(17 votes, average: 4.94 out of 5)
Loading...
Who was the first Bishop of Rome? I continue from my post of yesterday, in which a reader asked about whether Peter was really the first bishop in Rome (that is, the first Pope). In my next post I’ll deal with the question, also asked, about if we have any solid information about how Peter died (crucified upside-down??)
SO, Who was the First Bishop of Rome?
According to the second-century Irenaeus, it 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 when Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, he gives no indication that there is any single leader of the church there. Just as there were not single bishops over any of the churches that Paul addressed in his letters in the 50s CE. More telling still, some sixty years after Paul we have another letter written to the church in Rome, this time by the soon-to-be-martyred Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch, who has been sent under armed guard to face the wild beasts in the Roman forum.
Even though Ignatius presupposes that there are single bishops in each of the other six letters that he writes (for example, to the Ephesians and the Smyrneans), when he writes to Rome he does not presume this at all, but instead speaks to the entire congregation, never mentioning any one person in charge of the church.
Who Was the First Bishop of Rome: Solving the Mystery
Somewhat before Ignatius’s time, and soon thereafter, we have two writings from Christians who actually resided in Rome. Both attest to a situation in which the Roman church was not under the leadership of a single individual, the bishop. The book of 1 Clement was written some time in the mid 90s CE. This is some thirty years after Peter’s death, which the author knows about and mentions (1 Clement 5:4).
The letter was allegedly written by that very Clement that later tradition was to call the Roman bishop. Yet it seems to assume that the churches at that time were run not by individual leaders, but by a board of presbyters. The letter, in fact, is addressed to a situation in Corinth in which the presbyters had been ousted from office in some kind of church coup. The Roman Christians (not a “bishop”) write to try to redress the situation by having the older presbyters reinstated in office.
To read this rest of this post, you’ll need to belong to the blog. If you don’t belong, you’ll never find out what I have to say. Can you live with such misery? Join the blog!!
In the pseudo-Pauline letter of Titus it says, “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…” I have read that a more accurate translation would be, “have elders appointed”, implying selection by the congregation rather than appointment by some other authority. Do you have an opinion on whether the early churches chose their own elders/bishops, or whether they were appointed by someone with authority of some sort? It seems impractical in the early days of small house churches for someone to go around appointing elders, but I can see that developing as the church became more institutionalized and authoritarian.
No, I don’t think so. The verb is active, “that you might appoint.” The leaders of the church are appointed by those who were appointed by the apostle.
Looking forward to your next post (RE: the death of Peter). Hopefully you will include which what certainty we can identify the tomb or grave of Peter (Simon bar Jonah).
I’m afraid we don’t have any access to the tomb. There almost certainly isn’t one.
Very interesting! I know this is off topic but here’s my question. Historically, which Christian philosophy is older, salvation by belief (faith) or salvation through works (deeds)? Or was it a matter of geography? Were Jerusalem Christians more likely to be saved by works and Greek Christians by belief? Thanks
It’s very hard to say. Jesus himself seems to have thought that salvation came to those who followed the law of God in the way he wanted; Paul clearly thought that would not do it. It’s very difficult to know what others thought, since we have almost no clear evidence.
Dr. Ehrman,
So is the tradition of Peter being the first bishop really just later Christians who lived under the new hierarchy looking back and concluding Peter must have been in this role? After all, he is the rock.
Thanks
Yes, pretty much.
Dr. Ehrman, the development of the early church hierarchy has always seemed opaque to me. The only way I have been able to make sense of it is with a series of speculations. How close is the following to what you and other scholars think happened?
The first Jerusalem “church” was headed by the “Twelve” who were called, in Hebrew, the Zeqenim — the “Elders” — within the movement, which was translated as “presbyters” by Greek speaking Christians (cf. Acts 11:30; 15:22). The churches outside of Jerusalem then sought to mimicked the perceived hierarchical organization of the Jerusalem church. The presumed leader of the Jerusalem church, James the brother of Jesus, possibly functioned like a chairman of the Elders. His title (possibly in Hebrew) might have been something like HaRo’sh, or “the Head,” which didn’t have an obvious direct Greek translation (like Zeqen –> Presbyter) so they simply translated it as Episkopos, or “Overseer” (seeing as how the “head” has eyes to oversee). And so in this way, the early churches were seen to model themselves on the Jerusalem church.
But in all likelihood, the organizational structure of the Jerusalem church was much looser, with James as “bishop” only in the sense that he was the chief Elder, and not in the sense of the man in charge. That is, the Jerusalem church was probably much more democratic than the churches that would later follow outside Judea. After the Jerusalem church was effectively destroyed in 70 CE, the churches outside of Judea simply held onto this structure that they inherited from the Jerusalem church. How much of this makes sense historically?
I think something like that is completely plausible. The problem is that we simply don’t have sources of information that provide any firm guidance: it’s a huge gap in our knowledge.
Is it plausible that as the Roman Church grew in prominence and consolidated its influence over the other churches, the development of the tradition of Peter as the first Bishop of Rome came about as a means of justifiying their influence/power over the other churches?
Yes indeed!
A very interesting conclusion supported by your usual orderly examination of the evidence. Thanks. .
So the Peter as first bishop was really a tradition meant to give legitimacy to the unbroken apostolic succession?
Yup, probably.
Bart.
Please excuse my ignorance, but is Linus pronounced Ligh-nus or Lee-nus? Whenever I’ve read it, in my mind it has been ‘Lee-nus’; so, on the basis that I always mispronounce names and words from antiquity, if I had to bet, I’d go with the former!
I’ve always heard it as Ligh-nus.
Dear Dr. Bart Ehrman,
Speaking strictly New Testament – those I know from the Catholic Church point to Matt. 16:18 where Jesus states “Peter – on this rock I will build my church” as a basis of the foundation of the Church and then draw their lineage from there. I think it is wrong to assume “upon Peter” when in fact it’s “upon this”… which is a what .. not a who… and to take it a step further in Matt. 16:13 the exchange is occurring in Caesarea Philippi… where Pan worship was the norm… Jews forbade going to Caesarea Philippi and sits at the foot of Mt. Hermon – against a large cliff known as the “Rock of the Gods” – because of the Pagan shrines carved into it and still to this day has a cave in the center named “Gates of Hades” – supposedly where Baal enters and leaves the underworld… the Shrine to Pan (half-goat, half-human – with a large erect phallus) was located next to this cave – worshippers would go there and engage in all sorts of debauchery (including sex with goats) – this was a wicked place… and I think why Jesus would have had this conversation with Peter at this location would be to let Peter know that faith in him (Jesus) and confessing him as the Messiah would be the foundation of the Church… not Peter – and that it would have been his job (among the other disciples/apostles) to go to where Pagans worshipped to preach the gospel. Jesus being sinless vs. Peter the sinful… it would be hard to imagine Jesus delegating the duties of being the foundation of the church – to Peter… Peter calls Jesus the living rock in 1 Pet 2:4… beyond any of this… would it not be erroneous to attribute Peter as the first Bishop (Pope) when Constantine didn’t convert the Roman Empire to Christianity until after the fourth century? Peter would have died in the first Century… and there’s nothing in the New Testament about Peter going to Rome and being executed… that’s just Church tradition as far as I know… Jesus passing the torch to Peter and then from Peter to the Pope as “authoritative leader” is tied to tradition – with no biblical backing.
Thoughts?
Sincerely,
Turtlepc
It’s a play on words in Greek. Your name is Petros and upon this Petra I will build my church.
Is the assertion that Attic Greek made a distinction between Petra and Petros, but Koine Greek did not, correct? Would the author of Matthew have understood this? Or does this wording simply allow for both sides to be potentially correct?
Catholics seem to be taking a victory lap on Joseph Thayer’s admission “there is no distinction in meaning between petros and petra in the Koine Greek of the New Testament.”
Source: https://www.catholic.com/tract/peter-the-rock
I would think it depends on whether or not you think Jesus spoke these words or not. In Aramaic if Jesus had said “You are Kepha and upon this kepha I will build my church” would that not translate to in Greek “You are Petros, and on this petros I will build my church”? Only if Jesus had said something other than kepha the second time would there be a need to translate it “You are Petros, and on this petra I will build my church”.
If it wasn’t heard in the Aramaic, then I can see the Greek author using Petros as a name and petra as the noun being synonymous.
Yes, that’s right. But you can’t build a church on a stone, only on a mass of rock. Petra=mass of rock. But Peter couldn’t be nicknamed that becuase the word is feminine in Greek.
No, it’s not correct. They are different words in Koine. But yes, they are very closely related. Petra refers to a mass of rock (like on a cliff); Petros refers to a stone. Matthew 16 is meant to be a word play. The whole point is that they are similar, not identical, words. For what it’s worth, the *name* Petros did not exist before Jesus gave his disciple Simon it as a nickname. He couldn’t call him Petra because that word is feminine. (In any event, he was speaking Aramaic, not Greek)
I’ve heard Kepha is a feminine noun, but when transliterating men’s names to Greek it was common to add an “s” to the end of names that end in an “a” or “ah” sound. e.g. Barabba => Barabbas, Yeshua => Yeshuas, Kepha => Kephas.
Is the limitation on the Greek author to name him a masculine noun (if indeed Kephas is feminine)? John mentions the translation of Kephas is Petros. Is this a direct translation or indirect by first transliterating, and then changing the noun so that it’s masculine?
To give Peter a nickname required it to be masculine. Kephas is treated as a masculine noun. I’m not familiar with the term Yeshuas (only Yeshua). I’m not sure I can answer your questions about the Aramaic.
With regard to the play on words in Matt. 16:18 is there an equivalent play on words in Aramaic?
Yes. There his name is Cephas and “rock” is Cepha.
Oddly, the pun on Peter’s name in Matthew 16:18 works even better in Hebrew than it does in Aramaic. That’s because the Hebrew word for “rock” (eben) and the Hebrew word for “I will build” (ebnah) not only sound similar, but are also etymologically related. In fact, if we attempt to back translated Matthew 16:18 into what could have been an original Hebrew quote, it could have been something like this:
ואני אומר לך
אשר אתה אבן
ועל האבן הזה
אבנה בניני
wa-ani omer lekha
asher atah eben
wa-‘al ha-eben ha-zeh
ebnah binyani
“And I say to you
That you are [a] stone (i.e. Peter)
And on this stone
I will build my edifice (i.e. church).”
So you basically have three puns going on here. You have a pun between the name Peter (eben) and rock (eben), and the pun between Peter and rock with “I will build” (ebnah) and a possible pun between Peter, rock and build with building (binyan), i.e. “the church”.
Now, is this just a coincidence? Or is the connection significant? Does this suggest a possible original? Who knows? Maybe we’ll never know. All I can say is, if it’s just a coincidence, it’s an awfully strange coincidence.
I very much like this retro-translation, I really do, but forgive me for pointing out that since it is indeed a translation it can’t really be considered a coincidence. Other words could be chosen, especially for ediface/בנין, which could not be translated with ἐκκλησία, at least not for a few centuries. Thus, for example, the early Syriac translation uses עדתא. The biggest issue, however, is that we know the original nickname was in Aramaic (כאפא) and not in Hebrew (אבן, also found in Aramaic targumin). You would have a better case if Simon bar Jonah had been given the nickname ‘Evan’ instead of ‘Kephas’.
Someone is quoting himself from Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene.
I recognize this passage, because I cite it frequently in my writings. 🙂
Dear Bart,
Hope you are doing well. I have a much wider question regarding the structure in Early Church. Is there any study that deals with the tensions in early decades of Church between more charismatic approach (wandering preachers that Theissen is talking about) and more hierarchical approach? I mean, there has to be some kind of reason why Church moved in a more structured way of organization (stratification of position: presybers, bishops etc). Hope I’m making my question clear enough.
Kind regards,
Marko
It’s long been a discussion among scholars, but I dn’t know if there’s a non-scholarly treatment of it that is any good. Maybe someone else on the blog can suggest it? For a good part of the 20th century scholars would invoke the views of Max Weber on institutionalization, along the lines you’re suggesting: the charismatic model didn’t work as the church grew larger, problems emerged, and, well, *someone* had to be in charge!
I’m familiar with the views of Max Weber on institutionalization. I’m finishing my PhD so any good scholarly treatment of this topic would be excellent (German or English).
I’ve read Gerd Theissen and his views, and now I’m looking for something else that goes along the lines I suggested in a previous comment. Actually, I’m not so sure that Theissen is right when he claims: “Die entscheidenden Gestalten des frühen Urchristentums waren wandernde Apostel, Propheten und Jünger, die sich von Ort zu Ort bewegten und sich in diesen Orten auf kleine Sympathisantengruppen stützen konnten” (My translation: The decisive figures of early Christianity were wandering apostles, prophets and disciples who moved from place to place and who could rely on small groups of sympathizers in these places).
Your recommendation means a lot. With it, I will find it easier to navigate through all those books and articles that came as a result of a century old discussions among scholars.
Hope you can help.
Kind regards from Croatia.
You might be interested in the work that started emerging in the 1980s or so dealing with the social history of early Christianity, especially, say, Wayne Meeks (First Urban Christians). The “wandering charismatics” idea does make sense of the early data, especially the Pauline communities, with remnants represented still in the Didache. The idea is that if, in Paul’s communities, the charismatic gifts provided by the Spirit were the organizing principle of the churches (as in 1 Cor 12-14), that could not be sustained over the long term (as evidenced in 1 Cor itself!); so by the time of the Pastorals, some, say, three decades later, the communities have bishops and deacons, etc., actual leaders. It fits well with a basic Weberian model, but of course cannot be squeezed into it.
Given your conclusions, what is your opinion on whether Peter went to Rome at all, perhaps some time after the Letter to the Romans? Is it possible that the whole idea he was there was just a convenient invention?
I kind of doubt it actually; if he did he would have been a pretty old man I guess.
Dear Dr Ehrman,
You wrote…
“There are indications that Peter and Paul were martyred that come from the first century (from the book of 1 Clement). My view is that both of them did indeed die in Rome, possibly under Nero.”
… And…
“He had a mission to Jews, and there were more Jews living in Rome than most anywhere. So my guess is that Peter took his mission there.”
… As to his burial beneath the Basilica…
“No, these are just later legends. We have no clue where he was buried.”
… And now, as to his travel to Rome…
“I kind of doubt it actually; if he did he would have been a pretty old man I guess. ”
I am kind of confused! Can you help me, please?
Thanks
sorry, I’m not sure where you are getting my quotations from? I vacillate daily on whether Peter ever ended up in Rome, but most of the time I think not. I don’t know if I ever wrote that he did. Maybe it was one of my bad days.
I get these quotations from your blog.
“There are indications that Peter and Paul were martyred…”
(Were the Disciples Martyred for Believing the Resurrection?
October 12, 2012)
“He had a mission to Jews…”
(In response to a comment to
Would the Disciples Die for A Lie? Proofs for the Resurrection.
September 13, 2018)
“No, these are just later legends…”
(In response to a comment to
A Peculiar Story of Peter’s Martyrdom
September 19, 2018)
“I kind of doubt it actually; if he did he would have been a pretty old man I guess.”
(In response to a comment to
Who *Was* the First Bishop of Rome?
September 17, 2018)
This is quite contradictory. I wrote just to know if you could clarify such statements. Questions:
A – Was Peter martyred?
B – Has he ever been to Rome under Nero?
C – Is he buried beneath the Basilica?
D – Did Peter take his mission in Rome?
Thanks
Right, you’ll notice there are years between those statements. My views as of 3/9/2021:
a. Probably b. Possibly c. No d. Not his evangelistic mission in the sense of starting the church there, since it would have been there long before he showed up.
Still a bit unclear to me from this article and the one before what you think of the liklihood of peter being in rome, probably just me missing something. But what do you yourself think is most probable about the historicity of his ministry in rome? I really apologise for bugging you with a probably redundant question.
I don’t think he was in Rome, or had been, by the early 60s when Paul wrote his letter, and I doubt if he was ever there at all. Since you’re interested in this: I discuss all this at length in my book Peter Paul and Mary Magdalene.