Loading...In my previous post I addressed question from a reader whether Peter was really the first bishop in Rome (that is, the first Pope). I guess I could have just answered the question with one word: no. But it took a post to explain. Now I want to move to the obvious corollary. If not Peter, then who??
The ancient traditions about the leadership of the church of Rome is a bit confused. According to the second-century Irenaeus, the first leader known by name (after the apostles) was a man named Linus, who was appointed to the office by Peter and Paul (Against Heresies 3, 3, 3). In one place the father of church history, Eusebius, appears to agree with this, to some extent, when he says that “the first to be called bishop after the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul was Linus” (Church History, 3, 2); but here Linus is appointed not by Peter, but by someone else, after Peter’s death. And to confuse things even further, just a few paragraphs later Eusebius phrases the matter differently, saying that “Linus … was the first after Peter to be appointed Bishop of Rome. Clement again, who became the third Bishop of Rome….” This makes it appear that Peter was the first bishop, Linus the second, and Clement the third. And the tradition becomes yet more confused when we consider the writings of Tertullian from the early third century, who seems to indicate that Clement was not the third bishop of Rome, but the first – appointed by Peter himself (Prescription of the Heretics 32).
How is one to resolve this confusion? It is worth pointing out that
This is a big issue, not just for those connected with the Catholic tradition (which traces the popes back to Peter), but for anyone interested in the history of early Christianity. Want to learn more? Join the blog! It’s easy, and cheap, and every penny of your small fee goes to charity! Click here for membership options
Dr Ehrman. Could some of the early house church leaders, or even members of the boards of presbyters you mention, have been women?
Definitely. Paul, for example, mentions a woman apostle, and women who apparently headed churches, etc, in Romans 16.
” Definitely” Sorry to interject in your reply to GeoffClifton, but where do you get women as being early church leaders in Romans 16 ? An apostle is a messenger of the word. Phoebe, a deaconess, is a servant to an overseer. As members, yes I would agree, woman played important roles and were instrumental in the church development. But I do not see where they were church leaders in a time where bishops,elders, highpriests and the line of priesthood was a patriarchal hierarchy.
Well, for one thing, Junia is “foremost among the apostles.”
You can’t be serious!!🙃 Yes,Junia was a great apostle,alongside Andronicus,*the bishop*. The line of priesthood,Aaron and Melchizedek, is patriarchal, there are no women in line of leadership,it’s impossible in those days. Today is a different story. Women do serve as priests and bishop in some denominations,like the Anglican church, but no way then..
And Junia was Paul’s relative and had met Jesus in person according to this guest post from your blog, “Did Paul the Pharisee Learn about Christianity from his Relative, the Apostle Junia?” by James McGrath.
https://ehrmanblog.org/did-paul-the-pharisee-learn-about-christianity-from-his-relative-the-apostle-junia-guest-post-by-james-mcgrath/
Randy, New MA Theology student: Should have read this blog before posting my comment to the previous one. I guess my only comment/question would be to the new student at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: By what authority would Peter [if you believe 1 Peter is not pseudo] have written “to the exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” If he was just associated with Jerusalem or just associated with Antioch? In my early background reading to the letter of 1 Peter, I have found no convincing reason to jettison the early church fathers belief that the Author [even if using an amanuensis] was in fact, Peter, the apostle. His writing to these multiple churches seems , to me , to add to the belief that this same Peter was writing “authoritatively” to a group of loosely organized churches a letter that was circular and encouraging.
“Bishop of Rome” , maybe not as we would later understood the term. But Leader of the 12 writing from Rome. I certainly can see no reason to not believe that these churches would have received this letter, copied it, and spread its message.
It would make sense in hindsight for others to label him “bishop”. I see that. However, what the pope has morphed into is not at all what Peter was to the first Christian’s.
I certainly cannot argue with that. But in the midst of the muddiness remember the adage….”.Do not forsake Jesus because of Judas” and “do not throw the baby out with the bath water”. There are certain definite benefits to having a [single] Bishop of Rome. Even if there were ugly times.[are ugly times]…look for the beauty and what has gone well.
Could you write a post on Matthew 2:23, where Matthew says “…So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.”
But there is no such verse in the Bible, so what is Matthew referring to?
Ah, I should do so. It’s much debated. One attractive option is that he is referring to the “branch” (Nezer) from David mentioned in Isaiah 11:1.
But not because he came from a two-horse camp called ‘Nazareth.’ Josephus was military commissar responsible for fortifications in the area following the Jewish War and makes no mention of it, although his writings are very detailed. More likely that Nazareth came from Nazorean, or Nazrene, than the opposite. Eisenman takes this head-on in ‘James the brother of Jesus’, 247-251. He discusses the connection of Nezer, as branch or crown, with James, not Jesus, even Essenes as possibly related to Jesse, Isaiah 11.1. Interesting stuff.
The importance of James as first bishop *of Jerusalem* is what people should be focused on. His life is covered up in multiple places in the Gospels/Acts/Paul. Even if you dismiss Eisenman on some things, this is clearly so in any unbiased reading of Eisenman, circulating around fictional creations Judas Iscariot, Matthias, Joseph Barsabbas Justus, Lazarus and Stephen. James — successor to Jesus — was to be erased from the record as completely as possible.
If I may, I have a tangent question. I guess this is within your expertise. How authentic are the authentic (Middle Recension) letters of Ignacious?
Ah right. Not sure if you know but I did a Greek edition of the Ignatian letters with a facing page translation for the Loeb Classical Library (Harvard University Press), in the first volume of The Apostolic Fathers. In the intor I argue that the Middle Recension is in fact authentially Ignatian.
Wow, SHNU gives me access to the Loeb Classical Library. I enjoyed reading your introduction. I see that published in 2003. I understand that your paradigms have evolved, but I am not sure of how much changed and when they changed. Do you still agree with what you wrote about the authenticity of the Middle Recension?
I haven’t changed any major opinions about the Apostolic Fathers in all this time.
Thanks for this great post . By the way what about Richard Fellows’ guest posts ? He said he will continue .
Yup! We’re spacing them out.
Dr Ehrman
I think I’ve heard you say somewhere, that before Christianity there was no charities or even hospitals for the poor? How much better in your opinion, do you think the world became because of it? Were there not philanthropic pagan people trying to help the poor and sick?
Thank you for a great blog!
All we really know is what we have records of, and these records come from teh aristocratic educated elites. But when they talk aobut giving away money, it is always either to municipalities (to build buildings, put on public entertainments etc.) or to help those in need in their own social class and circles. There is no interest in helping the destitute and some discussion about why it’s a bad idea. So there *may* have been philanthropic folk concerned for the poor and the outcast, but if so we don’t have records of it. I’ll be talking about this in my next book on Journeys to Heaven and Hell (a scholarly book, different from my recent trade book Heaven adn Hell)
Great, thank you so much, I’ll definitely check it out.
Debbie Watson’s PhD thesis agrees that concern for the poor, especially the poor in other provinces, was not a Greco-Roman thing. Her work can be found here http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/2601/
Paul’s (five?) collections for Judea were counter-cultural. The Roman authorities would have viewed Paul’s collections with suspicion, especially after the war. If Luke had written about Paul’s later collections, and if Acts had fallen into the hands of the Romans, they would have seen the collections not as praiseworthy charity (which was not part of their culture), but as funding a rebellious province. I think this is why Luke does not mention Paul’s later collections.
Hello Dr. Ehrman,
You have discussed the various ways historians gauge the truth of old documents. I was wondering if what we’ve seen recently, where depressingly large percentages of folks have some pretty strong beliefs about current events that are quite obviously false and easily shown to be, has in any way altered your thinking in how confident you can be about the truth of the writings you study? I forget the proper terms, but giving a lot of credence to writing that was in some way contrary to the author’s interest seems like it would always be good strategy. How severely do you discount self-serving writing?
It has to be looked at very carefully, and in fact it is one of the criteria that scholars use to evaluate if a source is credible. If an author has a clear bias and some of the reports he makes seem far-fetched but clearly advance his own agenda, red flags go up everwhere.
Thanks Bart; very informative.
Isn’t there a key difference in the earliest traditions concerning followers of Jesus in Rome, that the Christians there are not – unlike in every other city that we know of – gathered into a single congregation; but (at least as presented in Romans 16) consist of a number of apparently separate and independent groups, each meeting at the house of one individual? The Christian communities in Corinth, Galatians or Jerusalem may have been deeply divided, but they do not seem to have split apart.
Moreover, we seem to have no indication in Paul that the Roman church has ever split; rather it appears to have arisen as multiple house churches, by multiple founders, from the outset.
Indeed, arguably, we still find this pattern of multiple self-governing house churches still throughout the 2nd century, in the earlier portions of the ‘Apostolic Tradition’, as well as in Hermas and Justin Martyr. Each with their own ‘episkopos’; albeit that these gathered together for pressing matters (as the expulsion of Marcion). Brent has proposed that the earliest clear ‘monoepsicopate’ in Rome was that of Pontianus (martyred 235 CE).
I think the churches in Corinth and Galatia *had* to be multiple churches. Galatia, for one thing, was a region, not a town, so there were churches in various places. And the Corinthian community is very large (look at all the various things people are doing wrong! Had to be a lot of people to do all this), and a house would not be able to accomodate them. Plus it was a large place, not a small village wwhere everyone could gather easily in one place.
Fascinating Bart; but I am not sure that arguing from the size of the community is that conclusive. Greek houses came in all sizes; and assuming that the followers of Jesus might be meeting in the house of Crispus (I Corinthians 1:8, Acts 18:8), then as a former archisynagogos he was likely not short of space for receiving visitors. Is there anywhere in the Corinthian or Galatian letters that would appear to imply that Paul’s intended readership was scattered across multiple locations for their meetings? There are plenty of references to divisions and differences; but I am not aware of anywhere where where Paul implies that opposing factions have split away altogether (as may be discerned behind 1 Clement). Could you clarify?
There were lots of Jews in Corinth; but apparently only one synagogue (which seems to have been the usual pattern in Diaspora cities; though compare at least four in Rome, and very many more than that in Alexandria). Maybe, if early Christians ‘shadowed’ the form of the synagogue in their particular city, they too might tend to maintain a single place of assembly?
I”m not saying they split into separate house churches over disagreements. I’m saying taht there appear to be more than just two or three dozen people involved, and it would be rare indeed for a Christian in the 50s to have a house that could accomodate crowds that large. There’s been a lot written on the social history of the Pauline communities, of course, and you’re probably familiar with teh literature. For those who aren’t the best place to start is with Wayne Meeks, The First Urban Christians, and fromn there, with respect to Corinth, probably Dale Martin, The Corinthian Body.
Thank you for the references Bart; they clarify a great deal.
I can now see that you are correct is seeing multiple congregations being addressed in the letter to the Galatians; hence the plural ‘churches of Galatia’ both at Galatians 1:2 and 1 Corinthians 16:1. So in this respect, the churches in Galatia were like those in Rome.
But otherwise I think, Paul addresses churches as singular (1 Corinthians 1:2). Clearly he sees the church in Corinth as a single ‘body’, in a way that he does not do for the churches in Galatia. Similarly, I would propose, for churches in the other Greek cities.
Furthermore, Paul clearly understands the church in Corinth as ‘all of you, gathering together’ (1 Corinthians 11:18), at least on some occasions – in which the various factions that Paul finds so troublesome do assemble with one another face-to-face. Which does not seem to have been happening in Rome. That does imply having somewhere in Corinth to gather; which in practical terms is unlikely to have been other than within a sufficiently capacious private house. Or are their references that might suggest an alternative understanding?
Ah, right — it’s an important point. Paul seems to be pretty careful in thinking there is only ONE church in the world. The entire body of Christ is “the church.” So when he writes his letter, say to the Corinthians, and says “the church that is in Corinth,” he does not mean “the one church gathering that is in the city of Corinth.” Instead he means “the part of the Body of Christ that is in Corinth.” See what I mean?
If I may take a second bite at the cherry?
Wayne Meeks cites Romans 16:23; “Gaius, who is host to me and to the whole church, greets you”, as referencing a single assembly of all Christians in whichever city Paul was staying when he composed the Epistle. This assembly of the whole church Meeks distinguishes from groups of individual believers regularly meeting in one or another household.
Gaius could be one of several people of that name found elsewhere in Paul’s letters, or indeed someone not otherwise mentioned at all; but it is at least plausible that Paul is in Corinth, and this is the Gaius at 1 Corinthians 1:14. So, the ‘whole church’ at Corinth met in his house.
Paul greets 28 people in the church in Rome; he had never been there so almost certainly he couldn’t have personally known the vast majority of members of the church there. So, what would be a fair guess, that he happens to know 1 out of 10? 1 out of 20? Suppose we pick the perfect number and say he happened to know 1 out of 7. What kind of house in Rome could accomodate a gathering of 200 people?
Exactly so Bart; The churches in Rome were different to those in the other cities that Paul deals with, in that they did not form a single body, and indeed maybe had minimal contact with one another. Which in turn may plausibly underlie many other features and themes that distinguish Paul’s letter to the Romans from those to other churches. The speculation being that at least some of these distinct Roman churches may have consisted entirely of Gentile believers, (as distinct from Corinth, where the ‘whole church’ when assembled together included both those who had formerly been Gentile God-fearers; and those who continued to be – as Paul himself continued to be – fully observant Jews).
If so, it is anachronistic to speak of any single person as the ‘founder’ or ‘overseer’ of the Church in Rome – and this continues to be the case through into the 3rd Century.
I’d say the Corinthian church too was definitely too large for a house as well, and certainly the Galatian churches, e.e.g; And I’d say the “founder” of the church in Rome was the first person who made converts to Christianity there and started organizing them to meet together (assuming it was the same person). The first “overseer” wold be the first person who took charge of the meetings — presumably it would have been teh founder, but I suppose not necessarily..
Yet, Gaius hosted the whole church in Corinth (Rom 16:23). Also, 1 Cor 14:23 tells us that the whole church met in one place. I don’t see much evidence of sub-group meetings in Corinth.
Do you think that the selection of a single leader over the churches in a community came about in part to enforce some kind of orthodoxy? Were Christian leaders concerned about stamping out heresy in the middle of the second century?
Definitely. They talk about it!
Bart,
It certainly seems very reasonable that a “pope” figure could not be agreed upon in the early church since there were so many scattered factions that were running under significantly different regional circumstances. It also seems reasonable that Rome, over time, would eventually overpower the weaker regions with their personal preferences and leadership icons. There has been numerous postings on where/when the different Christian documents/gospels/writings were regionally centered/sourced. Has there been any recent progress on associating the various theology relationships between the non-Pauline early writings and the early church leaders and/or congregations? I know your books covered this to varying degrees, but there also seems to have been some newer research that has skewed some of the past assumptions.
Thanks!
Somewhere in my reading I came away with the impression that the major/most important difference between the NRSV and the RSV is that the former is less sexist. In other words, when supported by the Hebrew or Greek and/or the context,, “people” replaces “men,” “they” replaces “he,” etc. Is that correct? Are there other other major differences?
There aren’t other “global” differences (that affect the entire text); but the translation is different in many thousands of ways. (I know because I had to enter all the changes!)
If John’s gospel teaches Eternal Life in Heaven rather than Resurrection of the Dead into an earthly Kingdom of God, does that imply that John teaches that matter and material human existence are evil and only spiritual existence good? Isn’t that a common if not universal doctrine of Gnosticism? My impression is that some “amateurs” have thought John’s Gospel to be Gnostic but the consensus of scholarly opinion is that it’s not. What are some of the things that differentiate John’s gospel from Gnosticism?
A related question: does John’s gospel teach the existence of a hell of eternal torment?
Note: I’ve read that some Roman Catholic theologians acknowledge that official Church teaching is that Hell exists. However, the Church has never definitively taught that anyone has actually been condemned to Hell–maybe just a long stay in purgatory instead. (Sometimes splitting hairs can be positive.)
John does seem to have differentiated matter and spirit — not because it’s Gnostic but because it is accepting other Greek ways of the looking at the world. But it certainly was a beloved text among some GNostics. No John does not teach eternal torment. And yes, the church does teach that some will go to hell. Purgatory is reserved only for the elect who first need to pay for their sins.
My understanding is that the earliest churches had no formal leadership as they expected Jesus’s return at any moment, then as time went on the concept of elders/presbyters leading each congregation developed as in the Pastoral epistles, eventually one bishop was given authority over churches in an area, and finally one bishop in Roman was given overall authority as that church became the preeminent one. And later leaders asserted their way had always been the way, and wrote history accordingly like Peter must have been the 1st bishop of Rome. Sound about right?
Yup, that’s pretty much it.
So why do you fall in line with orthodox beliefs so consistently? The Gospels and letters of the NT are the odd-man out in spiritual writings, which are all more esoteric, more individual, more sensible, and less ridiculous than some guy dying for the release of captive souls. You know the reliance on OT supposed ‘prophecy’ is bogus time and again. I know you are not a believer, but why humor Christian misconceptions about salvation? It doesn’t come for the asking from a guy who died twenty centuries ago and told people he was only here for those who could see and hear his message, and not *any* others.
Hi Bart,,
Is it accepted amongst scholars that Paul and Peter went to Rome and died there?
thank you!
Many think so; many think not. The earliest source is 1 Clement, which is written from Rome, and mentions the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, but *doesn’t* say they happened in Rome (95 CE)
Didn’t 1 Clement suggest that Paul travelled to Spain after leaving Rome and died there? Apologies if I mis-read.
Not quite. It doesn’t say he was in Rome, but it does say that he went to the “limits of the West,” which probably means Spain, and says (or strongly implies) that he was martyred, and a good inference is that it was there, in Spain, but he doesn’t say (it’s 1 Clem 5)
Church ‘Fathers’ from the east certainly interfered in the nascent Roman Church and were themselves appealed to as authoritative figures in schismatic feuding. As patriarch of the great city, Anicetus was surely not happy to play second fiddle to any cleric in the east. But as yet, the Church in Rome could offer no clear lead in doctrine. So how was the Church of Rome able to establish theological street cred and apostolic authority with Polycarp? Perhaps by being able to identify (in Helena-esque intuition) the burial place of Peter AND Paul? It would seem this ushered in a flood of holy shrines in Rome, thus establishing it as a “worldly” epicenter. The physical ‘evidence’ of bones in catacombs and pagan graveyards was useful but a doctrinal problem for the ‘Roman Church’ was that the whole ‘birth/ resurrection’ story, and the meanderings of apostles, had been played out in distant lands in the east, which gave the churches there so much more authority. How, then, did Rome claim a grander role? Your thoughts on perhaps a later dating (or late interpolation) of Mark 8.29,30 and the Petrine Pun in Matthew to elevate Peter’s Roman significance?
I’m not sure what you mean in reference to Polycarp. The tombs of Peter and Paul are not discussed as being in Rome until much later.
Leaving aside the issue of whether he was bishop, was Peter ever present in Rome?
I personally doubt it, but there’s no way to know.
Dr Ehrman, you say “wild beasts in the Roman forum,” but is that a slip of the keyboard? Did you mean Colosseum? Or were there games involving wild animals in the forum as well?
Ha! Did I? Yes, they generally did not let lions and leopards and the like loose in the forum!
Excellent and interesting history. Is there any historical record of the first meeting between a Roman Emperor and the leader (bishop/pope) of the Roman Church?
That’s a great question. And I don’t think there is!
Paul told the Corinthians to submit to the household of Stephanas because they were the firstfruits of Achaia (1 Cor 16:15-16). Similarly, Paul honours Epaenetus with the distinction of being the firstfruits of Asia (Rom 16:5), and he acclaims Andronicus and Junia for their early belief. Clem 42 says that the apostles appointed their firstfruits to be bishops and deacons. There must have been a first apostle to Rome or a first church host. Before there were many bishops in Rome, there must have been the first bishop of Rome, and it seems to me that Paul would have given him or her special respect. Given the importance of name order, including in Paul, we should look for this first leader of the Church of Rome towards the top of Rom 16. Is there a better candidate than Mary (Rom 16:6)?
Is there any evidence that Peter ever went to Rome, and that he founded the church there?
No early evidence certainly. (I think that was the topic of the post before the one you commented on)
Is there any single resource in existence that outlines who knew who in the early church?
Not really. Wince we know very few names of early Christians, let alone information about them, we can’t really have a defnitive list of who knew whom.
If there is no way of getting a definitive list of who knew who in the early church, I think I’ll settle for a picture of who knew who according to the stories. Designing this will be my side mission for the next few months.
Peter never went to Rome. He went to Babylon that still had a Jewish population in 1st century A.D.
Roman made up list of Bishops to falsely support Papacy can be traced back to Christ’s day.
How about an archaeological visit to Babylon to search for evidence to support that Peter was in Mesopotamia in 1st century A.D. ?