hatsoff

Hmm. Are you saying you think Rome had more than one Bishop at a time during the first century? What makes you say that? Does not all the evidence point to single bishoprics? I'm not saying it's impossible--for evidence from this period is quite sparse--but why should we be overly suspicious?

True, but 1 Clement makes the most sense as a late cen. I work, and if Clement was bishop of Rome in the 60s, that muddies the waters a good bit. If Clement was bishop in the 90s, then 1 Clement still could have been early (i.e. 60s-70s), but we have no reason to think it was, since a 90s date is much more natural. If Clement was bishop in the 60s-70s, on the other hand, we would have reason to date 1 Clement during the 60s-70s (though it would certainly not be necessary), and that might have implications for other early Christian writings.

What say you?

(Also, thanks very much for the Epiphanius translation!)

2-J

There is no evidence other than Catholic tradition that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.

BH

Doesn't the fact the Catholic Church doesn't know just who came after who on the pope line kinda digs on their reliabilty on more important matters spiritually speaking?

aa5874

Even the letter writers called Paul did not mentioned that Peter was at Rome or was a bishop of Rome in the letter to the Romans or any other letter to the so-called churches.

Ben C Smith

Because the NT evidence is squarely for a plurality of bishops in each church; in fact, the term bishops was apparently simply another name for elders in the early going.

Philippians 1.1:

Paul and Timothy, bondservants of Christ Jesus, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the bishops and deacons.

Acts 20.17-18a, 28a:

17 From Miletus [Paul] sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church. 18a And, when they had come to him, he said to them: .... 28a Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the holy spirit has made you bishops....

Titus 1.5-7a:

For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. For the bishop must be above reproach as the steward of God....

(Note that bishop is singular, not because of monepiscopy, but because man is representative and singular.)

1 Clement 42.4:

So, preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe.

1 Clement 44.3-4a:

For it will be no light sin for us if we thrust out those who have offered the gifts of the bishopric unblamably and holily. Blessed are those elders who have gone before....

(Read this whole chapter in context; the terms elders, or presbyters, and bishops seem to be synonymous.)

Ben.

aa5874

The use of the the words "bishop" may be anachronistic, and may also indicate that the letter writers called Paul wrote at a much later date than they would like the readers to believe.

Justin Martyr in all his extant works, writing in the middle of the 2nd century, did not write about any bishops, Paul or any letters to any Churches.

Justin Martyr simply mentioned a "president" of the brethren and did mention "deacons". This is an indication that there were NO bishops installed in the Church structure up to the middle of the 2nd century.

See First Apology 65 Justin appears not to know a single bishop.

Ben C Smith

Justin, Apology 1.67.4:

Then, when the reader has ceased, the president [προεστως] by word makes instruction [νουθεσιαν] and encouragement for the imitation of these good things.

1 Thessalonians 5.12:

But we request of you, brethren, that you appreciate those who diligently labor among you and preside [προισταμενους] over you in the Lord and give you instruction [νουθετουντας].

1 Timothy 5.17:

The elders who preside [προεστωτες] well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.

The issue is terminological.

Ben.

aa5874

The issue is not termological at all. Justin Martyr referred to both "presidents" and "deacons" and clearly showed the role they played in the the chuches.

First Apology 65 So each church had a president and many deacons and had different roles to play.

Justin's church appear to have no bishops.


You think "preside" means "president"?
Only presidents can "preside"?

And when was 1 Timothy written? P46 does not contain the letter called Timothy and Justin Martyr never mentioned Timothy or any letter written to him.

Ben C Smith

It obviously is; you are mistaken.

I think 1 Timothy is pseudonymous. I am not sure when exactly it was written. And the question is irrelevant to the original point about monepiscopal assumptions.

Ben.

aa5874

Just saying I am mistaken is absolutely meaningless, when you yourself is not certain about anything in the NT.

It is a fact that Justin Martyr never refered to any position in the church as a "bishop".

When 1 Timothy was written may be critical in determining when the position of "bishop" was used in the church.