hatsoff

We all know that Peter was the first bishop of Rome in the 50s and 60s, but after him we have some conflicting reports. The Catholic Encyclopedia tells us:

All the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down to us by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. These records are traced back to a list of the Roman bishops which existed in the time of Pope Eleutherus (about 174-189), when Irenaeus wrote his book "Adversus haereses". As opposed to this testimony, we cannot accept as more reliable Tertullian's assertion, which unquestionably places St. Clement (De praescriptione, xxii) after the Apostle Peter, as was also done later by other Latin scholars (Jerome, "De vir. ill.", xv). The Roman list in Irenaeus has undoubtedly greater claims to historical authority. This author claims that Pope Linus is the Linus mentioned by St. Paul in his II Timothy 4:21.

(source)

Elsewhere, it states:

The early evidence shows great variety. The most ancient list of popes is one made by Hegesippus in the time of Pope Anicetus, c. 160 (Harnack ascribes it to an unknown author under Soter, c. 170), cited by St. Epiphanius (Haer., xxvii, 6). It seems to have been used by St. Irenæus (Haer., III, iii), by Julius Africanus, who composed a chronography in 222, by the third- or fourth-century author of a Latin poem against Marcion, and by Hippolytus, who see chronology extends to 234 and is probably found in the "Liberian Catalogue" of 354. That catalogue was itself adopted in the "Liber Pontificalis". Eusebius in his chronicle and history used Africanus; in the latter he slightly corrected the dates. St. Jerome's chronicle is a translation of Eusebius's, and is our principal means for restoring the lost Greek of the latter; the Armenian version and Coptic epitomes of it are not to be depended on. The varieties of order are as follows:

1. Linus, Cletus, Clemens (Hegesippus, ap. Epiphanium, Canon of Mass).
Linus, Anencletus, Clemens (Irenaeus, Africanus ap. Eusebium).
Linus, Anacletus, Clemens (Jerome).
2. Linus, Cletus, Anacletus, Clemens (Poem against Marcion),
3. Linus, Clemens, Cletus, Anacletus [Hippolytus (?), "Liberian Catal."- "Liber. Pont."].
4. Linus, Clemens, Anacletus (Optatus, Augustine).

(source)

These are:

1. Epiphanius. Haer., xxvii, 6 (unavailable?)
2a. Irenaeus. Adv. haereses, III, iii, 3
2b. Eusebius. History of the Church 3.4.9; 3.15; 3.21; 3.34; 5.6; more?
3a. Liberian Catalogue.
3b. Liber Pontificalis. (available in Latin only)
4a. Optatus. ???
4b. Augustine. ???

Also:
5. Tertullian. The Prescription Against Heretics 3.v.iii.xxxii
6. Rufinus. (see below)
Others?

Particularly interesting is what Rufinus tells us:

There is a letter in which this same Clement writing to James the Lord's brother, gives an account of the death of Peter, and says that he has left him as his successor, as ruler and teacher of the church; and further incorporates a whole scheme of ecclesiastical government. This I have not prefixed to the work, both because it is later in point of time, and because it has been previously translated and published by me. Nevertheless, there is a point which would perhaps seem inconsistent with facts were I to place the translation of it in this work, but which I do not consider to involve an impossibility. It is this.Linus and Cletus were Bishops of the city of Rome before Clement. How then, some men ask, can Clement in his letter to James say that Peter passed over to him his position as a church-teacher. The explanation of this point, as I understand, is as follows. Linus and Cletus were, no doubt, Bishops in the city of Rome before Clement, but this was in Peter's life-time; that is, they took charge of the episcopal work, while he discharged the duties of the apostolate. He is known to have done the same thing at Cæsarea; for there, though he was himself on the spot, yet he had at his side Zacchæus whom he had ordained as Bishop. Thus we may see how both things may be true; namely how they stand as predecessors of Clement in the list of Bishops, and yet how Clement after the death of Peter became his successor in the teacher's chair. But it is time that we should pay attention to the beginning of Clement's own narrative, which he addresses to James the Lord's brother.

(source)

What is the date and occasion of the above tract? Is it late IV/early V?

Certainly it seems likely that Linus, and not Clement, succeeded Peter, but just how likely is it? I think the evidence is sparse enough to suppose that Clement may have served as bishop in the 60s. What if any implications does this hold for 1 Clement, and by extension Hebrews and other NT works?

Thoughts will be appreciated!

Ben C Smith

Very quick thought here. Assuming for the moment (and I think this is an assumption that very much needs examining) that the concept of a monepiscopal bishop is not anachronistic in this early timeframe, I do not think 1 Clement was necessarily written during a Clementine episcopate; certainly nothing within the letter imply a Clementine episcopate. Interestingly, the Shepherd of Hermas mentions in Vision 2.4.3 a certain Clement whose duty was to correspond with foreign cities.

From Epiphanius, Panarion 27.6.1:

Eν Ρωμη γαρ γεγονασι πρωτοι �*ετρος και �*αυλος οι αποστολοι αυτοι και επισκοποι, ειτα Λινος, ειτα Κλητος, ειτα Κλημης, συγχρονος ων �*ετρου και �*αυλου, ου επιμνημονευει �*αυλος εν τη προς Ρωμαιους επιστολη.

For in Rome there were first Peter and Paul, the apostles themselves and also bishops, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, being contemporary with Peter and Paul, [and] of whom Paul makes mention in the epistle to the Romans.

Doubtless Romans is a mistake for Philippians (see 4.3).

Ben.

Ben C Smith

My apologies for forgetting that this forum cannot handle the capital letter pi. Here is that Greek text again, with my own little clumsy workaround:

Eν Ρωμη γαρ γεγονασι πρωτοι ∏ετρος και ∏αυλος οι αποστολοι αυτοι και επισκοποι, ειτα Λινος, ειτα Κλητος, ειτα Κλημης, συγχρονος ων ∏ετρου και ∏αυλου, ου επιμνημονευει ∏αυλος εν τη προς Ρωμαιους επιστολη.

Ben.

aa5874

We all don't know that Peter was the first bishop of Rome. Even the letter writer called Peter never claimed he was a bishop or was ever in Rome. And in Acts of the Apostles, written long after the assumed death of Peter, there is no account of Peter in Rome or that Peter was a bishop of Rome.

Peter appears to be a fictitious character developed by the authors of the Jesus stories.

The use of the word "bishop" appears to be anachronistic.

Justin Martyr writing sometime in the middle of the second century appears to have no knowledge of "bishops", Justin refers to the "president" of the brethren.

Another peculiar observation is that none of the first 12 so-called bishops of Rome after the so-called Peter are known to have written any letter, any petition on behalf of Christians who were persecuted, either before or during their time as bishop. They wrote no doctrine, like the so-called Paul, before or during their time as bishop. They are all known by their first names, they did and said nothing, that is their history, except only for Clement.

Now, if the Church writers do not know or are not sure who was the bishop after Peter, how in the world would anyone else know?

Newton's Cat

SIMWN PETROS (Greek Script) anagrams to MORTWS PENIS (Latin Mortuus penis, "dead penis").

IESOUS CHRISTOS anagrams to OSIRIS SET CHOUS (CHOUS means "grave")

This relates to the Egyptians myths about Osiris and Set in the "underworld" ... Osiris was chopped into little pieces by Set and later reassembled by his sister-wife Isis, except for, in some variations of the story, his penis.

The idea that the founder(s) of Christianity played around with anagrams is rejected as "nonsense" by most people (by just about everybody!) - but a number of modern cult founders have done the same thing. For instance, Ron L Hubbard invented the Sci-fi character XENU ETRAWL, who later became simply XENU. XENU ETRAWL anagrams to WE R LUNATEX. Hubbard was quite a joker. The founder of a 70s London cult called EMIN initially called himself LEO IV - what does that anagram to?

The reason why the Bible has such an effect on so many people is because it contains numerous "mind control" techniques using sexual imagery - the most effective one being the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. The Serpent, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and the Tree of Life are symbols for the PENIS. The Adam and Eve story is, in essence, a "magic spell".

andrewcriddle

Rufinus is writing, as you suggest, late IV/early V, but he is basing what he says on the Letter of Clement to James part of the pseudo-Clementine literature. This is a Christian novel/romantic fiction probably ultimately going back to the 3rd century CE. This material is very unreliable as a historical source.

Andrew Criddle

Doug Shaver

I know nothing of the sort.

Doug Shaver

If I want to know what Roman Catholics believe and why they believe it, I consider the Catholic Encyclopedia a reliable source. If I want to know the history of early Christianity, I'm a little more skeptical about its reliability.

JoeWallack

JW:
There is no good evidence that Peter was ever in Rome let alone Bishop of Rome. The best potential evidence is Paul and per Paul Peter/Cephas is the comPetition based in Jerusalem, a follower of the Law who does not do outreach. Other extant 1st century never even refers to any Disciples of Jesus.

On to 2nd century. First Clement, presumably from Rome, mentions Peter but makes no connection between Peter and Rome. The "authentic" letters of Ignatius are the source of the first Christian Assertian of Peter in Rome. The letter to the Romans says that Ignatius does not issue commandments as Peter and Paul issued commandments "unto you". Apologists take this as proof that Ignatius is referring to Peter issuing commandments in Rome. It probably just means though that Clement is not issuing commandments because he is not an Apostle like Peter and he is just referring to Peter as one of the two main Apostolic authorities issuing commandments to all Christians.

Continuing with 2nd century, Papias, no connection between Peter and Rome. "Mark" writes the original Gospel which gives no reason to believe that Peter was ever in Rome. Even "Luke", which rehabilitates "Mark's" Peter and even converts him to outreach never shows Peter in Rome in Acts, which supposedly gives a history of the early Church. Justin Martyr from Rome, no connection between Peter and Rome. Through the middle of the 2nd century OCD has never even heard of the Assertian that Peter was ever in Rome.

The first to make the connection is Irenaeus of Lyons (yes "Lyons"), late 2nd century. The same person who apparently first misidentifies what Papias supposedly wrote as referring to "Mark". Irenaeus' primary motivation is to demonstrate that his orthodox C has a chain of witnesses back to Jesus. He knows that OCD currently has Bishops with a history in Rome. So how to get it back to Jesus? Place Peter in Rome. Not a comforting witness.

Common sense, always the best evidence, also places Peter in NotRome. A first century Jewish follower of historical Jesus probably followed the Law, would be based in Israel, not interested in outreach and spoke Aramaic. It's hard to imagine a Bishop/leader in Rome who only spoke Aramaic. Not a very effective proselytizer.



Joseph

aa5874

The Church writers never realised that there were more than one person using the name "Paul". The letter writers called Paul are not even good witnesses even to themselves. Their letters have been corrupted and manipulated.

"Paul" is questionable.

The "Pauls" cannot be witnesses to themselves, or corroborate themselves. Forged letters cannot be used to confirm some one called Paul existed. External sources are needed to place them in Rome.

No external evidence of apologetic sources can place Peter or the Pauls in Rome.

In the NT, Peter is a witness to the implausible. Peter was a witness to fiction.

Peter saw Jesus transfigure, where Jesus' face shone like the sun, and dead prophets came to life. Peter walked on water in an attempt to go to Jesus who was also walking on the sea during a storm. Peter was with Jesus after he rose from the dead.

Peter is fundamentally a fictitious character as described in the NT.

And there is no evidence external of apologetics that there was a Church structure with bishops for Jesus believers all over the Empire before the death of Nero.