Nor is there the slightest ground for the assertion that the language of Irenaeus, III:3:3, implies that Peter and Paul enjoyed a divided episcopate at Rome — an arrangement utterly unknown to the Church at any period. He does, it is true, speak of the two Apostles as together handing on the episcopate to Linus. But this expression is explained by the purpose of his argument, which is to vindicate against the Gnostics the validity of the doctrine taught in the Roman Church. Hence he is naturally led to lay stress on the fact that that Church inherited the teaching of both the great Apostles....
Irenaeus, however, supplies us with a cogent argument. In two passages (Against Heresies I.27.1 and III.4.3) he speaks of Hyginus as ninth Bishop of Rome [link], thus employing an enumeration which involves the inclusion of Peter as first bishop (Lightfoot was undoubtedly wrong in supposing that there was any doubt as to the correctness of the reading in the first of these passages. In III:4:3, the Latin version, it is true, gives "octavus"; but the Greek text as cited by Eusebius reads enatos.
Those of you who remember what I said about Hegesippus may be noticing some problems with Dave's argument (taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia). Not only is a joint episcopate of Peter and Paul found in Epiphanius and, apparently, in Hegesippus (who wrote around the same time as Irenaeus), but we also have evidence that Irenaeus used Hegesippus as a source regarding the history of the Roman episcopate. Dave doesn't address the frequent references to Peter and Paul together in Against Heresies 3:3 and Irenaeus' references to how they (plural) appointed Linus and how later Roman bishops followed them (plural). Instead of explaining Irenaeus' language in the passage in which he discusses the Roman bishops in the most depth, Dave points us to other passages.
But even the Catholic Encyclopedia's appeal to those other passages is problematic. For one thing, neither of those other two passages tells us whether Peter or a joint episcopate of Peter and Paul is in view. And the second passage cited (Against Heresies, 3:3:4) refers to Anicetus as the tenth Roman bishop. Yet, the previous section tells us that Pius served between Hyginus and Anicetus. How can Hyginus be the ninth Roman bishop and Anicetus the tenth if Pius served as bishop of Rome between those two? It seems that either Irenaeus miscounted or he changed his method of counting from one context to the other without saying so and without explaining why.
Even if Irenaeus considered Peter alone a Roman bishop, while Paul wasn't, the fact would remain that he repeatedly places Peter and Paul together, without saying anything of a Petrine primacy, in the passage in which he's discussing Roman primacy. Dave seems to be assuming that Peter's serving as Roman bishop would suggest his primacy over Paul, but such a conclusion is both illogical and never suggested by Irenaeus. Even if we assume Dave's reading of the other two passages he cites from Irenaeus, it doesn't follow that Irenaeus viewed Peter or the bishops of Rome as Popes.
Dave goes on to cite the following passage from the Catholic Encyclopedia as an explanation for the "relative absence of earlier papal references":
In the second century we cannot look for much evidence. With the exception of Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement of Alexandria, all the writers whose works we possess are apologists against either Jews or pagans. In works of such a character there was no reason to refer to such a matter as Peter's Roman episcopate.
Again, a Petrine Roman episcopate doesn't imply a papacy. Regarding whether a papacy should have been mentioned in the early generations of church history, if people believed in the concept at the time, see my earlier response to Dave here.
No comments:
Post a Comment