Early Roman Bishops: The First and Second Century Evidence

In Roman Catholic theology, the Bishop of Rome is said to have universal jurisdiction over the Christian world. And this authority is said to have gone back to Peter himself. The First Vatican Council in 1870 says:

"For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that the holy and blessed Peter, the Prince and Chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ... and lives, presides, and judges, to this day and always, in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome"[1]

Many scholars critical of the papacy, and many Roman Catholic scholars themselves, argue that the concept of an unbroken chain of Roman bishops stretching back to Peter is simply absent and inconsistent with the earliest historical records. In this article, I will argue the more specific claim that in the first and early second century, there was not just an absence of Roman supremacy and infallibility, but the absence of a Roman bishop entirely. This claim, if true, puts pressure on Roman Catholic Christians to develop a theory of doctrinal development consistent with Vatican I's claim of apostolic succession.

We will survey the following:

1. The New Testament Background
2. The 1st & 2nd Century Evidence (Didache, 1 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, Ignatius, Polycarp)
3. Roman Catholic Scholarship

New Testament Background

In the New Testament, there are two church offices: deacon (diakonos), and elder (presbyteros, episkopos) There is a dispute as to whether, as I've alleged, the two terms presbyteros (lit. "elder," "senior") and episkopos (lit. "superintendent," "overseer," "bishop") refer to the same office, or rather refer to two distinct offices.

Most Protestants hold this "two-office" model of the church. For example, in the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, the offices appointed for the local church are "bishops or elders, and deacons." This phrase combines the terms presbyteros and episkopos to reference one position, which is then distinguished from the office of deacon.[2] Presbyterians, Lutherans, and other Protestant denominations hold the same position. Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and many eastern traditions, such as Eastern Orthodoxy, believe that bishops and elders represent two distinct offices, and therefore, alongside deacons, a threefold model of church authority is the standard.

Many Christians, despite the fact that they hold the three-fold structure, agree that the New Testament teaches that they are the same offices. They instead argue that the threefold structure is a useful development. A single bishop can serve the function of appointing and settling disputes among the elders. Roman Catholic scholars who believe that the terms originally reference the same office view the threefold structure as a valid doctrinal development under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia agrees that "to some extent, in this early period, the words bishop and priest (episkopos and presbyteros) are synonymous."[3] The Anglican theologian J. B. Lightfoot similarly states: "It is a fact now generally recognized by theologians of all shades of opinion, that in the language of the New Testament the same office in the Church is called indifferently 'bishop' (episkopos) and 'elder' or 'presbyter' (presbyteros)."[4]

St. JeromeSt. Jerome lived in the 4th and 5th centuries A.D. He was the most influential of the Latin fathers, and was the author of the Vulgate translation of the Bible into Latin argued that the two distinct terms referred to the age of the officer in the case of presbyteros ("elder") and the office itself in the case of episkopos (bishop). He believed that there were only two offices spoken about in scripture and that the development toward elder and bishop as separate offices was for practical need to prevent schism. To Jerome, the case was clear: "the apostle clearly teaches that presbyters are the same as bishops."[5]

The following four considerations make a strong biblical case that presbyteros and episkopos refer to the same office:

1. In Philippians 1:1, Paul greets the "bishops and deacons" at the church of Philippi. It must first be noted that bishops are spoken of in the plural. Remember that the threefold structure usually places one monarchical bishop over a college of elders. Bishops being in the plural is unexpected. Furthermore, if bishop and elder were separate offices, it seems quite strange for Paul to leave out a greeting for the 'middle' office, and only refer to the bishop and deacons. It is much more likely that Paul is referencing both offices of the church, but simply using the official titles "bishops and deacons" to describe them.
2. In Acts 20, Paul summons the Ephesian clergy to meet him in Miletus. The text first identifies the group as "elders" (v. 17) and later Paul identifies the group as "bishops" (v. 28). Since the same group is referred to as both "elders" and "bishops," it confirms that these terms refer to the same office.
3. In Titus 1:5-7, Paul seems to use the terms interchangeably: "appoint elders in every town ... For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach."
4. The qualifications listed for elder and bishop in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 are the same, making it unlikely that Paul is intending to describe two distinct offices.

It must be noted that scripture consistently speaks of church leadership in the plural. No individual is ever named a bishop over a particular congregation. Even James, Titus, and Timothy are not called bishops, but rather Peter calls himself a "fellow elder," and instructs the "elders" to exercise "oversight" (episkopountes) over their congregation.

The implications of the New Testament data are very important for an accurate understanding of the early church. If the offices were the same during the time of the writing of the New Testament (roughly 45-95 AD), then the development must have taken place in the second century AD.

Roman Catholic scholar Joe Heschmeyer argues that due to the term "elder" referencing Peter, and "deacon" referencing Paul, the terms give enough flexibility such that it's inappropriate to read the synonymous use of "bishop" and "elder" as proof that a singular ruling bishop did not exist above the elders.[6] And while Heschmeyer is correct about the flexibility of the terms, I do not believe it demonstrates the point he's making. Whether terms deacon and elder are used in their more flexible, literal meanings, or whether they are referencing a church office, is something which can be determined by the context. While Heschmeyer's argument may work for Philippians 1:1 or Acts 20, it does not work for the stricter qualification lists of church offices in Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3. Because these texts are speaking of not church leadership in general, but rather the indicators of suitability for specific offices in the church, it is highly unlikely that they are meant in the more literal sense.

The Early Church

In this section, we will survey the Didache, 1 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp. These texts contain not only an unexpected absence of a monarchical bishop but also a use of terms relating to church leadership which imply that the author believed there was no monarchical bishop at all. Before examining the texts themselves, two clarifications should be made.

1. Is this an argument from silence?

While arguments from silence are often fallacious, some can be valid given there is an expectation that a given text should indeed mention the thing in question. When an argument is fallacious, however, there is no such expectation. For example, the absence of the role of a single bishop in the Book of Jude does not constitute a strong argument against the existence of bishops. The letter is not only brief, but its themes and purpose do not necessitate any reference to church leadership at all. There is no historical expectation that Jude would write about the office of bishops.

On the other hand, a valid argument from silence would be present in the case that the supreme bishop is not mentioned in the entire New Testament and the extra-biblical documents from the first centuries of the church. Since there is an expectation that the highest authority and source of unity of the church should be present in the documents most related and central to the church, if the texts were entirely silent, then this would indeed be evidence against the view that such a leader of the church did in fact exist. The key difference between the fallacious and valid use is whether there is a historical expectation that the source should contain the given description.

In any argument from silence, we should be sensitive to whether there is even a compelling reason to think they would mention it, or whether there is a good reason why they would have intentionally omitted it. Regardless, any argument from silence, even if valid, does not produce a logical deduction, but can only be used to inform some probability of the truth of the item in question. The following cumulative argument from early church texts consists of both valid arguments from silence and arguments that the texts are not only silent regarding monarchical bishops but rule them out entirely.

2. Why these sources and not others?

The Didache, 1 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp are all significant texts to the question of early bishops because of their date. These texts are all written either in the late first or the early second centuries and so serve as the most important texts to consider in search of questions relating to early church leadership. Furthermore, all texts speak of church leadership. Especially significant is that 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas originate from Rome, and Ignatius' letter is addressed to Rome. 1 Clement was even supposedly composed by the Bishop of Rome, Clement, according to Irenaeus' testimony from the late second century.

Because of what I will argue, the reasons to believe that there was a Roman bishop in this early section of the church will likely come from evidence or testimony in the late-second century or beyond. It is my conclusion that the first and early second-century evidence points to a collective leadership of elders, with no monarchical bishop.

Five Witnesses For The Early Bishop Question

Let's finally review that evidence now:

1. The DidacheAlso known as "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles." The Didache is one of the earliest Christian texts, and is dated between AD 50 and the early second century. The first half of the document concerns moral instruction, while the second half concerns order, baptism, communion, fasting, and prayer. speaks of appointing "bishops and deacons" over the local church.[7] Like in Philippians 1:1, there are two offices, and both are spoken of in the plural. This rules out that the author of the Didache had in mind the threefold structure of authority.
2. 1 Clement1 Clement is an important early letter from the Church in Rome to the church in Corinth, usually dated around 70-96 AD. Its author, Clement, was possibly the Clement mentioned by Paul in Philippians 4:3. speaks of "bishops and deacons," as two offices, in the plural.[8] If you have 'bishops and deacons,' you cannot have 'a bishop, a council of elders, and a group of deacons.' Like in the case of the Didache, this is not merely an argument from silence, but the language used rules out a threefold view of authority. Clement also uses the terms "bishop" and "elder" interchangeably, showing they refer to the same office. Given that Clement assumes this authority structure when writing to the Corinthian church, it was certainly his view that they operated no differently than the church in Rome. Therefore, 1 Clement may be taken as evidence for plural leadership in both Rome and Corinth.
3. The Shepherd of HermasThe Shepherd of Hermas was a popular Christian apocalyptic text written in Rome between the late first century and the mid-second century. It recounts a series of visions given to its author, Hermas, by an angel. It concerns topics such as Christian behaviour and the practice of penance for sins committed after baptism. The text was widely read in Christian churches, and even considered to be a part of the biblical canon by some. refers to "the elders who preside over the church," with no mention of a monarchical bishop, and elsewhere refers to bishops in the plural.[9] Hermas only ever refers to the church leadership in the plural, and therefore it is unlikely he believed there was a single monarchical bishop.
4. Ignatius' Letter To The RomansIgnatius, also known as "Theophorus" (God-Bearer), was the bishop of Antioch. He is famous for the seven letters he wrote in the early second century while travelling to Rome, where he was martyred. The letters were to the churches in Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, Rome, Philadelphia, and Smyrna, as well as one to Polycarp. has an unexpected absence of the Roman bishop.[10] Despite the fact that Ignatius greets the bishop in his six other letters, he strangely makes no mention of a Roman bishop. Given Ignatius' emphasis, or "obsession" as some scholars have put it, of the need to submit to the local bishop, it seems highly unlikely Ignatius would have failed to mention the principal bishop of Rome, if he believed one existed. Ignatius also complained that there are Christians who "do all things without the bishop," so he acknowledges that the threefold structure of authority was not universal in his time. As a point of contrast to the other sources on this list, in Ignatius' other letters, he does speak of the bishop in the singular, and the elder and deacons in the plural. This only makes the contrast between the other sources stronger. In a future article, I hope to respond to the Roman Catholic argument that Ignatius' reference to Rome as a "church" implies a belief that it had a bishop.
5. Polycarp's Epistle to the PhilippiansPolycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John, friend of Ignatius, and early Christian martyr., in chapters five and six, lay out qualifications for only two church offices. Polycarp does not mention a monarchical bishop at all.[11] This is surprising, given that a mention of a bishop is expected in qualification lists for church leadership.

Roman Catholic Scholarship

In this section, I will detail several major twentieth and twenty-first-century Roman Catholic sources which acknowledge that the early Roman church did not yet have a principal bishop.

Eamon Duffy (b. 1947)

Eamon Duffy, Professor Emeritus of the History of Christianity at the Cambridge, argues that Clement "made no claim to write as bishop," and that the letter "makes no distinction between presbyters and bishops, about which it always speaks in the plural, suggesting that at Corinth as at Rome the church at this time was organized under a group of bishops or presbyters, rather than a single ruling bishop."[12] He further stated:

"Neither Peter nor Paul founded the Church at Rome, for there were Christians in the city before either of the Apostles set foot there. Nor can we assume, as Irenaeus did, that the Apostles established there a succession of bishops to carry on the work in the city, for all the indications are that there was no single bishop of Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the Apostles."[13]

Robert Eno (1936-2018)

Robert Eno, theologian and former professor of Church history at the Catholic University of America, believed that Clement, Hermas, and Ignatius pointed to the perspective that there was "no bishop of Rome" in the first and early second century. He also stated:

"But the evidence available seems to point predominantly if not decisively in the direction of a collective leadership. Dogmatic a priori theses should not force us into presuming or requiring something that the evidence leans against."[14]

Francis Sullivan (1922-2019)

Francis Sullivan, a former professor of theology at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, summarized:

"Scholars differ on details, such as how soon the church of Rome was led by a single bishop, but hardly any doubt that the church of Rome was still led by a group of presbyters for at least a part of the second century."[15]

Klaus Schatz (b. 1938)

Klaus Schatz, a former professor of church history at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, stated:

"If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no."[16]

Raymond Brown (1928-1998)

Raymond E. Brown, a Catholic priest and Professor of New Testament at Union Theological Seminary in New York, stated:

"...the presbyter-bishops described in the NT were not in any traceable way the successors of the twelve apostles."[17]

"...the affirmation that the episcopate was divinely established or established by Christ himself can be defended in the nuanced sense that the episcopate gradually emerged in a Church that stemmed from Christ and that this emergence was (in the eyes of faith) guided by the Holy Spirit."[18]

1913 Catholic Encyclopedia

The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, written by many Catholic theologians, published with ecclesiastical approval, held the view that "in each Community the authority may have originally belonged to a college of presbyter-bishops," and that "no mention is made of a monarchic episcopate until the middle of the second century." Regarding the terms episkopos and presbyteros, it states: "to some extent, in this early period, the words bishop and priest (episkopos and presbyteros) are synonymous."[19]

Is Roman Catholic Scholarship In Agreement?

The Protestant scholar Gavin Ortlund notes that the plural leadership view of the early Roman church "has remained the mainstream scholarly position up to the present day."[20] The Protestant scholar Jerry Walls similarly summarizes:

"In brief, there is a strong scholarly consensus that the classic belief that Peter was the first pope is a pious myth, and indeed, there was not even a monarchical bishop in Rome—let alone anyone who was recognized as having jurisdiction over the entire church—until sometime in the latter half of the second century, if not later."[21]

It's important to note that not only Protestant scholars recognize this consensus. As the Roman Catholic scholar Sullivan noted, while scholars disagree on the details, there is broad agreement on the absence of a monarchical bishop in the early life of the church of the Roman Church.

The Protestant use of Roman Catholic scholarship is not without its controversy. Roman Catholic scholar Joe Heschmeyer states that some of the scholars surveyed above are "skeptical Catholic scholars" and "20th century skeptics" with poor methodology. Heschmeyer labels these figures as 'skeptics' not because they reject Catholic dogma (remember, they are all Catholics), but because he disagrees with their methodology. Heschmeyer argues that they make fallacious arguments from silence or employ a bifurcated hermeneutic when working through the evidence.[22] One of the examples he gives is the interpretation of Ignatius' failure to mention a Roman Bishop. I intend to write more on Heschmeyer's claims regarding the interpretation of Ignatius in a future article, but it's worth pointing out that Walls and Ortlund's claim that their positions are matched by a consensus among Roman Catholic scholarship is simply true.