History Matters — Roman Apostolic Succession
It may surprise some, but we have historical lists of the succession of bishops from several major Christian centers, including Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria. These lists are from writers who lived at various times, starting in the second century. The lists trace the succession from the writer’s age to an apostle.
It is not surprising that such lists exist. We have the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, which assume the existence of a bishop for Christian urban areas. Ignatius wrote in the early second century, approximately 120 AD. Likewise, Clement of Rome wrote a letter to the church elders of Corinth that presumed an apostolic succession from the apostles, namely, the apostles appointed bishops or elders who appointed their successors.
The problem is that these bishop lists support the Catholic position on ecclesiology. For some, this cannot stand, and so, an effort has been made to question the bishop lists, particularly insofar as they pertain to the Church of Rome. Several tactics have been developed for this project, such as, claiming that although mono-episcopacy (a single, “Monarchical Bishop”) is well-established as normative outside of Rome, inside Rome, it did not develop until the late second century. This raises the question about who the people were that the writers in the second century claimed were the bishops of Rome.
One of this school’s recent leading lights is Lutheran Peter Lampe, whose From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome during the First Centuries has been very well received by the academic community.
Lampe believes that despite tradition and the bishop lists, there was no monarchical bishop in Rome until the second half of the second century. (FPTV, p. 397.) Lampe’s conclusion follows different trails of evidence: Rome was fractionated into many small house churches. The first two bishop lists were concocted around 160 AD. (FPTV, p. 404.) The bishops in the lists were like “ministers of external affairs.” (p. 400.) Lampe finds it significant that Irenaeus numbers twelve bishops, from Peter to the bishop at the time that Irenaeus visited Rome, with the sixth bishop being named Sextus, i.e., “Six.” In addition, neither Clement’s letter nor Ignatius’s letters name a Roman bishop.
Lampe’s arguments rest on arguments from silence that contradict the evidence of the bishop lists of Hegesippus (in 160 AD) and Irenaeus (in 180 AD.) One would think that tipping the balance depends on wanting the balance tipped.
That is the backstory to my interest in Williams’ doctoral dissertation on bishop lists. Williams has read Lampe and agrees with him about “fractionation.” But Williams appears to disagree with Lampe about the bishop lists being concocted in the late second century, partly on a 1912 study by H.J. Lawlor, entitled Eusebiana. (p. 98, fn.10.) Williams’ approach is to consider the writers to whom a bishop list was ascribed. The five writers were Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, Hypolitus, and the founder of Church History, Eusebius. Williams analyzes the sources available to these writers and discusses their purpose in writing a bishop list.
Before he gets into the authors, Williams considers other kinds of succession lists used in the Roman Empire. These other lists included (a) succession lists for Greek philosophical schools, (b) succession lists of Roman emperors, © succession lists of Jewish High Priests, and (d) second-century succession lists of rabbis. The point of all such lists was to trace true authority (and therefore true doctrine in the case of the Greek philosophical schools) from spurious authority and to advertise the longevity and legitimacy of the respective institutions. These purposes are true of the Christian lists.
Williams argues that bishop lists were used at different times in response to different crises. In the second century, the crisis was the erosion of established presbyterial authority. (p. 45.)
According to Williams, the New Testament provides the kernel of a monoepiscopacy. The backbone of the church structure was the house church, each of whom was governed by the head of the family, a person with “natural authority,” called an overseer (or “episkopos.”) (p. 48.) In his letters, Paul recognizes that there is a class of “overseers (aka episkopos or, eventually, bishops) who had the responsibility of acting as shepherds for the individual house churches in their area. (P. 50–52.) Paul charged Titus to make appointments of such bishops on Crete. (p. 51.) Such overseers were appointed in each city to shepherd the house churches and defend them against enemies. (Id.) From this, the mono episcopacy was formulated.
Williams opines that evidence for succession is weak in the New Testament. However, in the early second century, two texts point to various elements of the concept of a succession of bishops. The letter of Clement — written in the early decades of the second century — dealt with the Corinthian church’s sacking of the leadership appointed by the apostles. The author of the letter (Clement) urged or instructed the Corinthians to reverse their decision because it was not in keeping with the plan of succession started by the apostles and represented disorder. Part of the disorder involved “liturgical authority.” (p. 88.) “Like the priestly succession, the episcopal succession has authority over worship service.” (p. 88.)
The Corinthian “revolt” also had a political dimension because it could have led the Roman authorities to intervene and suppress the disorder in the Christian church (pp. 89–92).
Clement had a concept of succession, but perhaps without mono episcopacy. Ignatius had mono episcopacy in spades. Writing at the same time as Clement, Ignatius stressed in his many letters on his way to Rome that Christians should adhere to their single bishop. Interestingly, Williams suggests that the Didache also recommended a mono episcopal structure of Bishop/priest/deacon. (p. 73–75.) Williams suggests that the author of the Didache was a mono episcopal bishop. (p. 74.) Since the Didache may have been from the first century, and preceded many of the New Testament books, this would indicate a very early starting point for monoepiscopacy.
Hegesippus is the first author that Williams addresses. Hegesippus came to Rome and wrote his bishop list no earlier than the term of Eleutherius (circa 175–189 AD.) (p. 95.) Hegesippus’s original five-volume work (“Memoirs”) has been lost, but the last volume, which includes the list, was preserved in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History. (p. 95.) Portions of Hegesippus’s Memoirs were also preserved in Irenaeus’s “Against Heresy” and in Epiphanius’s Panarion (circa the fourth century) (p. 96–97.)
Hegesippus’ reason for visiting Rome from Alexandria was a concern that Gnostic heresies were not Christian. Lampe has argued that there was a diversity of religious opinion in Rome. Hegesippus wanted some curbs on how much diversity would be tolerated. Hegesippus relied on Justin Martyr’s writers for Roman information and the letter of Clement for information on Corinth. The “most amorphous source’ for Hegesippus’s successions were the people with whom he spoke during his trip to Rome, and his stay there.” (p. 110.)
Hegesippus’s purpose was to show that the bishops held the authority claimed by the heretics. The heresies were merely schools or sects. By showing a public list of succession, Hegesippus could argue that there was no secret knowledge that the bishops did not know. (p. 113.)
Irenaeus’s “Against Heresies” was written in the 180s and was also concerned with heretics. The Gnostics claimed that they had a succession going back to Jesus. Irenaeus’s counter-argument was that their succession began with Simon, the arch-heretic. Irenaeus relied on oral traditions, Clement, Hegesippus, and Justin Martyr. (p. 128–130.) Irenaeus’ purpose was to buttress the authority of the bishops and validate the apostolic tradition. (p. 10–132.)
Neither Hegesippus nor Irenaeus has any doubt that the apostles who founded the Roman succession were Peter and Paul.
Julius Africanus was a polymath who wrote in the late second/early third centuries (p. 143). His writings were preserved in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical Histories. Africanus wrote succession lists as part of a world history. (Id.) Africanus’s list coordinated the terms of Roman bishops with the succession of Roman Emperors (p. 147). Africanus’s source for the Roman bishop list was Irenaeus; for the Alexandrian list, it was the personal memory of Bishop Demetrius of Alexandria.
Williams argues that Africanus’s purpose was to counter a widespread belief that the end of the world would soon happen. Another purpose was to check Origen. In doing the latter, Africanus supported Bishop Demetrius of Alexander by making Origen a Roman problem. To do that, Africanus, and by extension, Demetrius, accepted a subordinate position to Rome. Thus, while Rome was founded by Peter (no mention of Paul), Alexandria’s succession starts with Mark, Peter’s secretary.
Was this a fabricated tradition? It seems weird to think that it was made up out of the blue. Certainly, someone would have noticed.
Hippolytus’s list is traceable to the first half of the third century, according to Williams, 234 AD. (p. 169.) There is a debate about whether Hippolytus was the author of the list. Williams believes that Hippolytus updates Irenaeus’s list, extending it into the third century with his information.
Hippolytus was also fighting against apocalyptic eschatology. In addition, according to Williams, the succession list was an effort to reconcile Romans to the monoepiscopacy of Pontianus. (p. 168.) The facts that led to this purpose are Roman in their complexity.
Williams treats the issue as if there was not supposed to be a mono episcopacy in the early third century in Rome. This makes for confusion since even Lampe says there was a Roman mono episcopacy fifty years earlier. The issue may be that what Williams describes as a problem with mono episcopacy was a schism in the Roman church (which would mean rival claimants to the mono episcopacy.) The history begins with Zephyrinus whose term of office was 199 to 217. According to Africanus and the traditional reckoning, Zephyrinus was succeeded by Callistus. Callistus was despised by Hipplytus for not being as rigorous as Hippolytus preferred. It seems that other Roman congregations agreed and the Roman Church was split. Callistus was succeeded by Pontianus.
Williams presents this period as lacking a monarchical bishop. He notes that “by the time of Pontianus episcopacy (230–235)” the prior tradition of house church participating in ordinations was ended in favor of the monarchical bishop performing ordinations. (p. 171) and “[t]hen by 235 mono episcopacy had become an accepted pattern for leadership in the church of Rome.” (p. 175.)
This is strange. It raises the question of what Hegesippus and Irenaeus were doing in their bishop lists. Who were they identifying as bishops? Was it a selection of random leaders of house church leaders?
Also, while Williams argues that Callistus was recognized as the Roman bishop by Africanus, Hippolytus was “comfortable with including Callistus” in his succession list. That seems weird, although it can be explained that it was an olive branch to bring in warring sides.
A better way of explaining the situation is the one that the Catholic Church takes, namely, there was a schism in Rome.
The last person on the list is Eusebius. Eusebius was writing at the time of Christianity’s triumph. He drew on his predecessors. His purpose was to provide something that would propagandize the longevity and stability of Christianity.
This is a dissertation. It is interesting if you have a prior interest in the subject. I think it is useful church history on a period of darkness. I was disappointed that I did not get an answer to whether there was a succession of monarchical bishops before the late second century. Williams answers that there was such a succession. Williams never tells us who these bishops were if they weren’t monarchical bishops in the Catholic tradition.
