In our discussion on the now-silent thread Let Us Build Our Faith On Christ, Bobby Valentine inserted Eric Jay's article, “From Presbyter-Bishops to Bishops and Presbyters” into the discussion (right about here, scroll down about half-way). A resume of my points of contention at that point in the thread would be helpful.
I had argued that
1. The first century Church looked the way St. Ignatios and St. Clement describe. It's not a matter of interpretation of any NT passages. It is simply the case based on sheer historical record.2. If the first century Church looked the way St. Ignatios and St. Clement describe it, then the RM interpretation of what the first century Church looked like is just flat wrong.
3. Given 1 and 2, it's not the case that the NT and St. Ignatios and St. Clement contradict, but that the RM interpretation of the NT conflicts with St. Ignatios and St. Clement.
4. If the RM interpretation of the NT conflicts with the established facts of history, then the RM interpretation cannot be true, and if the RM interpretation of the NT is false, then it is a good idea to try to understand the NT in light of first century history.
To which Bobby responded:
The church structure reflected in Ignatius does not seem to be known in other second century writers. Eric G. Jay (Emeritus Professor of Theology @ McGill University in Toronto) has published a masterpiece of historical research on Christian ministry in the second century.[. . . snipped. . .]
Jay is from an episcopal background, as I recall. He surveys in considerable depth the Didache, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Hermas, Justin, Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Hippolytus . . . it is a model of fairness and objectivity. Throughout Jay is in conversation with Gregory Dix and his classic work on early christian ministry and concludes that in a number of places Dix is simply wrong.
In spite of the fact that Jay's conclusions are contrary to his own church structure he offers these fine words at the conclusion of his study,
"[i]This survey shows, I maintain, that for about a century and a half the church's ministry was basically prebyteral. There would, perhaps, be speedier progress in ecumenical conversations between episcopal and presbyterian churches if, on the one hand, this were frankly recognized, and if, on the other hand, the cogency of the needs which prom[p]ted the eventual emergence of the monepiscopate were acknowledged"[/i] (p. 162).
Bobby gave several more replies to my points, most of them oriented around Jay's article. Others in the thread also made criticisms. I responded with a rathe