- Nov 24, 2018
- 169
- 126
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
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.
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.