them to a correct understanding of God.

Among these truths are the specific responsibilities of priesthood offices; the correct modes of ministering and administering in the priesthood; the requirements for holding priesthood offices; the procedures for conferring priesthood authority; and more detailed histories of several dispensations of the priesthood, including those recorded in the Book of Mormon.

Many of these teachings are found in the Doctrine and Covenants as writings or narrations of Joseph Smith, and many additional explanations and clarifications have been given by subsequent prophets in this dispensation.

For a good starting point for further reading, see:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/dispensations (see the references, especially in the last paragraph)

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ces-devotionals/2014/01/what-is-the-blueprint-of-christs-church?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/priesthood-history-of?lang=eng&letter=p

Didache 13:2; 15:1 mention a hierarchy of ministry, including overseers, or bishops. However, Aaron Milavec says in The Didache, page 599, the use of plural 'bishops' (episkopoi) clearly suggests a group with a shared function. The monarchical "bishop" surrounded by a group of elders took shape only in the second century, with the term appearing in the letters of St. Ignatius in 110 CE [perhaps as late as 117 CE]. He says the term episkopoi was sometimes used interchangeably with presbyteroi in the first century. There is a suggestion that Didache 15:2 is a later interpolation, in which case the Didache would have little to tell us about the emergence of the sacerdotal hierarchy.

Francis A. Sullivan SJ says in From Apostles to Bishops, page 15, that for 1 Clement [written from Rome around 95 CE], the principle of apostolic succession was realised in the college of duly appointed presbyters, and not in the appointment of a bishop with monarchical authority. He says that while the role and authority of the bishop comprised a major theme in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, he never invoked the principle of apostolic succession to explain or justify it. The letters of Ignatius are the first Christian documents that witness to the presence of a bishop who is clearly distinct from the presbyterate, and the evidence is certain only for Antioch and several churches of western Asia Minor.

Sullivan says there exists a broad consensus among scholars, including most Catholic ones, that such churches as those of Alexandria, Philippi, Corinth and Rome most probably continued to be led for some time by a college of presbyters, and that only during the course of the second century did the threefold structure become generally the rule, with a bishop, assisted by presbyters, presiding over each local church. On page 130, he discusses a conclusion that the development of the episcopate took place sooner in the churches of Syria and Asia Minor than in churches of Europe.

Paul wrote his undisputed epistles to all the members of a church, never to a bishop with overarching authority over the whole church, even in his own absence. Even when raising matters of discipline, Paul never called on a bishop to assert his authority. It is in the Pastoral epistles (Titus, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy) that we see mention of the appointment of bishops, but the consensus of scholars is that the Pastoral epistles were written during the early years of the second century and reflect a position that the apostle Paul never knew (see, for example, Burton L. Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament, page 206).

The Didache appears to have been written by the middle of the first century and so its mention of 'bishops' should carry some weight in recognising that the sacerdotal hierarchy already existed quite early in Christian history. However, as we have seen, the reference was not to the office of monarchical bishop, but to a member of a presiding college, indistinguishable from the role of presbyter. Each church was led by a council of elders, or presbyters, until the second century when the office of bishop, as we know it, began to emerge.

To trace the evolution of church institutions, as well as where Catholics and Protestants disagree about them, one will find that they agree on the facts but disagree on their meaning. There is nothing in the ‘facts’ that cause dispute, but as in all never-ending disputes, it is the prior assumptions that divide us. The cause in this subject is probably attributed to the mentality of either fully trusting or easily doubting ‘tradition’. However, to answer the question and to fix a date in history where Catholics and Protestants will generally divide over the interpretation of the facts regarding the development of Church institutions, it is not that difficult to do. All we have to do is locate at what date ‘additional titles’ of church officers, not found in scripture, became widely used in the Christian world.

As Protestants put all church traditions below authority of scripture there is generally no dispute in the basic primitive officers within a local church, such as a deacon or a bishop; the bishop, acting as a spiritual overseer and a deacon acting more administratively. Although even here we should mention that the title ‘deacon’ or ‘bishop’ mean varying things, based on one’s own tradition or interpretation of scripture. Yet as at least these titles themselves seem to exists from the times of the Apostles into the period of the council of Nicea, at which point we have certainly already passed the date were are looking for, we can disregard the evolution of those titles.

A practical date can be more or less equated with this question: ‘When did the term ‘arch-bishop’ and ‘arch-deacon’ first become widely used?’ This is a valuable data point because although a protestant might not oppose these offices (high Anglican), at a minimum, these terms are not found in scripture and indicate a development in church institutions. In addition, as Protestants generally believe in the separation of church and state, or at least a distrust of the state as a legitimate influence in church decisions and structure, this question also points to roughly the same date: ‘When did the primitive church lose it’s independence from the state and receive influence from the state onto the evolution of its subsequent church institutions?’.

With this approach we can take our best approximate date to be after the Edict of Milan (313AD) and prior to the Council of Nicea (AD 325). This might seem like too narrow of a guess but there are two striking facts to support this narrow window. First, one can’t overestimate the impact of Constantine, the most powerful person in the world, becoming a Christian and actually intervening in church disputes eventually calling for all Christian leaders to convene a council in order to settle the debate over the nature of Christ. As wonderful as his conversion was to the Christian world in ending persecution and elevating the church into levels of honour never imagined just a few years before, the worldly exaltation and adjoining of state with church would naturally have an impact on it’s institutions for it’s officers would, in one way or another begin to report to the state and be determined by the state going forward.

Second the use of new ‘arch-’ terms did not appear in any historical documents until (as coincidence would have it?) this very same century. Naturally these new titles would help increase the official level of bureaucracy in the church, as it ascended in political power, in order to help organize the state and the church together under a brand new and totally unexpected era! Any large organisation under one powerful state, naturally needs auxiliary offices as compared to a simple ‘home church’ one might find in the New Testament or found during the very recent previous persecution of the Roman government. As later early history would show, this organization became especially important to any 'ambitious' bishop as it facilitated the administration of church offerings, with ‘city’ bishops collecting ¼ of all tithes and by the 8th century actually having power even over the collection of ‘rural’ assemblies revenue, increasing an ever growing luxury.

"All offerings to the Church were originally in the disposition of the bishop, who was bound to dispense them to all who were on the list of the needy, whether they were clergy, widows, strangers, or poor. The earliest general rule is that of the Council of Antioch in 341 (c. 25), which is a general regulation for all Church property....The earliest regulation is that of Pope Simplicius in 475. It rules that of all the revenues of the Church and offerings of the faithful, one fourth is to go to the bishop; one fourth is to be divided among the clergy according to their several deserts; two fourths are to go to the fabrics of the churches, and to the maintenance of strangers and the poor. The regulation was recognised in later times by being incorporated in the body of Canon Law (c. 28, C. XII., qu. ii). (THE GROWTH OF CHURCH INSTITUTIONS by the rev EDWIN HATCH, p108)

and

"The regulation took the form of requiring that baptisteries should only exist in places in which the bishop appointed them. It was first made in one of the earliest councils of the Carlovingian Reformation, that which was held by Pippin at Vernon, in Normandy, in 755. The regulation had the effect of dividing all churches outside the bishop’s own church into two classes, those in which baptisms could be performed and those in which they could not....It is evident that baptismal churches claimed a superior importance over the other country churches; it is also evident that they claimed a share in the newly sanctioned payment of tithes. (THE GROWTH OF CHURCH INSTITUTIONS by the rev EDWIN HATCH, p86)

This state-church organisation eventually led to national boundaries as would seem inevitable. The struggle over power in this new found world of luxury split the Eastern Churches from the Western with both claiming to be the only churches remaining that have always followed the traditions of the Apostles.

Having noted the date of the rapid change upon church structure as a natural result of the conversion of the Roman emperor, one must not think the Protestant Reformation immediately returned perfectly to the primitive structure of the New Testament, or even uniformly believes that it’s the right thing to do today. However one can see the main cord cut with Luther. Although separation of church and state would not really become a necessity until various denominations would settle in America with the need to live together, Luther paved the way for this eventual development by rejecting a more fundamental structure, namely the decisions made by ‘church councils’. Luther heartily rejected aspects of the first council recorded in ACTS (as did every other Christian) and also various parts of the next major council of Nicea. Following Luther's line of thought, 'if many decisions' made by church councils can be rejected, then the 'church institutions' that they establish or support can also be rejected. So the scarcity of such complicated hierarchies is no longer recognised.

No complex organizational structure can be maintained without group ‘councils’. Luther’s basic argument was that the council in Jerusalem as recorded in ACTS (ACTS 15:39) establish temporary rules about eating blood, etc. which was only applicable when Jewish traditions were slowly being put to death. These temporary rules were a kind of mercy to 'weaker brethren' who had grown up with them from the womb and found them too offensive to overcome when beginning to fellowship with Gentiles. Therefore, since nobody followed everything from the first council, there is no need to follow everything from any council. Luther then reviews the Council of Nicea and although fully supporting the main purpose for which the Emperor called the meeting, namely to defeat the Arian heresy, he notes the many embarrassing squabbles that the bishops added, over church institutions etc. He notes that this was added to the agenda the following day after the Empower had left and thinks the emperor would have never had enough patience to listen to such childish squabbles.

Luther’s effort in showing the greed and childish behaviour of many bishops at the council of Nicea leads to the original cause of why the church institutions developed into a power structure, why it lead to a split between east and west and why eventually Protestantism was brave enough to lead the path towards ultimate separation of church and state in the America.

"The same council (Nicea) likewise decreed that the Roman bishop should, in accordance with an old custom, take charge of the suburbicarian churches, just as the bishop in Alexandria had charge of those in Egypt. I cannot and will not explain the word suburbicariae because it is not my word; but it seems to mean the churches located up to that time in Italy around the Roman churches, just as the churches in Egypt were adjacent to the churches in Alexandria. Let whoever wants to interpret it do so, but I still understand it to mean that this council gave the bishop of Rome no dominion over his surrounding churches, but entrusted them to his care; and it did not do it as though it had to be done “by divine right,” but because of an old custom. Custom, however, does not mean scriptura sancta or God’s word. Furthermore, it took the churches of Egypt (also in keep keeping with an old custom) away from the bishop of Rome and entrusted them to the bishop of Alexandria. Likewise, it is to be assumed that the churches in Syria were entrusted to the bishop of Antioch or Jerusalem, since they are farther away from Rome than Alexandria or Egypt. Now if this council is to be valid in our churches and go into effect, we must first condemn the bishop of Rome as a tyrant and burn all his bulls and decretals. There is no bull or decretal in which he does not boast vociferously and menacingly that he is the supreme head and lord of all the churches on earth, to whom everyone on earth must be subject, if they wish to be saved. This is exactly as much as saying, “The Council of Nicaea is false, accursed, and damned for taking from me domination over all things and for making the bishop of Alexandria my peer.” (Luther's Works Vol 41 p41)

In conclusion, the subject is massive but actually pivots on a few simple ideas in history in the fourth century. Catholics interpret them in such a way as to secure the 'infallible leadership of the Pope', tracing it to the New Testament itself under Peter. Eastern Orthodox interpret them in such a way as to retain the claim of original tradition also, however without the aggression that it claims the Catholic Roman Bishop tried to wield causing the split. Protestants, generally interpret the scriptures themselves to predict a very early falling away of the true traditions of the Apostles as people were predicted to begin to focus on ‘external rites’ and superstitions or harsh disciplines, in contrast to the inward evangelical realities of the gospel (e.g., 1 Tim 4:1-3). In addition Protestants commonly see St. Augustine’s focus on a real and ‘elect’ church, versus a mere external church, as a natural result of the joining of church and state, whereby so many 'insincere confessors' were politically manipulated to gather into its walls. Thus a kind of church within a church was dormant under St Augustine influence until the time of the reformation, at which point it largely came out under various national organization structures of the reformation. Thus history seems to provide all three major Christian groups very confident positions from the mere facts. The real issue of contention is that all three groups claim that anyone who merely believes in Christ is a Christian 'without any doubt!', but both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox essentially mean …and belong to our external body as proof of such faith (or for the ignorant have a disposition to become part of our external body if sufficiently instructed in the light of their traditions). This is the main point that divides the three groups.