Who was the first bishop in the New Testament?

Answer 1

The first Bishops were the Apostles, ordained by Our Blessed Lord at the Last Supper in the upper room.

from History of the Catholic Church from the Apostolic Age to the Third Millennium, by James Hitchcock, Imprimatur: The Most Reverend Edward Rice, © 2012 by Ignatius Press, San Francisco

In his First Letter to Timothy, Paul referred to the office of bishop (episcopos: "overseer") and laid down the requirements for that office, showing that, as new communities of believers were formed, they were under the direct supervision of an Apostle or of someone who succeeded to apostolic authority. Perhaps as a counterweight to the authority of the spiritual charisms, in describing the bishop, Paul emphasized the virtues and practical prudence of the head of a household. St. Clement, bishop of Rome (ca. 91-100), said that the Apostles appointed bishops in the communities which they oversaw. The argument has sometimes been made that the office of bishop was an innovation of the post-apostolic period. However, Ignatius wrote within two generations of the Apostles, and the argument from silence-that, if something is not mentioned in a particular text, it did not occur-is the weakest of historical arguments. As John's Gospel says, much happened in the life of Jesus (and, by extension, in the life of the Church) that was not recorded in Scripture (see John 21:25).

Answer 2

The Catholic Church believes that the first bishops were the 12 apostles themselves, ordained by Christ at the Last Supper when He commissioned them. Certainly it was well established when St. Paul wrote his First Letter to Timothy, when he outlines the requirements for that office. St. Clement, bishop of Rome (ca. 91-100), said that the Apostles appointed bishops in the communities which they oversaw.

Answer

It appears that bishops began to be appointed some time in the first half of the second century, as the Christian Church grew large enough to require the appointment of 'supervisors', or bishops, in major Christian centres. However we can not say whether the first bishops were appointed in the Latin-speaking west (probably Rome) or in the Greek-speaking east.

Francis Aloysius Sullivan (From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church) says that the consensus of scholars is that the available evidence indicates that the church of Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century. Sullivan also says that 1 Clement, written in the 90s, gives us good reason to conclude that there was no bishop in charge of the church of Corinth at that time. The terms used in that letter to describe the leaders of the Corinthian church hegoumenoi, episcopoi, presbuteroi, archontes are all in the plural. The term most frequently used is presbuteroi; Clement calls on those guilty of the schism to "submit to the presbyters," and to allow the "flock of Christ to be at peace with its duly appointed presbyters." It seems inconceivable that, if there had been a bishop in charge of the church of Corinth at that time, Clement would not have said something about the obligation of the guilty parties to submit to their bishop or about his role in restoring good order to his church. Sullivan also

Another reason for the common opinion that a college of presbyters led the church of Rome well into the second century is based on the Shepherd of Hermas, a work generally agreed to have been written in Rome during the first half of that century. As in 1 Clement, the term used here to refer to people in leadership roles are all in the plural: "leaders" (prohegoumenois); "presbyters who preside over the church (tôn presbuterôn tôn proistamenôn tês ekklesias); "leaders of the church and occupants of the seat of honor" (prohegoumenois tês ekklesias kai tois prôtokathreditais). The Shepherd makes no mention of any one person having a role of leadership in the church.

The first bishop was not necessarily appointed in either Rome or Corinth, but such an appointment was unlikely before the beginning of the second century. Who the first bishop was must remain a mystery, in spite of the later tradition that Saint Peter was bishop or Rome even before the middle of the first century.

Answer 3

The Apostles were the first bishops of the Church.

Answer

In spite of tradition to the contrary, we do not know who was the first bishop in the Christian Church. Acts of the Apostles tells us that the apostles were the early leaders of the Church, but the role of bishop did not exist until the second century, when the Church had grown large enough to require 'supervisors', or bishops to be appointed in each major Christian centre. We do know that Anicetus was the bishop of Rome around 155 CE, but it is uncertain whether he was the very first Roman bishop, nor whether the first bishop was even appointed in Rome rather than in a centre such as Jerusalem, Antioch or Alexandria.

The epistle known as 1 Clement provides us some evidence for the later development of the role of bishop, as does the Shepherd of Hermas. Francis Aloysius Sullivan (From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church) says that when 1 Clementwas written, in the 90s of the first century, the structure of leadership at Rome did not differ much from that at Corinth. That letter gives us good reason to conclude that there was no bishop in charge of the church of Corinth at the time. The terms used in the letter to describe the leaders of the Corinthian church hegoumenoi, episcopoi, presbuteroi, archontes are all in the plural. The term most frequently used is presbuteroi; Clement calls on those guilty of the schism to "submit to the presbyters," and to allow the "flock of Christ to be at peace with its duly appointed presbyters." It seems inconceivable that, if there had been a bishop in charge of the church of Corinth at that time, Clement would not have said something about the obligation of the guilty parties to submit to their bishop or about his role in restoring good order to his church. On this evidence, neither Corinth nor Rome appears to have yet had a bishop appointed by the end of the first century, and it is equally unlikely that that any other Christian centre had.

The Shepherd of Hermas is a work generally agreed to have been written in Rome during the first half of the second century. As in 1 Clement, the term used here to refer to people in leadership roles are all in the plural: "leaders" (prohegoumenois); "presbyters who preside over the church (tôn presbuterôn tôn proistamenôn tês ekklesias); "leaders of the church and occupants of the seat of honor" (prohegoumenois tês ekklesias kai tois prôtokathreditais). The Shepherd makes no mention of any one person having a role of leadership in the church.

Answer 4

Catholic tradition says that Saint Peter travelled to Rome to head the Christian community there, becoming the first Christian bishop. Against this, there is no evidence that Peter ever visited Rome. Clement of Rome, writing around 95 CE (1 Clement), spoke in general terms about the life and death of Peter but appears to have been unaware that he had even visited Rome. It seems that the tradition of Peter becoming the bishop of Rome, and of him being executed there, began with Pope Anicetus (156-166), who claimed that Peter had travelled to Rome to lead the Christians there and had been beheaded in Rome, meaning that he (Anicetus) spoke with the authority of the apostle Peter.

Another view is that the role of bishop within the Church was a second century institution that became necessary as the Church grew and required overseers. Some say that Clement of Rome was bishop of Rome, but this has not been confirmed.

Answer 5

When Paul visited Jerusalem, he met James, Peter and John, who seemed to be pillars of the church there. At his meeting, James seems to have been the dominant person among the three, speaking for them as a whole. Although the position of 'bishop' would not be instituted until the second century, James was apparently the first Christian leader mentioned in the New Testament.

A Christian tradition is that Peter later went to Rome to lead the church in that city. This is not mentioned in the New Testament, and there are grounds for believing that Peter never actually went to Rome. Once again, the position of 'bishop' did not yet exist.

Answer 6

A:Scholars say that the early Church was served by deacons and wandering preachers like Paul. Each Christian community was too small to need of afford the services of an overseer. It was only in the second century that communities of Christians and groups of Christian communities reached the size that the role of a bishop became necessary. Ignatius of Antioch indicates that he recognised the role of bishop. Some say that Clement of Rome could have been one of the very first bishops, as bishop of Rome from 92 CE. However, although his influence is undoubted, there is no proof that Clement ever held such a position in the Church.

A later tradition is that Saint Peter travelled to Rome to be its very first bishop. This appears to have resulted from a claim made by Pope Anicetus (155-166) who, wishing to demonstrate that he spoke with the authority of Peter, reported that Peter had been beheaded in Rome. Origen changed this in the third century, to say that Peter was sentenced to crucifixion but, feeling unworthy of being crucified like Jesus, asked to be crucified upside down. Against this, Clement of Rome, writing around 95 CE (1 Clement), spoke in general terms about the life and death of Peter but appears to have been unaware that he had even visited Rome and was certainly unaware that he had been executed in any way at all.

The Roman Catholic Church lists Peter as the first pope and bishop of Rome, followed by Linus, Anacletus and then Clement.

Answer 7

There is no "Roman Catholic". It's just Catholic, not Roman Catholic. Roman is an epithet first commonly used in England after the protestant revolt to describe the Catholic Church. It is never used by the official Catholic Church.

.

The first Bishop of the Catholic Church was St. Peter, read Matthew 16:17-19.

Matthew 16:17-19 (RSV-CE)

And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Answer 8

Francis Aloysius Sullivan (From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church) says that 1 Clement, written in the 90s, gives us good reason to conclude that there was no bishop in charge of the church of Corinth at that time. The terms used in that letter to describe the leaders of the Corinthian church hegoumenoi, episcopoi, presbuteroi, archontes are all in the plural. The term most frequently used is presbuteroi; Clement calls on those guilty of the schism to "submit to the presbyters," and to allow the "flock of Christ to be at peace with its duly appointed presbyters." It seems inconceivable that, if there had been a bishop in charge of the church of Corinth at that time, Clement would not have said something about the obligation of the guilty parties to submit to their bishop or about his role in restoring good order to his church. Sullivan also says that the consensus of scholars is that the available evidence indicates that the church of Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century.

Another reason for the common opinion that a college of presbyters led the church of Rome well into the second century is based on the Shepherd of Hermas, a work generally agreed to have been written in Rome during the first half of that century. As in 1 Clement, the term used here to refer to people in leadership roles are all in the plural: "leaders" (prohegoumenois); "presbyters who preside over the church (tôn presbuterôn tôn proistamenôn tês ekklesias); "leaders of the church and occupants of the seat of honor" (prohegoumenois tês ekklesias kai tois prôtokathreditais). The Shepherd makes no mention of any one person having a role of leadership in the church.

By the second century, the Church had grown large enough to require 'supervisors', or bishops, to be appointed in each major Christian centre. We do not really know who was the first such supervisor, nor where he was appointed. First Timothy and Second Timothy, according to almost all New Testament scholars written in Paul's name in the early decades of the second century, reflect this reality.

Answer 9

It appears that bishops began to be appointed some time in the first half of the second century, as the Christian Church grew large enough to require the appointment of 'supervisors', or bishops, in major Christian centres. However we can not say whether the first bishops were appointed in the Latin-speaking west (probably Rome) or in the Greek-speaking east.

Francis Aloysius Sullivan (From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church) says that the consensus of scholars is that the available evidence indicates that the church of Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century. Sullivan also says that 1 Clement, written in the 90s, gives us good reason to conclude that there was no bishop in charge of the church of Corinth at that time. The terms used in that letter to describe the leaders of the Corinthian church hegoumenoi, episcopoi, presbuteroi, archontes are all in the plural. The term most frequently used is presbuteroi; Clement calls on those guilty of the schism to "submit to the presbyters," and to allow the "flock of Christ to be at peace with its duly appointed presbyters." It seems inconceivable that, if there had been a bishop in charge of the church of Corinth at that time, Clement would not have said something about the obligation of the guilty parties to submit to their bishop or about his role in restoring good order to his church. Sullivan also says that the consensus of scholars is that the available evidence indicates that the church of Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century.


Another reason for the common opinion that a college of presbyters led the church of Rome well into the second century is based on the Shepherd of Hermas, a work generally agreed to have been written in Rome during the first half of that century. As in 1 Clement, the term used here to refer to people in leadership roles are all in the plural: "leaders" (prohegoumenois); "presbyters who preside over the church (tôn presbuterôn tôn proistamenôn tês ekklesias); "leaders of the church and occupants of the seat of honor" (prohegoumenois tês ekklesias kai tois prôtokathreditais). The Shepherd makes no mention of any one person having a role of leadership in the church.

The first bishop was not necessarily appointed in either Rome or Corinth, but such an appointment was unlikely before the beginning of the second century. Who the first bishop was must remain a mystery, in spite of the later tradition that Saint Peter was bishop or Rome even before the middle of the first century.