Gavin Ortlund Appeals to von Harnack and Raymond E. Brown

When Did the Papacy Begin? (Response to Joe Heschmeyer)
Gavin Ortlund | 29 Oct. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zQU-_78P34

1) In order to not be nasty, I refrain from giving the details of my position of Adolf von Harnack.
2) I would say "prophets" would be a charismatic office. However, "teachers" not necessarily so.

Bishops and deacons could be presbyters and deacons, while teachers could be what we call bishops.

17:06 St. Irenaeus is obviously 2nd C.

However, he retrospectively considers Rome had single bishops from when Sts. Peter and Paul were there to ... "Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate."

If there were no single bishops, how come he's able to name such?

17:11 With conservative Catholics, appealing to Raymond E. Brown is a bit like appealing to the Devil.

He opposed Biblical inerrancy, for one.

17:50 "later developments"

Feel free to develop (!) on how episcopate, being a later development of the 2nd C could so naively be read back into the 1st C by St. Irenaeus?

Joshua Johansen

@joshuajohansen1210

Quote please from Irenaeus

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@joshuajohansen1210 Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolic tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate.

Against Heresies, book III chapter 3, from §§2 and 3.

18:40 How much would a purely disciplinary thing be mentioned in writing, while people were living out the discipline in action?

19:02 1st Clement ... I suppose you are of the school stating 2nd Clement is a fraud?

BernardClvx

@BernardClvx

Writing things and attributing them to someone more famous happened a fair amount. It may not always have been intended badly. But its pretty definite that 2 Clement was written later - not even all that much later - maybe 120's? 130's? Something like that. Its still a legit early Christian writing, and I don't think its even deemed heretical. It's just probably not Clement's.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@BernardClvx "happened a fair amount."

How much? Sufficient for Gospels to be pseudepigrapha too?

And wasn't 2nd Clement a follow up on 1st Clement?

"But its pretty definite"

Definite from what? From the idea that papacy hadn't developed enough for 2nd Clement to be written in the lifetime of St. Clement?

Joshua Johansen

@hglundahl Pretty much everyone knows Clement of Rome didn't write 2 Clement. This goes all the way back to Eusebius.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@joshuajohansen1210 "pretty much everyone knows" ... isn't an argument.

Eusebius disagreeing may be motivated by other things than knowledge, just as his non-mention of St. Helen's finding of the Cross may be motivated by other things than his never hearing of it (as I recall, Caesarea and Jerusalem had a rivalry and the finding of the Cross boosted Jerusalem).

Joshua Johansen

@hglundahl Here are some arguments:
1. Internal evidence - the author does not identify himself as Clement.
2. Scholarship - Lightfoot and Harmer argue that the Greek of 2 Clement does not match the Greek of 1 Clement.
3. Historical Evidence - Someone like Eusebius is someone you should seriously consider, although it is true he had his own bases.

What is your evidence for it being written by Clement of Rome?

That being said, it doesn't seem like that big of deal, most scholars still see 2 Clement as a helpful 2-century homily.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@joshuajohansen1210 I had a mistaken memory of 2nd Clement being a follow up on the same issue.

However, it appears on the same two manuscripts.

If it's genuine, it was less known. But even if it's spurious, it was less known. Not quoted with approval before Timothy of Alexandria and Severus of Antioch doesn't fit with Pope Soter, unless less known ... which would also explain it's non-quote if it was by Pope Clement.

19:12 "entirely standard summaries of the scholarly positions"

Jesus in Matthew 28:20 promised to be all days with scholars or with the people we claim were the first bishops?

Your scholarship is standard Protestant scholarship, or it is standard Catholic scholarship as well?

The latter, I don't think so.