No Pope in the 1st Century

[Just Another User]

I won't take credit for discovering and compiling this information and most if not all has been found by others. I have contributed nothing of value to be honest except writing it in my own way and posting it here.

As the Title suggests I think there's sufficient evidence to suggest that there wasn't a Pope in the 1st century in Rome. In fact it may be more accurate to say that there wasn't a singular bishop in Rome as you'll understand in a moment.

I shall be using the Christian sources of The Didache which was written in the late 1st century, Clement of Rome who was writing in c.96 AD, Ignatius of Antioch who was writing in c.108 AD and Polycarp of Smyrna who was writing in the early to mid 2nd century.

You can go straight to the early Christian sources if it so pleases you or you can look at Scripture use of elder and Bishop by Peter and Paul who both founded the church in Rome to get a bit of a head start from anyone else who skips ahead.

*
You can skip this part if you want:

Interestingly, the Apostle Peter is his writings uses elder and bishop interchangeably. In 1 Peter 5:1, Peter addresses the elders and addresses them as a fellow elder. The word for elder here is Presbyteros and Peter also calls himself a Sympresbyterous which literally means "a fellow elder" as the text suggests. In 1 Peter 5:2 Peter ask the bishop to excercise oversight. The word for exercising oversight here is Episkopountes. The root of the word is Episkopos which is basically the Greek word for Bishop. Thus elders and bishops were the same thing for Peter.

Apostle Paul also used elder and bishop interchangeably. You can see that in Acts 20:17 and Acts 20:28 when he originally refers the elders as Presbyteros (v17) and later refers to said elders as overseers (v28). Episkopos is used which again was always used in the early church and usually in Scripture to mean bishop. Therefore, for Paul, Presbyteros and Episkopos meant the same thing.

As you noticed Paul or Peter never mention a bishop being a separate position from being an elder.
*
So without further a do lets begin looking at Clement of Rome's letter to the Corinthians.

The Didache: (c.75 AD) Arguably the earliest Christian source along with Clement's letter and the Epistle of Barnabas, this contains early Christian tracts and ways of life.

Chapter 15 - Bishops and Deacons.

"Therefore, appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money"

This is just the plural form of Episkopos which meant bishop to anyone who understood Koine Greek. It's interesting that they use the plural of bishop but also never mention elders whatsoever during the entire writing.

Clement of Rome: Clement was according to Catholics the bishop of Rome during the late 1st century. He was appointed to be bishop by both the Apostle Paul and the Apostle Peter. This letter may be the earliest thing outside the new testament and Clement is certainly the earliest confirmed writer.

Epistle to the Corinthians (c.96 AD)

Chapter 42 - The Orders of Ministers in the church

"(The Apostles) thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits... to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith."

The word for bishop here is being used in a plural context. Why would plural make any sense if there was only a singular bishop per area? Furthermore, there is no mention of elders here to go along with the bishop. Simply just bishops and deacons. Interesting that the apparent Pope wouldn't mention elders but just bishops and deacons.

Chapter 44 - The Ordinances of the Apostles, that There Might Be No Contention Respecting the Priestly Office

"Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate*. For this reason, therefore, considering that they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed** those already mentioned (referring to chapter 42), and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry... For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those elders who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure"

*Now basically, Greek phrase for "the episcopate" is dioikesis which modern translation would be diocese. This is just the area that a bishop supervises. Therefore, for this little excerise is can frankly mean the "office of the Bishop" as it's a rough translation. Now as you see it originally mentions those of the office of the episcopate who die and are eventually succeeded. It then goes onto those elders ( Presbyteros) who have died and will need succeeding. The context would suggest that both the elders and those in the office of the episcopate which is just the area a bishop oversees means the same thing. **Those appointed refers to the bishops ( Episkopos) mentioned in chapter 42. Thus Clement is using Presbyteros and Episkopos interchangeably and are therefore using Elder and Bishop interchangeably.

Ignatius of Antioch: Ignatius of Antioch was the supervisor of the church in Antioch; the most important of the early churches; in the late 1st and early 2nd century. He was appointed to this position by at least the Apostle John if not more Apostles.

Various Epistles (c.108 AD)

Now Ignatius was certainly like what we would consider a modern day bishop. Though he had a group of elders with him, he was the bishop or head elder. In fact, all the churches founded by the Apostle John seemed to have a bishop and a group of elders with him. However, we can use Ignatius' emphasises of the bishop in his 7 remaining letters to help us.

In 6 of Ignatius' letters, he emphasises the role of the bishop heavily. This was because the Gnostics were infecting the entire church and injuring the churches chance of growth. Since Ignatius wanted the Gnostics gone, he told the Christians at that time that they need to listen to the bishop. Remember that most of said bishops had been appointed by John or appointed by those who were appointed by him. The singular bishops in the east still knew the Apostles directly. Just read his epistles as see how much his mentions the role of the bishop and see how incredibly important it is.

Now interestingly, the only letter that he does not mention the bishop is the letter to the Romans. Now though the contents of the letter of Romans differs from that of his other six letters, it is still shocking that he doesn't mention the bishop in Rome. Now in the other six letters, the churches are all churches established and kept running by John and those appointed by him. Rome is the only letter written to a church which is was set up by another Apostle. This would be further evidence to suggest that the role of the bishop/s in Churches Appointed by John were different to those appointed by Peter and Paul.

Polycarp of Smyrna: Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna and was appointed by the Apostle John to have that position. He was probably the bishop of Smyrna when it got only praises from Christ Jesus in Revelation ( only two out of the seven churches that got only praises).

Letter to Polycarp from Ignatius (c.108 AD)

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to Polycarp, Bishop of the Church of the Smyrnaeans, or rather, who has, as his own bishop, God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ: [wishes] abundance of happiness."

Now we know based on information such as Ignatius' letters that Polycarp was a monarchical bishop. This is just the tip of the Iceberg but it's a nice solid confirmation anyway. This shows that Polycarp was the main man in town in Smyrna. We can therefore conclude that if Polycarp was to write a letter, he would mention his status of a bishop at the very least in said letter. Unless of cause, it wouldn't make sense to his audience.

Letter to the Philippians from Polycarp (c.125 AD)

"Polycarp, and the elders with him, to the Church of God sojourning at Philippi: Mercy to you, and peace from God Almighty, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, our Saviour, be multiplied."

However when he's writing to the Philippians, Polycarp mentions the elders with him and not once does he indicate that he's the main guy in charge. What's interesting is that the church in Philippi was another church appointed by Paul suggesting again that they had a different form of church government than those appointed by Paul.

He also never mentions the role of bishop throughout the entire letter to the Philippians! Not even in passing, he simply doesn't use any word related to Episkopos. He mentions the duties of Deacons and he mentions the duty of elders but never one mentions the duty of bishop/s.

In Chapter 5, he mentions the role of deacons and various sins to avoid.

"Therefore, it is needful to abstain from all these things, being subject to the elders ( Presbtyeros) and deacons, as to God and Christ"

There's no mention of a bishop!

It would also match the opening to Philippians as well.

"Paul and Timothy, bond-servants of Christ Jesus. To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi including the overseers and deacons:"

This is a plural form of the work Episkopos and it's Episkopois. Using the plural form a bishop is interesting if there's only one. As you see there's no mention of Presbtyeros in the opening and to my knowledge not once in the entire letter. only forms of Epsikopos are used.


Therefore based on the quotes; mostly Ignatius' letter to the Romans; I would say that there wasn't a singular bishop in Rome until at the earliest c.115 AD with a more probable region of c.130 AD.

 

[Sonny J. Reeves]

I won't take credit for discovering and compiling this information and most if not all has been found by others. I have contributed nothing of value to be honest except writing it in my own way and posting it here.

As the Title suggests I think there's sufficient evidence to suggest that there wasn't a Pope in the 1st century in Rome. In fact it may be more accurate to say that there wasn't a singular bishop in Rome as you'll understand in a moment.

I shall be using the Christian sources of The Didache which was written in the late 1st century, Clement of Rome who was writing in c.96 AD, Ignatius of Antioch who was writing in c.108 AD and Polycarp of Smyrna who was writing in the early to mid 2nd century.

You can go straight to the early Christian sources if it so pleases you or you can look at Scripture use of elder and Bishop by Peter and Paul who both founded the church in Rome to get a bit of a head start from anyone else who skips ahead.

*
You can skip this part if you want:

Interestingly, the Apostle Peter is his writings uses elder and bishop interchangeably. In 1 Peter 5:1, Peter addresses the elders and addresses them as a fellow elder. The word for elder here is Presbyteros and Peter also calls himself a Sympresbyterous which literally means "a fellow elder" as the text suggests. In 1 Peter 5:2 Peter ask the bishop to excercise oversight. The word for exercising oversight here is Episkopountes. The root of the word is Episkopos which is basically the Greek word for Bishop. Thus elders and bishops were the same thing for Peter.

Apostle Paul also used elder and bishop interchangeably. You can see that in Acts 20:17 and Acts 20:28 when he originally refers the elders as Presbyteros (v17) and later refers to said elders as overseers (v28). Episkopos is used which again was always used in the early church and usually in Scripture to mean bishop. Therefore, for Paul, Presbyteros and Episkopos meant the same thing.

As you noticed Paul or Peter never mention a bishop being a separate position from being an elder.
*
So without further a do lets begin looking at Clement of Rome's letter to the Corinthians.

The Didache: (c.75 AD) Arguably the earliest Christian source along with Clement's letter and the Epistle of Barnabas, this contains early Christian tracts and ways of life.

Chapter 15 - Bishops and Deacons.

"Therefore, appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money"

This is just the plural form of Episkopos which meant bishop to anyone who understood Koine Greek. It's interesting that they use the plural of bishop but also never mention elders whatsoever during the entire writing.

Clement of Rome: Clement was according to Catholics the bishop of Rome during the late 1st century. He was appointed to be bishop by both the Apostle Paul and the Apostle Peter. This letter may be the earliest thing outside the new testament and Clement is certainly the earliest confirmed writer.

Epistle to the Corinthians (c.96 AD)

Chapter 42 - The Orders of Ministers in the church

"(The Apostles) thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits... to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith."

The word for bishop here is being used in a plural context. Why would plural make any sense if there was only a singular bishop per area? Furthermore, there is no mention of elders here to go along with the bishop. Simply just bishops and deacons. Interesting that the apparent Pope wouldn't mention elders but just bishops and deacons.

Chapter 44 - The Ordinances of the Apostles, that There Might Be No Contention Respecting the Priestly Office

"Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate*. For this reason, therefore, considering that they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed** those already mentioned (referring to chapter 42), and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry... For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those elders who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure"

*Now basically, Greek phrase for "the episcopate" is dioikesis which modern translation would be diocese. This is just the area that a bishop supervises. Therefore, for this little excerise is can frankly mean the "office of the Bishop" as it's a rough translation. Now as you see it originally mentions those of the office of the episcopate who die and are eventually succeeded. It then goes onto those elders ( Presbyteros) who have died and will need succeeding. The context would suggest that both the elders and those in the office of the episcopate which is just the area a bishop oversees means the same thing. **Those appointed refers to the bishops ( Episkopos) mentioned in chapter 42. Thus Clement is using Presbyteros and Episkopos interchangeably and are therefore using Elder and Bishop interchangeably.

Ignatius of Antioch: Ignatius of Antioch was the supervisor of the church in Antioch; the most important of the early churches; in the late 1st and early 2nd century. He was appointed to this position by at least the Apostle John if not more Apostles.

Various Epistles (c.108 AD)

Now Ignatius was certainly like what we would consider a modern day bishop. Though he had a group of elders with him, he was the bishop or head elder. In fact, all the churches founded by the Apostle John seemed to have a bishop and a group of elders with him. However, we can use Ignatius' emphasises of the bishop in his 7 remaining letters to help us.

In 6 of Ignatius' letters, he emphasises the role of the bishop heavily. This was because the Gnostics were infecting the entire church and injuring the churches chance of growth. Since Ignatius wanted the Gnostics gone, he told the Christians at that time that they need to listen to the bishop. Remember that most of said bishops had been appointed by John or appointed by those who were appointed by him. The singular bishops in the east still knew the Apostles directly. Just read his epistles as see how much his mentions the role of the bishop and see how incredibly important it is.

Now interestingly, the only letter that he does not mention the bishop is the letter to the Romans. Now though the contents of the letter of Romans differs from that of his other six letters, it is still shocking that he doesn't mention the bishop in Rome. Now in the other six letters, the churches are all churches established and kept running by John and those appointed by him. Rome is the only letter written to a church which is was set up by another Apostle. This would be further evidence to suggest that the role of the bishop/s in Churches Appointed by John were different to those appointed by Peter and Paul.

Polycarp of Smyrna: Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna and was appointed by the Apostle John to have that position. He was probably the bishop of Smyrna when it got only praises from Christ Jesus in Revelation ( only two out of the seven churches that got only praises).

Letter to Polycarp from Ignatius (c.108 AD)

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to Polycarp, Bishop of the Church of the Smyrnaeans, or rather, who has, as his own bishop, God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ: [wishes] abundance of happiness."

Now we know based on information such as Ignatius' letters that Polycarp was a monarchical bishop. This is just the tip of the Iceberg but it's a nice solid confirmation anyway. This shows that Polycarp was the main man in town in Smyrna. We can therefore conclude that if Polycarp was to write a letter, he would mention his status of a bishop at the very least in said letter. Unless of cause, it wouldn't make sense to his audience.

Letter to the Philippians from Polycarp (c.125 AD)

"Polycarp, and the elders with him, to the Church of God sojourning at Philippi: Mercy to you, and peace from God Almighty, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, our Saviour, be multiplied."

However when he's writing to the Philippians, Polycarp mentions the elders with him and not once does he indicate that he's the main guy in charge. What's interesting is that the church in Philippi was another church appointed by Paul suggesting again that they had a different form of church government than those appointed by Paul.

He also never mentions the role of bishop throughout the entire letter to the Philippians! Not even in passing, he simply doesn't use any word related to Episkopos. He mentions the duties of Deacons and he mentions the duty of elders but never one mentions the duty of bishop/s.

In Chapter 5, he mentions the role of deacons and various sins to avoid.

"Therefore, it is needful to abstain from all these things, being subject to the elders ( Presbtyeros) and deacons, as to God and Christ"

There's no mention of a bishop!

It would also match the opening to Philippians as well.

"Paul and Timothy, bond-servants of Christ Jesus. To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi including the overseers and deacons:"

This is a plural form of the work Episkopos and it's Episkopois. Using the plural form a bishop is interesting if there's only one. As you see there's no mention of Presbtyeros in the opening and to my knowledge not once in the entire letter. only forms of Epsikopos are used.


Therefore based on the quotes; mostly Ignatius' letter to the Romans; I would say that there wasn't a singular bishop in Rome until at the earliest c.115 AD with a more probable region of c.130 AD.

Excellent study. Came to same conclusion s

 

[JackRT]

Although I do agree with the conclusion that Peter was never a "Pope" I should point out that the epistles of Peter were written some 60 years after his death.

 

[Jonaitis]

Although I do agree with the conclusion that Peter was never a "Pope" I should point out that the epistles of Peter were written some 60 years after his death.

Correction: Peter wrote both of his epistles.

 

[HTacianas]

I won't take credit for discovering and compiling this information and most if not all has been found by others. I have contributed nothing of value to be honest except writing it in my own way and posting it here.

As the Title suggests I think there's sufficient evidence to suggest that there wasn't a Pope in the 1st century in Rome. In fact it may be more accurate to say that there wasn't a singular bishop in Rome as you'll understand in a moment.

I shall be using the Christian sources of The Didache which was written in the late 1st century, Clement of Rome who was writing in c.96 AD, Ignatius of Antioch who was writing in c.108 AD and Polycarp of Smyrna who was writing in the early to mid 2nd century.

You can go straight to the early Christian sources if it so pleases you or you can look at Scripture use of elder and Bishop by Peter and Paul who both founded the church in Rome to get a bit of a head start from anyone else who skips ahead.

*
You can skip this part if you want:

Interestingly, the Apostle Peter is his writings uses elder and bishop interchangeably. In 1 Peter 5:1, Peter addresses the elders and addresses them as a fellow elder. The word for elder here is Presbyteros and Peter also calls himself a Sympresbyterous which literally means "a fellow elder" as the text suggests. In 1 Peter 5:2 Peter ask the bishop to excercise oversight. The word for exercising oversight here is Episkopountes. The root of the word is Episkopos which is basically the Greek word for Bishop. Thus elders and bishops were the same thing for Peter.

Apostle Paul also used elder and bishop interchangeably. You can see that in Acts 20:17 and Acts 20:28 when he originally refers the elders as Presbyteros (v17) and later refers to said elders as overseers (v28). Episkopos is used which again was always used in the early church and usually in Scripture to mean bishop. Therefore, for Paul, Presbyteros and Episkopos meant the same thing.

As you noticed Paul or Peter never mention a bishop being a separate position from being an elder.
*
So without further a do lets begin looking at Clement of Rome's letter to the Corinthians.

The Didache: (c.75 AD) Arguably the earliest Christian source along with Clement's letter and the Epistle of Barnabas, this contains early Christian tracts and ways of life.

Chapter 15 - Bishops and Deacons.

"Therefore, appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money"

This is just the plural form of Episkopos which meant bishop to anyone who understood Koine Greek. It's interesting that they use the plural of bishop but also never mention elders whatsoever during the entire writing.

Clement of Rome: Clement was according to Catholics the bishop of Rome during the late 1st century. He was appointed to be bishop by both the Apostle Paul and the Apostle Peter. This letter may be the earliest thing outside the new testament and Clement is certainly the earliest confirmed writer.

Epistle to the Corinthians (c.96 AD)

Chapter 42 - The Orders of Ministers in the church

"(The Apostles) thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits... to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith."

The word for bishop here is being used in a plural context. Why would plural make any sense if there was only a singular bishop per area? Furthermore, there is no mention of elders here to go along with the bishop. Simply just bishops and deacons. Interesting that the apparent Pope wouldn't mention elders but just bishops and deacons.

Chapter 44 - The Ordinances of the Apostles, that There Might Be No Contention Respecting the Priestly Office

"Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate*. For this reason, therefore, considering that they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed** those already mentioned (referring to chapter 42), and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry... For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those elders who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure"

*Now basically, Greek phrase for "the episcopate" is dioikesis which modern translation would be diocese. This is just the area that a bishop supervises. Therefore, for this little excerise is can frankly mean the "office of the Bishop" as it's a rough translation. Now as you see it originally mentions those of the office of the episcopate who die and are eventually succeeded. It then goes onto those elders ( Presbyteros) who have died and will need succeeding. The context would suggest that both the elders and those in the office of the episcopate which is just the area a bishop oversees means the same thing. **Those appointed refers to the bishops ( Episkopos) mentioned in chapter 42. Thus Clement is using Presbyteros and Episkopos interchangeably and are therefore using Elder and Bishop interchangeably.

Ignatius of Antioch: Ignatius of Antioch was the supervisor of the church in Antioch; the most important of the early churches; in the late 1st and early 2nd century. He was appointed to this position by at least the Apostle John if not more Apostles.

Various Epistles (c.108 AD)

Now Ignatius was certainly like what we would consider a modern day bishop. Though he had a group of elders with him, he was the bishop or head elder. In fact, all the churches founded by the Apostle John seemed to have a bishop and a group of elders with him. However, we can use Ignatius' emphasises of the bishop in his 7 remaining letters to help us.

In 6 of Ignatius' letters, he emphasises the role of the bishop heavily. This was because the Gnostics were infecting the entire church and injuring the churches chance of growth. Since Ignatius wanted the Gnostics gone, he told the Christians at that time that they need to listen to the bishop. Remember that most of said bishops had been appointed by John or appointed by those who were appointed by him. The singular bishops in the east still knew the Apostles directly. Just read his epistles as see how much his mentions the role of the bishop and see how incredibly important it is.

Now interestingly, the only letter that he does not mention the bishop is the letter to the Romans. Now though the contents of the letter of Romans differs from that of his other six letters, it is still shocking that he doesn't mention the bishop in Rome. Now in the other six letters, the churches are all churches established and kept running by John and those appointed by him. Rome is the only letter written to a church which is was set up by another Apostle. This would be further evidence to suggest that the role of the bishop/s in Churches Appointed by John were different to those appointed by Peter and Paul.

Polycarp of Smyrna: Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna and was appointed by the Apostle John to have that position. He was probably the bishop of Smyrna when it got only praises from Christ Jesus in Revelation ( only two out of the seven churches that got only praises).

Letter to Polycarp from Ignatius (c.108 AD)

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to Polycarp, Bishop of the Church of the Smyrnaeans, or rather, who has, as his own bishop, God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ: [wishes] abundance of happiness."

Now we know based on information such as Ignatius' letters that Polycarp was a monarchical bishop. This is just the tip of the Iceberg but it's a nice solid confirmation anyway. This shows that Polycarp was the main man in town in Smyrna. We can therefore conclude that if Polycarp was to write a letter, he would mention his status of a bishop at the very least in said letter. Unless of cause, it wouldn't make sense to his audience.

Letter to the Philippians from Polycarp (c.125 AD)

"Polycarp, and the elders with him, to the Church of God sojourning at Philippi: Mercy to you, and peace from God Almighty, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, our Saviour, be multiplied."

However when he's writing to the Philippians, Polycarp mentions the elders with him and not once does he indicate that he's the main guy in charge. What's interesting is that the church in Philippi was another church appointed by Paul suggesting again that they had a different form of church government than those appointed by Paul.

He also never mentions the role of bishop throughout the entire letter to the Philippians! Not even in passing, he simply doesn't use any word related to Episkopos. He mentions the duties of Deacons and he mentions the duty of elders but never one mentions the duty of bishop/s.

In Chapter 5, he mentions the role of deacons and various sins to avoid.

"Therefore, it is needful to abstain from all these things, being subject to the elders ( Presbtyeros) and deacons, as to God and Christ"

There's no mention of a bishop!

It would also match the opening to Philippians as well.

"Paul and Timothy, bond-servants of Christ Jesus. To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi including the overseers and deacons:"

This is a plural form of the work Episkopos and it's Episkopois. Using the plural form a bishop is interesting if there's only one. As you see there's no mention of Presbtyeros in the opening and to my knowledge not once in the entire letter. only forms of Epsikopos are used.


Therefore based on the quotes; mostly Ignatius' letter to the Romans; I would say that there wasn't a singular bishop in Rome until at the earliest c.115 AD with a more probable region of c.130 AD.

A man writing a letter to a group of people who are already familiar with what he writing about need not recite every possible precept. As to this:

"The word for bishop here is being used in a plural context. Why would plural make any sense if there was only a singular bishop per area?"

The plural in that case refers to the plurality of areas, not plurality of bishops in any particular area. Plural areas, plural bishops.

There was always some person appointed as leader of each church founded by the apostles. The Revelation addresses not the seven churches of Asia, but the "angels", meaning the messengers of those churches, in that case their bishops.

The letter to the Romans is addressed not to multiple groups in Rome, but to the Church in Rome. That Church had a bishop, an overseer, whose successors later adopted the nickname "pope" as a title in the same way the overseers of the Coptic Church adopted it.

 

[TuxAme]

If you've proved anything, all you've proven is that the pope hasn't always resided in Rome- and this isn't disputed .

 

[JackRT]

Correction: Peter wrote both of his epistles.

I hope that you don't mind if I remain skeptical.

 

[dzheremi]

The honorific "Pope" was first applied not to the bishop of Rome but to the bishop of Alexandria -- specifically beginning with the 13th bishop of that great city, HH Pope Heraclas (sometimes known as Theoclas), who ruled from 232 to 248 AD. Interestingly, it was applied to him posthumously by the bishop of Rome HH St. Dionysius (r. 259-268), who wrote in a letter to one Philemon:

τοῦτον ἐγὼ τὸν κανόνα καὶ τὸν τύπον παρὰ τοῦ μακαρίου πάπα ἡμῶν Ἡρακλᾶ παρέλαβον [I received this rule and ordinance from our blessed Pope, Heraclas.]

This is as it is found in Eusebius' church history, though honestly I just took it from Wikipedia, because my copy of Eusebius is in storage at the moment.

Anyway, Rome would not begin referring to its own bishops as Pope until several centuries after this, probably sometime after or around the finalization of the schism of Chalcedon (the wiki page for HH St. Heraclas says the sixth century, but gives no citation for that).

 

[Just Another User]

The honorific "Pope" was first applied not to the bishop of Rome but to the bishop of Alexandria -- specifically beginning with the 13th bishop of that great city, HH Pope Heraclas (sometimes known as Theoclas), who ruled from 232 to 248 AD. Interestingly, it was applied to him posthumously by the bishop of Rome HH St. Dionysius (r. 259-268), who wrote in a letter to one Philemon:

τοῦτον ἐγὼ τὸν κανόνα καὶ τὸν τύπον παρὰ τοῦ μακαρίου πάπα ἡμῶν Ἡρακλᾶ παρέλαβον [I received this rule and ordinance from our blessed Pope, Heraclas.]

This is as it is found in Eusebius' church history, though honestly I just took it from Wikipedia, because my copy of Eusebius is in storage at the moment.

Anyway, Rome would not begin referring to its own bishops as Pope until several centuries after this, probably sometime after or around the finalization of the schism of Chalcedon (the wiki page for HH St. Heraclas says the sixth century, but gives no citation for that).

Cheers for that. I knew the Alexandrian bishops were eventually called Popes too but would have thought the Romans would have got there first. I also thought Dionysius was the first Alexandrian Pope too so thanks for clearing both of that up. I'll have to check that part of Ecclesiastical History!

Truthfully, I just thought "Pope" worked better than "Singular Bishop"

 

[dzheremi]

Cheers for that. I knew the Alexandrian bishops were eventually called Popes too but would have thought the Romans would have got there first. I also thought Dionysius was the first Alexandrian Pope too so thanks for clearing both of that up. I'll have to check that part of Ecclesiastical History!

According to the historical record, HH St. Heraclas was first, but just like every other church that has a Pope (the Chalcedonian Greek Orthodox Church at Alexandria calls their bishop -- who coincidentally happens to share the same name as the current Coptic Orthodox Pope at the moment -- "Pope" as well, so you have Pope Theodore II of the Greeks and Pope Theodore II of the Copts, though in the Coptic Orthodox Church we usually use the Arabic "Tawadros", even in English), we retroactively apply it to all those who came before him in the see of St. Mark, with the usual exception of St. Mark himself, who is recognized as our first Pope (but not so in Eusebius, if I remember correctly), but generally given a different honorific (e.g., the/our apostle or evangelist, the beholder of God, the destroyer of idols, etc.).

Truthfully, I just thought "Pope" worked better than "Singular Bishop"

Well, it's certainly quicker to say, if nothing else! As I'm sure you probably know, technically it's a diminutive for "Father", and isn't used to mean singular bishop anyway. Even in the Coptic Orthodox Church, which is probably the Church with the most concentrated 'Papal outlook' after that of the Romans (for many historical reasons), the Pope is referred to as "Sayedna el Baba" to emphasize that he is indeed a bishop (Sayedna, 'Our master', is what is used to refer to bishops, so it's like saying "Our Grace His Holiness the Pope"), and is not above the other bishops in some other kind of office (cf. the RCC's idea of the Papacy as a separate office). He is most definitely subject to the judgment of the Holy Synod, which he chairs as the most senior bishop in the Church. Our most recent forcibly deposed Pope, Pope Yusab II, could tell you about that. (And that wasn't very long ago in 'church years', either; it was in the 1950s.)

Rome's ecclesiology is definitely unique relative to the other historical churches.

 

[Just Another User]

Well, it's certainly quicker to say, if nothing else! As I'm sure you probably know, technically it's a diminutive for "Father", and isn't used to mean singular bishop anyway. Even in the Coptic Orthodox Church, which is probably the Church with the most concentrated 'Papal outlook' after that of the Romans (for many historical reasons), the Pope is referred to as "Sayedna el Baba" to emphasize that he is indeed a bishop (Sayedna, 'Our master', is what is used to refer to bishops, so it's like saying "Our Grace His Holiness the Pope"), and is not above the other bishops in some other kind of office (cf. the RCC's idea of the Papacy as a separate office). He is most definitely subject to the judgment of the Holy Synod, which he chairs as the most senior bishop in the Church. Our most recent forcibly deposed Pope, Pope Yusab II, could tell you about that. (And that wasn't very long ago in 'church years', either; it was in the 1950s.)

That second paragraph was really interesting. Thanks for that.

 

[tz620q]

I won't take credit for discovering and compiling this information and most if not all has been found by others. I have contributed nothing of value to be honest except writing it in my own way and posting it here.

As the Title suggests I think there's sufficient evidence to suggest that there wasn't a Pope in the 1st century in Rome. In fact it may be more accurate to say that there wasn't a singular bishop in Rome as you'll understand in a moment.

Excellent use of arguments from silence. I've always contended that this is a much overlooked part of logical reasoning.

 

[Just Another User]

Excellent use of arguments from silence. I've always contended that this is a much overlooked part of logical reasoning.

An argument from Silence is when a statement or argument is rejected due to no other sources commenting on it. For example, If for example Jesus rose from the dead according to the Gospels but no other early source mentions this and we were to reject it, that would be an argument from silence. Clearly Peter, Paul and Clement used elder and bishop interchangeably (No one denies this) and thus the silence of a singular bishop can be explained with strong evidence which even many Catholics are actually accepting in academia (along with Papal Primacy there's actually a shift among many Catholic scholars on these two positions due to evidence like these).

If there isn't a single document commenting on it or contradicting the evidence then it isn't an argument from silence. An argument from silence isn't when there isn't a single source for something. For example if there's no sources on Medieval Irishmen believing in Aliens then it isn't an argument from silence to reject it. The earliest evidence we can have for a singular bishop is Irenaeus' list of bishops of Rome written in the 180s and since he came from a singular bishop background in the East and around the time he was born, the entire world used the singular bishop system, it makes sense why he'd list the bishops in the way he did.

 

[tz620q]

An argument from Silence is when a statement or argument is rejected due to no other sources commenting on it. For example, If for example Jesus rose from the dead according to the Gospels but no other early source mentions this and we were to reject it, that would be an argument from silence. Clearly Peter, Paul and Clement used elder and bishop interchangeably (No one denies this) and thus the silence of a singular bishop can be explained with strong evidence which even many Catholics are actually accepting in academia (along with Papal Primacy there's actually a shift among many Catholic scholars on these two positions due to evidence like these).

I will agree that the roles of episkopos and presbyterous have developed in the way we view the roles. Wouldn't you expect that to happen as the church developed? But to a modern Catholic, who realizes that all bishops (episkopos) are first ordained as priests (presbyterous), it does not seem strange to use the word presbyterous for someone who is an episkopos. Proof of true interchangeability is when A=B is also B=A, truly commutative. So to prove your point, you would have to find a document that calls someone we know is only a presbyterous by the title of episkopos.

If there isn't a single document commenting on it or contradicting the evidence then it isn't an argument from silence. An argument from silence isn't when there isn't a single source for something. For example if there's no sources on Medieval Irishmen believing in Aliens then it isn't an argument from silence to reject it. The earliest evidence we can have for a singular bishop is Irenaeus' list of bishops of Rome written in the 180s and since he came from a singular bishop background in the East and around the time he was born, the entire world used the singular bishop system, it makes sense why he'd list the bishops in the way he did.

Your use of logic is odd to say the least. You state that an argument from silence is supported if there is no document supporting the opposite of the claim, then conveniently supply the document that does just that. You slap on a self-imposed moratorium on what dates are acceptable and an odd opinion on Eastern versus Western ecclesiology and say you have an argument.

 

[Just Another User]

I will agree that the roles of episkopos and presbyterous have developed in the way we view the roles. Wouldn't you expect that to happen as the church developed?

On the point of the church hierarchy developing it quite strange. I've seen some Catholic scholars argue a change of language and that the hierarchical nature always existed which explains the language of Paul, Peter and Clement but I haven't seen any major scholar claim that the functions themselves have developed (unless I've misunderstood what you've claimed or you could give me a modern day scholar who does argue that doctrine did change). Nevertheless, I usually look at non-Catholics for research into this rather than Catholics so I could be completely wrong on this front.

But to a modern Catholic, who realizes that all bishops (episkopos) are first ordained as priests (presbyterous), it does not seem strange to use the word presbyterous for someone who is an episkopos. Proof of true interchangeability is when A=B is also B=A, truly commutative. So to prove your point, you would have to find a document that calls someone we know is only a presbyterous by the title of episkopos.

I think the point of finding someone who was consider by history to be an elder to also be called a bishop is very unfair. I've given evidence of the language of two Apostles, and Clement writing in the mid 90s who used elder and bishop interchangeably. That alone is very strong evidence and considered much by most historians including Catholics. Ignatius' and Polycarp's letter's are quite effective in this respect too. We know from Ignatius' letters that the role of bishop was distinct from the role of the elder. It's undeniable. We see Polycarp being addressed this way too in one of Ignatius' letters. However, in Polycarp's letter to the Philippians we do not see him personally elevate himself during the letter; in fact he actually equates himself to his elders like he's an equal; He fails to mention the role of bishop when talking about people to submit to despite Polycarp coming from a tradition of those who actually did have a bishop in charge and emphasised it. Based on this evidence it can further support the hypothesis that churches setup by Paul and Peter had a group of elders.

Nevertheless, the Shepard of Hermas a Christian work written in the 140-150AD (which was written in Rome) mentions (Vision 2 chapter 4 verse 3) those in charge church as presbtyers and plural for that. It doesn't mention bishop or episkopos during the entire letter (this point could be an argument from silence those I concede.)

Your use of logic is odd to say the least. You state that an argument from silence is supported if there is no document supporting the opposite of the claim, then conveniently supply the document that does just that. You slap on a self-imposed moratorium on what dates are acceptable and an odd opinion on Eastern versus Western ecclesiology and say you have an argument.

I'll begin by saying that the odd opinion on ecclesiology is actually a well established view so it's hardly odd. Another major difference between the East and West was their view to when the celebrate the Resurrection. Despite being arguably one of the most important positions a local church had during the year, there was a complete divide between East and West and both claimed to have their opinion based on the Apostles. That event was the closest the early church came to splitting in two so it was a massive opinion. (see the Quartodecimanism crisis to see the East, West divide). There's also many other ways in which the East and West divided in the early church so it's not controversial to claim something's similar in regards to bishops/elders.

There's perfectly reasonable explanations to explain Irenaeus' list which again are accepted arguments in the mainstream. One would be that the list of bishops was to deal solely with the Gnostics with the first argument of Apostolic succession. The difference with today's version of Apostolic succession to the version of old, was the original version was to support Church teaching and how it was unchanged rather than the bishop's claim to authority. However, after Irenaeus, many people begin listing the Bishops of Rome, many of them contradict each other. If it was this simple, why did those who listed the bishops of Rome constantly make mistakes in regards to 1st century rendering of bishops (such as usually putting Clement as the 2nd Pope after Linus)? What's more likely was they were less concerned about accuracy but more about trying to construct an argument for tradition being successfully kept. Irenaeus' work is addressing Gnostic arguments against tradition rather than to show a history. Since Irenaeus had been raised in the East under a monarchical bishop (which by the time he was born all churches had probably adopted this style) when he was writing he may have simply been mistaken which again accounts for the evidence.




Here's quite the old but good explanation for some standard arguments for my position.

How Reliable Is Roman Catholic History? — An Example in a Recent Edition of “This Rock” Magazine | Alpha and Omega Ministries

 

[dzheremi]

There's perfectly reasonable explanations to explain Irenaeus' list which again are accepted arguments in the mainstream. One would be that the list of bishops was to deal solely with the Gnostics with the first argument of Apostolic succession. The difference with today's version of Apostolic succession to the version of old, was the original version was to support Church teaching and how it was unchanged rather than the bishop's claim to authority.

It could be argued to still be this way. It is common that a person's claim to authority or for that matter membership in a particular communion is verified (or not) through their affiliation of this type. For instance, I was baptized by the hand of a particular priest, in a particular diocese overseen by a particular bishop, who was ordained by a particular hierarch , etc. Each of these will either be seen as valid or invalid depending on the point of view of whoever I'm talking to, but regardless the point is to have some way to trace it back, and never to prove "my bishop has authority over XYZ" or whatever. That's evident enough if you simply know his name and the boundaries of the diocese over which he presides. This is one reason why it is a problem for the Roman Pope and/or his partisans to claim jurisdiction over the entire universe, but anyway...

Some things haven't changed, even when Rome has.

 

[tz620q]

On the point of the church hierarchy developing it quite strange. I've seen some Catholic scholars argue a change of language and that the hierarchical nature always existed which explains the language of Paul, Peter and Clement but I haven't seen any major scholar claim that the functions themselves have developed (unless I've misunderstood what you've claimed or you could give me a modern day scholar who does argue that doctrine did change). Nevertheless, I usually look at non-Catholics for research into this rather than Catholics so I could be completely wrong on this front.

My wife and I started a business in our house a few decades ago. I was the owner/accountant/groundskeeper. Each of these jobs was a function onto itself and could have been done by separate people with individual titles. If the business had grown, that would have probably happened. That is the way I see the early church. There were priests, who were probably patterned after the Jewish priesthood and were responsible for the running of the rituals of the church. There were bishops who oversaw the administration of the church on a day by day basis. These are functional titles and could have been fulfilled by the same person. In that case calling a bishop, priest, would have been an acknowledgement of that dual function. As the church grew, there became a need for more and more priests and bishops and the functions started being done by separate people.

Your claim that there was no Pope in Rome in the first century does not really relate to this functional description of the jobs of presbyterous and episkopos, since a Pope would have exercised both functions and could have been called either. I think the first thing that I need to know is how you are defining this term, "Pope". Do you see this as a unique category outside of bishop or priest? If Pope is a unique category, then we need to have a description of what that job would have looked like in the first century Roman church. Or do you see the Pope as being merely the ruling bishop of Rome?

When I've discussed this with people before, I find they are usually hung up on the English word, Pope. It seems evident that there was no English word, Pope before the English language existed. It is easy to show the derivation of Pope from Italian and Latin Papa, which is of course pointing to fatherhood. In this sense it was an acknowledgement of the spiritual fatherhood that the Pope exercised over the local church. I don't think that this is what you are getting at though. Since this is in Patristics, I assume you want to look at patristic writing to make your claim that there was no Pope in Rome at that time. For me, telling evidence would be positive statements that showed an elder led church with no discernible hierarchy above elder. Or maybe statements that referred to multiple bishops ruling a hierarchy at the same time. I will go into the OP deeper in a separate post to show why I don't see this in the documents quoted.

 

[tz620q]

As the Title suggests I think there's sufficient evidence to suggest that there wasn't a Pope in the 1st century in Rome. In fact it may be more accurate to say that there wasn't a singular bishop in Rome as you'll understand in a moment.

The Didache: (c.75 AD)

Chapter 15 - Bishops and Deacons.

"Therefore, appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money"

This is just the plural form of Episkopos which meant bishop to anyone who understood Koine Greek. It's interesting that they use the plural of bishop but also never mention elders whatsoever during the entire writing.

This is a classic argument from silence. Wiki has an interesting article on it here
It defines it as "To make an argument from silence is to express a conclusion that is based on the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than their presence."

In regards to historical documents, we find the following recommended guidelines for usage:
"John Lange provided the basic structure for the analysis of arguments from silence based on three components:

• An extant document D in which no reference to an event E appears.

• It is known that the intention of the author of document D was to provide an exhaustive list of all the events in the class of events to which E belongs

• Event E is assumed to be a type of event which the author of D would not have overlooked, had the event taken place."

To me the Didache is more of an early Cathechism or group of sayings than a historical document. It does not refer specifically to any times or events or people and is very general in nature. So the lack of use of elder does not prove anything because the author does not seem to be focusing on church organization exhaustively. The one thing in it that seems telling is the use of apostles and prophets as an itinerant clergy and then this transition to appointing permanent bishops and deacons. To me this proves, as Paul also stated, the change from church planters to church administrators and how this was an acceptable practice.

 

[Just Another User]

My wife and I started a business in our house a few decades ago. I was the owner/accountant/groundskeeper. Each of these jobs was a function onto itself and could have been done by separate people with individual titles. If the business had grown, that would have probably happened. That is the way I see the early church. There were priests, who were probably patterned after the Jewish priesthood and were responsible for the running of the rituals of the church. There were bishops who oversaw the administration of the church on a day by day basis. These are functional titles and could have been fulfilled by the same person. In that case calling a bishop, priest, would have been an acknowledgement of that dual function. As the church grew, there became a need for more and more priests and bishops and the functions started being done by separate people.

That's great that you can think that but the early church would have to disagree. They were against the progression of doctrine even if their was practical constraints. From, non-violence to forsaking all possessions to the Trinity, the early christian writings show that they were against progression even if it was pragmatic to go against them. Now I would like to add that I have no problem with a bishop's hierarchy. I've got no vested interest against the Catholic position either. I'm simply pointing out history and what most scholars think.

Your claim that there was no Pope in Rome in the first century does not really relate to this functional description of the jobs of presbyterous and episkopos, since a Pope would have exercised both functions and could have been called either. I think the first thing that I need to know is how you are defining this term, "Pope". Do you see this as a unique category outside of bishop or priest? If Pope is a unique category, then we need to have a description of what that job would have looked like in the first century Roman church. Or do you see the Pope as being merely the ruling bishop of Rome?

I used the phrase Pope in the Title simply because I thought it fitted better than singular bishop. In regards to the job description of the "Pope" by Catholic rendering would suggest to me a figure which had higher authority than his peers. It would be considerably more accurate to singular bishop. I would probably end up delving into the actual arguments for Papal Primacy in another thread eventually but that wasn't the intent of this post.

When I've discussed this with people before, I find they are usually hung up on the English word, Pope. It seems evident that there was no English word, Pope before the English language existed. It is easy to show the derivation of Pope from Italian and Latin Papa, which is of course pointing to fatherhood. In this sense it was an acknowledgement of the spiritual fatherhood that the Pope exercised over the local church. I don't think that this is what you are getting at though. Since this is in Patristics, I assume you want to look at patristic writing to make your claim that there was no Pope in Rome at that time. For me, telling evidence would be positive statements that showed an elder led church with no discernible hierarchy above elder. Or maybe statements that referred to multiple bishops ruling a hierarchy at the same time. I will go into the OP deeper in a separate post to show why I don't see this in the documents quoted.

Okay that's fair. Nothing to add.

This is a classic argument from silence. Wiki has an interesting article on it here
It defines it as "To make an argument from silence is to express a conclusion that is based on the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than their presence."

In regards to historical documents, we find the following recommended guidelines for usage:
"John Lange provided the basic structure for the analysis of arguments from silence based on three components:

• An extant document D in which no reference to an event E appears.

• It is known that the intention of the author of document D was to provide an exhaustive list of all the events in the class of events to which E belongs

• Event E is assumed to be a type of event which the author of D would not have overlooked, had the event taken place."

It actually isn't however. An argument from silence is when for example Document A says something, Document B and C etc are silence on the issue. Therefore we reject Document A. That's an informal fallacy. An argument from silence isn't when all three documents are silent on a issue. An argument from silence isn't when we reject that Pope Francis has three eyes because not a single source mentions it.

On the fact of a singular bishop, people are silent or have evidence against the established narrative. When we get to Irenaeus and the later lists, they contradict each other constantly and use it for theological purposes rather than historical ones. A bit like how Paul uses Adam and Eve in his letters for theology rather than to defend a Young Earth which we know isn't true.

In this case we have the epistle of Clement going strongly against a separation from bishop and elder. the Didache (due to being more akin to a rulebook rather than a description of the roles) and the Shepard of Hermas (due to being too brief to have conclusive evidence) shows weak evidence against the role too. When we use both Ignatius' and Polycarp's letters this would also be considered strong evidence. There's other minor reference before Irenaeus too I believe (I'm not sure however) but they're either weak evidence or I wouldn't know where to find them.

To me the Didache is more of an early Cathechism or group of sayings than a historical document. It does not refer specifically to any times or events or people and is very general in nature. So the lack of use of elder does not prove anything because the author does not seem to be focusing on church organization exhaustively. The one thing in it that seems telling is the use of apostles and prophets as an itinerant clergy and then this transition to appointing permanent bishops and deacons. To me this proves, as Paul also stated, the change from church planters to church administrators and how this was an acceptable practice.

In the case of the Didache I'm inclined to agree. It's too brief to stand up on it's own and the work itself doesn't really delve into what a bishop/elder is. Put with the rest of the evidence however, it can build up a strong case against the Traditional position (which I believe most scholars would agree with my stance. I'm mentioning this not as argument from authority but just that this isn't a fringe position.)

Your comment on Paul is certainly valid too.


Good arguments overall.

 

[tz620q]

That's great that you can think that but the early church would have to disagree. They were against the progression of doctrine even if their was practical constraints. From, non-violence to forsaking all possessions to the Trinity, the early christian writings show that they were against progression even if it was pragmatic to go against them. Now I would like to add that I have no problem with a bishop's hierarchy. I've got no vested interest against the Catholic position either. I'm simply pointing out history and what most scholars think.

I might be reading a modern Catholic perspective into the early church. If I were to draw a Venn diagram of current priests and bishops, there would be a large circle that includes the set of all Catholic priests. Within this large circle would be a completely contained smaller second circle that is the set of all Catholic bishops. So all bishops are priests; but not all priests are bishops. This is why seeing the terms used interchangeably in Clement to refer seemingly to the same group of men does not seem a contradiction to me.
There could be another explanation as well. In 1 Clement Chapter 3 it lays out the cause of the current sedition in Corinth as "So the worthless rose up against the honored, those of no reputation against such as were renowned, the foolish against the wise, the young against those advanced in years."

So the use of presbyter or elder might be just a way of referring to the age of those deposed of their office. It seems evident that these men were appointed to an office and were given the authority and honor due that office at one time and that this has changed; because Clement asks the malcontents to submit to this authority and with contrition seek repentance and reconciliation.

In chapter 40 in Clement on Church order, Clement uses the Old Testament model to provide an analogue for the NT priesthood and denotes threefold ministry with a high priest that seems separate from priests in general,
"CHAPTER 40 -- LET US PRESERVE IN THE CHURCH THE ORDER APPOINTED BY GOD.

These things therefore being manifest to us, and since we look into the depths of the divine knowledge, it behoves us to do all things in [their proper] order, which the Lord has commanded us to perform at stated times. He has enjoined offerings [to be presented] and service to be performed [to Him], and that not thoughtlessly or irregularly, but at the appointed times and hours. Where and by whom He desires these things to be done, He Himself has fixed by His own supreme will, in order that all things being piously done according to His good pleasure, may be acceptable to Him. Those, therefore, who present their offerings at the appointed times, are accepted and blessed; for inasmuch as they follow the laws of the Lord, they sin not. For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen."

All of this seems to miss the mark on whether there was a single bishop to rule in Rome or several at this time. Most of the contentions for this surrounding Clement are not from internal evidence of the text but from external knowledge about the epistle and it's author. The only internal evidence is that the author is not named and refers only to "The Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God sojourning at Corinth". So if we accept Clement as the author and equate that Clement with the Pope Clement named by Ireneaus (the dates seem to line up), then it might just be humility on his part to not call himself a bishop when writing a letter to Corinth criticizing them on deposing certain "presbyters". It seems that the seditious in Corinth did not view church authority with impunity.