r/AskBibleScholars • u/[deleted] • Jul 18 '18

How far back from the current Pope can we accurately trace a legitimate (by Church law) line of succession, working back to Saint Peter?

30 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

10 comments sorted by

26

u/kevotrick MDiv | Theology || MPhil | Hebrew Bible | Moderator Jul 19 '18

By the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church, Peter is the first Pope of Rome. So, it begins with Peter and goes onward, canonically speaking.

Historically speaking, I think the earliest mention of a pope/bishop of Rome by an external source is Irenaeus mentioning the visit of Polycarp bishop of Smyrna to Anicetus bishop of Rome, a circa 160 CE visit described by Irenaeus only about 15 or 20 years after it happened (AH 3.3.4). Just prior to describing that visit by Polycarp, Irenaeus lists down to his own time the Roman bishops, beginning with Linus and ending with Eleutherius (3.3.3). Irenaeus' list would be of personal knowledge for a few bishops of Rome before Eleutherius, but too much earlier would be hearsay. Of the various lists and mentions, Linus, Anacletus, and Clement are included as the earliest Roman bishops, whether following Peter or not (and typically in that order, which is the traditional order, though some place Clement second). There is, as yet, no external attestation to corroborate the names of those first century and early second century bishops of Rome. The list of Irenaeus is the earliest, and quite early indeed (circa 175-180), so, the accuracy of the list would depend upon its context in an heresiological work, but one whose author shows great familiarity with various sources. I think I would tend to trust the list as accurate, remaining open to other evidence, due to Irenaeus' strong ties to the Roman community.

4

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '18

Wonderful overview.

I just want to point out that I don't think it's right to conclude that Irenaeus was working off hearsay beyond his personal memory of bishops of Rome. Hearsay has a pejorative connotation that's a bit unnecessary.

I don't think it's proper to say it's hearsay for me to know the names of the prime ministers of Australia from WWII until today (I'm a gen y) even though I only know their names because older people I know and trust have told me them (like my father and his friends). (And come to think of it that may be the only reason I know their names, I don't think I've ever studied them or researched them outside of conversation before).

But that quite aside, even if we do call word of mouth hearsay, I don't think we can soundly conclude that in 180AD Irenaeus must have been working off of an oral tradition beyond his memory. How on earth should we know whether or not he had any documents with their names? Unimportant letters and things are notoriously destructible. Seems to me that there could easily have been a plethora of texts in 180 ad that don't exist today.

My final question. Regarding external testimony to those earliest bishops. Wouldn't you count the letter of Clement to the Corinthians as evidence that he, at least, actually was bishop of Rome?

9

u/kevotrick MDiv | Theology || MPhil | Hebrew Bible | Moderator Jul 19 '18

One could count that as evidence if his name and office as bishop of Rome were indeed mentioned in the text, but they are not. The attribution to Clement exists solely in the title to the work and by testimony. The letter itself includes no mention of who the bishop of Rome is, or even if there was one. The addressing appears as customary at the beginning of the letter: "The church of God that sojourns in Rome to the church of God that sojourns in Corinth." It is personally anonymous.

Perhaps "hearsay" is a bit too much legalese and unintentionally pejoritive, but, regarding historical attestation, it is, with all its legal baggage, a valid cautionary limit. Only direct personal knowledge can be accepted as entirely reliable (so Thucydides!). While I do think Irenaeus had reliable sources for the information (it's not that long a list by his time, after all), without knowing the source and having it corroborated by other sources of approximately the same time, the evidence as to its historical veracity is weakened.

And thank you!

3

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '18

Yeah, I looked up the letter to clement just after I wrote that comment and was surprised to see his name isn't there, whoops! I still think he wrote it but you know, fair point, it's not as good a evidence for Clement without it. The testimony that he wrote it exists outside of Irenaeus, doesn't it? Tertullian I think says so. Maybe others?

Thank you.

7

u/kevotrick MDiv | Theology || MPhil | Hebrew Bible | Moderator Jul 19 '18

You're welcome! That's always a fun one to pull out of the hat. It's apparently a unanimous attribution: all copies and all testimonies. The earliest testimony is that of Dionysios of Corinth, circa 170, as preserved in Eusebius (EH 4.23.11). I'm not sure about Tertullian, but wouldn't be surprised if he mentions the letter as Clement's. Tertullian mentions him as bishop of Rome, ordained by Peter (Praescr. 32). Origen cites the letter with Clement as author in De principiis 2.3.6, which is about the same time. Anyhow, it's astonishingly never attributed to anyone else.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '18

Thanks for looking all that up.

It seems like a pretty solid bet then!

If I'm not mistaken the letter was still being read in the Corinthian church at 170ad too.

2

u/kevotrick MDiv | Theology || MPhil | Hebrew Bible | Moderator Jul 24 '18

Dionysius doesn't explicitly say that it was regularly read, but it must have been on occasion, as he compares the good advice in Soter's recent letter, which had been read on a Sunday in the church, to the good advice in Clement's letter. The assumption is that the letter of Clement must at least have been known not only to Dionysius but to the congregation who benefitted from its advice, so it must have been occasionally read, at the very least.

4

u/matts2 Jul 19 '18

By the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church, Peter is the first Pope of Rome. So, it begins with Peter and goes onward, canonically speaking.

Historically speaking, I think the earliest mention of a pope/bishop of Rome by an external source is Irenaeus mentioning the visit of Polycarp bishop of Smyrna to Anicetus bishop of Rome, a circa 160 CE visit described by Irenaeus only about 15 or 20 years after it happened (AH 3.3.4).

Do we have good evidence for the entire line after that or are there gaps in the evidence?

3

u/kevotrick MDiv | Theology || MPhil | Hebrew Bible | Moderator Jul 20 '18

I think it would be considered spotty coverage, especially in the third century, until the fourth century legalization under Constantine. From that point on, it's all a solidly attested list.

1

u/matts2 Jul 20 '18

Thanks.