Who Was the First Bishop of Rome?
https://ehrmanblog.org/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. 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.
Peter’s time in Rome is not mentioned in the New Testament. Peter and Paul are mentioned in 1 Clement 5, which was written in Rome between the years 90 and 100. However, neither of them actually mentions Rome. Envy and jealousy attacked even our church’s most steadfast leaders, forcing them to fight until their last breath. Take a look at the kind apostles. Peter was afflicted numerous times, not just once, but multiple times, due to sinful jealousy; Before departing for his well-deserved place in glory, he served as a witness in this manner. Paul, on the other hand, has become the kind of endurance that is rewarded because of rivalry and jealousy. He was incarcerated seven times, exiled, and stoned. He preached throughout the west as well as the east, earning a respectable reputation for his faith. “Early Christian Writings,” by Staniforth and Louth, Penguin, 1987). In a letter to Firmilian, Cyprian of Carthage (3rd century) makes passing reference to a Stephen who occupies “by succession the chair of St. Peter.” According to Eusebius (4th century), Dionysius of Corinth (2nd century), the Romans “have united the planting that came from Peter and Paul,” wrote to them. After discussing the places where Peter and Paul were martyred, Eusebius refers to a Gaius from the third century regarding the burial grounds at Rome. H.E. II 25.5-8). ( Both are from Stevenson’s 1957 SPCK publication “A New Eusebius.” Linus and Clement are listed as leaders of the Roman church in a 2nd-century bishop list that is preserved in Book VII, Section IV of the 4th-century Antiochene ‘Apostolic Constitutions.’ New Apostolic Covenant, 2018, a reprint of a public domain edition from the 19th century). In the Catholic Mass, Linus and Clement are referred to as the first bishops of Rome, with Cletus serving as the first. As you can see, there is no early documentary evidence of Peter serving as bishop of Rome; however, there were traditions about him there beginning in the second century.
- There is no evidence of a Christian church in Babylon, and 1 Peter places him at “Babylon.” Many people think this is a reference to a popular Jewish and Christian nickname for Rome at the time. The imagination is stretched to its limits by the fact that a Christian enclave within Babylon would not survive or receive attention during the flourishing of Judaism in Babylon following the fall of Jerusalem. Following his speech at the Council of Jerusalem in the biblical account (Acts 15:7), Peter vanishes, which is striking given the similarities between Paul’s and Peter’s journeys. Paul is now in charge of the conversation, and Peter is left out of it. Keep in mind that Peter receives eight extended quotations, the most of any character in the story, and only Paul surpasses Peter with ten. This curious detail merits consideration and will be discussed shortly. Concerning Peter’s whereabouts during the book of Acts and his martyrdom, there is only one known legend: He had served as a bishop there for some time when he was executed in Rome. This tradition is somewhat documented in the apocryphal Acts of Peter, which can be dated to the second century. Although tradition’s lack of diversity is not itself evidence, it lends credence to the idea that a majority position existed as early as the 2nd century. To reiterate this in conjunction with the previous point, neither the actual city of Babylon nor any other city that could be referred to as Babylon is mentioned in any known tradition.
- Additionally, we have Church Fathers who provide some evidence in support of this tradition. Both Ignatius of Antioch, a 1st-century and early-second-century writer, and Irenaeus of Lyons, a 1st-century and early-second-century writer, describe the ministry of Peter and Paul in Rome. At the turn of the century, Tertullian explicitly asserts that Peter served as bishop of Rome until his crucifixion. According to additional tradition, Peter was wanted by Roman authorities, and if Acts was written in the early 60s, his absence is not only noticeable but intentional. Peter would have preferred not to be found ministering in Rome. Furthermore, if 1 Clement was written during Domitian’s persecutions, Peter’s “many labors” and the fact that he was specifically martyred (other than “appointed to his place of glory”) show that Peter’s contemporaries purposefully concealed his fate. The argument from silence, “Peter was not described as being in Rome in the 1st century therefore he wasn’t,” is less structurally sound than the opposite, “Peter was not described as being in Rome in the 1st century for political reasons.” This is because the former does not explain why there are no traditions about what happened to the most prominent Apostle in the Gospels and also provides very little speculation about what Peter did after the year 50. Even though the argument that Peter in Rome is an interpolation or misuse of available sources has as much legitimacy as its inverse, I will not take liberties with a lack of evidence. The only difference is that which prompts more inquiries than responses.
- To continue with the “Babylon” thing:
- https://www.joeledmundanderson.com/a-5-part-series-on-michael-heisers-the-unseen-realm-part-4-jesus-casts-out-demons-and-leads-an-assault-on-mount-hermon/
“Perhaps the most compelling evidence for a late date of Revelation is the use of “Babylon” in reference to Rome. Here Revelation follows other first-century Jewish writings, such as the Sibylline Oracles, 4 Ezra, and Baruch. She argues that the name would be improbably before the destruction of the temple in 70 CE.”
The belief that Peter never visited Rome is unsupported by any evidence. Other than what Paul says, which is very little and doesn’t mention Rome, we really don’t know anything about his life after the crucifixion. Paul directly mentions dozens of the most influential Christian leaders in the Roman Empire in his letter, but he never mentions Peter. The stories that Peter went there or was the first Pope are old, legends, and there is no early or outside evidence to support them.
Did Paul go to Rome?
There is no confirming evidence that Paul ever went to Rome either. Clement seems to imply that he died in Spain or on his way to Spain (1 Clement 5).
- The martyrdom traditions of Peter and Paul are both late and legendary.
- Paul never mentions going to Rome. He states that he has not visited Rome in his letter to the Romans. He says he wants to go there, but there is no non-Christian (or even Biblical) proof that he made it, and 1 Clement seems to suggest that he died in Spain, as I said earlier. There are no non-Christian accounts of Paul. There is no authentic letter of Paul that states he went to Rome, there is one forgery that does (2 Timothy) but that’s obviously dated way too late and pseudigraphic.
Final part to the “Did Peter go to Rome?”
- Even though Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians suggests that Peter may have traveled as far west as Corinth, Greece, there is no evidence in the Bible or any other first-century source that he ever visited Rome. However, in the second century, numerous Christian communities made numerous claims that one or more apostles had visited the community and possibly been killed there: Rome was able to select both Peter and Paul to be Roman martyrs because it was both the capital of the empire and a significant Christian community on its own. It was only natural to assert that the apostles perished during Emperor Nero’s reign, either following the Great Fire of Rome in 64 CE or toward the end of his reign in 68 CE. This was because Emperor Nero came to be hated by Christians because he blamed the Christians of Rome for starting the Great Fire.
- David L. Eastman says, in The Ancient Martyrdom Accounts of Peter and Paul:
“The texts of the New Testament do not provide details of Peter’s later life or death. In the absence of good evidence, various stories arose of the apostle’s later adventures and eventual martyrdom. The Martyrdom (or Passion) of Peter represents one such story. It is traditionally treated as the final section of a larger cycle of legends known as Acts of Peter;” “The precise date of this text is unknown, but a date in the final quarter of the second century or the first quarter of the third century is most likely.”
- Even though the Church never accepted Acts of Peter as canonical, it is our most reliable source of information regarding Peter’s alleged martyrdom. Early in the third century, Eusebius reported that Origen also reported the same information, but either Eusebius or Origen probably relied on Acts of Peter.
- The Catholic Church maintains that Peter died in Rome and even asserts that a catacomb directly beneath St. Peter’s Basilica is where he was buried. John W. O’Malley, S.J. takes a more cautious approach, writing in A History of the Popes: From Peter to Right Now:
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2010/2010-03-25.html
“But the fact is, we don’t know! For none of the apostles do we have reliable historical records. For most of them, we don’t even have legends. For those for whom we do have legends (Peter, Paul, John, and a couple of others) the legends are not historically trustworthy.” Bart D. Ehrman
https://ehrmanblog.org/the-legend-of-peters-martyrdom
“We simply do not have reliable information about what happened to Jesus’ disciples after he died. In fact, we scarcely have any information about them while they were still living!…” “What we have are legends, about some of the apostles – chiefly Peter, Paul, Thomas, Andrew, and John. But the apocryphal Acts that tell their stories are indeed highly apocryphal. They are great reading and great fun, highly entertaining and highly enlightening for what later Christians were saying about these earlier champions of the faith. But they are not historically reliable accounts of their lives (recall Peter and the smoked tuna and Peter and the flying heretic) or their deaths (such as Peter’s crucifixion upside down; during which he gives a long sermon).” Dr. Bart D. Ehrman
https://ehrmanblog.org/were-the-disciples-martyred-for-believing-the-resurrection-for-members
All accounts of martyred Apostles, all of them, are full of the ridiculous and thoroughly biased toward glorifying the subject and persuading the reader to have confidence and believe, and at least a century late, and by unknown authors using unknown sources—in fact, we cannot even establish that they were using sources at all. Not one eyewitness or even contemporary source exists for any of them. Nor any neutral witnesses (or even contemporaries). Nor any critical historical account at all. What we have instead, are the very worst and least reliable sources you can ever have for anything. (See Candida Moss, The Myth of Persecution, Harper 2013.)
The New Testament has no mention of Peter in Rome. 1 Clement 5, written in Rome c. 90-100, mentions Peter, along with Paul, but without actually placing either one in Rome. “Even the greatest pillars of our church were assailed by envy and jealousy, and had to keep up the struggle till death ended their days. Look at the good apostles. It was by sinful jealousy that Peter was subjected to tribulation, not once or twice, but many times; it was in this way that he bore witness, ere he left for his well-earned place in glory. And Paul, because of jealousy and contention, he has become the very type of endurance rewarded. He was in bonds seven times, he was exiled, he was stoned. He preached in the east and in the west, winning a noble reputation for his faith.” (Staniforth/Louth, “Early Christian Writings” Penguin, 1987). Cyprian of Carthage (3rd century) mentions in passing a certain Stephen who occupies”by succession the chair of St. Peter” in a letter to Firmilian. Eusebius (4th century) cites Dionysius of Corinth (2nd century), writing to the Romans, that they “have united the planting that came from Peter and Paul.” Eusebius cites a 3rd century Gaius regarding the places where Peter and Paul were buried at Rome, after discussing the martyrdoms of both there. (H.E. II 25.5-8). (Both from Stevenson, “A New Eusebius” SPCK, 1957). A 2nd century bishop list, preserved in Book VII, Section IV, of the 4th century Antiochene ‘Apostolic Constitutions’ has Linus as appointed by Paul, and Clement as appointed by Peter, as leaders of the Roman church. (New Apostolic Covenant, 2018, a reprint of a 19th century public domain edition). The Linus and Clement are named, with Cletus, as the first bishops of Rome in the Catholic Mass. So you see, early documentary evidence of Peter as bishop of Rome is non-existent, but from the 2nd century onward, traditions about him there existed.
Paul and Acts suggest that after Easter Peter lived in Jerusalem and had special responsibility for the mission to Palestine. 1 Clement mentions his two-plus labours (cf. Acts 3–4, 5, 12), but not Rome and not martyrdom. It places him second of seven chronologically ordered victims of jealousy between AD 40 and 70. Asc. Is. 4:2–3 is about Nero redivivus, not the historical Nero, and has nothing to do with Peter. By AD 100 legends were forming about his sojourn in Rome (1 Peter) and his martyrdom (John 21). He probably died in his bed in Jerusalem about AD 55.
In contrast, Peter does not seem to have had much connection with Rome in the earliest sources. He started out as a fisherman from the Galilee, and, generally speaking, fishermen were not particularly high on the social scale of Roman society. They were often made fun of in both text and image. As already noted, Peter figures in the first part of canonical Acts in his key role as a witness to the resurrection after which he fades away. Geographically Peter’s activity is limited to the traditional areas of the Jesus movement: Jerusalem, Judaea, Samaria, and the Galilee. Peter does go beyond this area when he starts a mission among gentiles in Antioch, where he also encounters Paul.
Whatever the theological differences may have been, toward the early second century Peter and Paul gradually appear as a team. This tendency of unification may have started already in the book of Acts. Although Luke portrays them in sequence rather than together, they are the two main players in his narrative. Other examples of this tendency are pseudo-epigraphic texts under the name of Peter, such as the letters of Peter. Helmut Koester viewed these letters as written in the Pauline tradition but under Peter’s name to give them more authority and to unify the apostles and their presumed constituencies.
Leave a Reply