Bishops, presbyters, deacons

[ferdie]

I asked this in the Ask an apologist forum and I did not get an answer.

1. By estimate, how many bishops, presbyters, deacons were there at the close of the 1st century?
2. Aside from Timothy and Titus, who were the first bishops appointed by the others Apostles?
   I looked in the local library and I can’t get any info about this. Can someone help me?

 

[DavidFilmer]

1. By estimate, how many bishops, presbyters, deacons were there at the close of the 1st century?

There’s no basis upon which to make such an estimate. Christianity was forbidden and persecuted; neither the Church nor the state kept records. We know the approximate areas under Christian influence at this time, but we do not know the density of the population which was Christian, nor do we know the norms for how many ministers cared for how many people (it seems that bishops had very large dioceses, so there were probably not many bishops.

1. Aside from Timothy and Titus, who were the first bishops appointed by the others Apostles?

Peter was Bishop of Antioch briefly before going to Rome. Ignatius succeeded him as Bishop of Antioch, and was appointed by Peter.

Clement, Linus and Cletus were also ordained by Peter. I don’t know of any others off the top of my head.

 

[ferdie]

There’s no basis upon which to make such an estimate. Christianity was forbidden and persecuted; neither the Church nor the state kept records. We know the approximate areas under Christian influence at this time, but we do not know the density of the population which was Christian, nor do we know the norms for how many ministers cared for how many people (it seems that bishops had very large dioceses, so there were probably not many bishops.

Peter was Bishop of Antioch briefly before going to Rome. Ignatius succeeded him as Bishop of Antioch, and was appointed by Peter.

Clement, Linus and Cletus were also ordained by Peter. I don’t know of any others off the top of my head.

Thanks, this is also what I get from reading in the library. But surely by the end of the 1st century there must had been at least 20’s -40’s bishops in the Roman Empire.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Thanks, this is also what I get from reading in the library. But surely by the end of the 1st century there must had been at least 20’s -40’s bishops in the Roman Empire.

There were surely at least twenty - we can account for about that many in the writings of the Early Church Fathers (though not always knowing who their consecrators were, and sometimes knowing nothing more about them than their names). And it is highly unlikely that the memory of more than a small fraction of these ancient bishops has passed into modern times, so I suspect the number was somewhat higher (my wild *ss guess would be about sixty bishops at the end of the First Century).

Out of curiosity, why do you ask? I don’t see any apologetic angle here - whether we could prove there were twenty or two thousand really has no bearing on the Faith.

 

[ferdie]

There were surely at least twenty - we can account for about that many in the writings of the Early Church Fathers (though not always knowing who their consecrators were, and sometimes knowing nothing more about them than their names). And it is highly unlikely that the memory of more than a small fraction of these ancient bishops has passed into modern times, so I suspect the number was somewhat higher (my wild *ss guess would be about sixty bishops at the end of the First Century).

Out of curiosity, why do you ask? I don’t see any apologetic angle here - whether we could prove there were twenty or two thousand really has no bearing on the Faith.

Well there is in my point of view in battling the belief of Iglesia ni Cristo, that our Lord Jesus was was only deified in the beginning of the 2nd by century by St. Ignatius and not during the Apostolic time.
The Apostles were command to teach all in all times with the authority given by the Father to our Lord Jesus Christ. Then the Apostles gave the same authority to the bishops by laying of hands. The bishops passed down the same Tradition as received from the Apostles (as can be seen in 2 Timothy and 1st John, and maybe more). I guessed the INC is arguing that all apostatized (as supposedly evident in the Catholic Church)or maybe some apostatized and those that remained loyal in the teaching of Jesus disappeared in history.
Well how can that be? There were no firm, concrete and central form of hierarchy like we have today. If St. Ignatius is the one who started the deification of our Lord Jesus Christ, then it is blasphemy, but how come no other bishops appointed by the other Apostles who by the end of the 1st century numbered maybe in the low 20s to high 60’s refuted the claim of St. Ignatius? I am just trying to proved that the divinity of our Lord Is already in the New Testament, during the Apostolic time, during the mid and end of the 1st century. That St. John passed downed the same teaching about the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ as the other Apostles did to their students.

 

[Nita]

You can get the successors of some of the apostles from Eusebius’ “Church History”.
Here’s a link. (Start with Book III. Not sure just how many Books continue to record successors, but for sure the first 6 Books do. You can sort of scan the Chapter titles for the ones that indicate they record successors. )

newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm

 

[ferdie]

You can get the successors of some of the apostles from Eusebius’ “Church History”.
Here’s a link. (Start with Book III. Not sure just how many Books continue to record successors, but for sure the first 6 Books do. You can sort of scan the Chapter titles for the ones that indicate they record successors. )

newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm

Thanks.

 

[ferdie]

You can get the successors of some of the apostles from Eusebius’ “Church History”.
Here’s a link. (Start with Book III. Not sure just how many Books continue to record successors, but for sure the first 6 Books do. You can sort of scan the Chapter titles for the ones that indicate they record successors. )

newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm

Whatever happened to the list Eusebius used? Do we have a copy that survived? There are no mention of bishops appointed by the other apostles.

 

[Nita]

Whatever happened to the list Eusebius used? Do we have a copy that survived?

I’m not sure what list you mean. If you mean the list of the successors of Peter, Bishop of Rome (which Eusebius gives in Book 5, Chapter 6) – he was quoting the list made by St. Irenaeus sometime between 175-190 AD. It appears in his “Adv. Heresies” in Book 3, Chapter 3 - number “3.”. Here’s a link to Book 3, Chapter 3. Just scroll down to “3.” newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

 

[Nita]

… There are no mention of bishops appointed by the other apostles.

I’m not going to do all the searching for you, but here are a few I came across.

Book III
Chapter 11. Symeon rules the Church of Jerusalem after James.

1. After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James.
2. *They all with one consent pronounced *Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.

Book IV
Chapter 5. The Bishops of Jerusalem from the Age of our Saviour to the Period under Consideration

1. The chronology of the bishops of Jerusalem I have nowhere found preserved in writing; for tradition says that they were all short lived.
2. But I have learned this much from writings, that until the siege of the Jews, which took place under Adrian, there were fifteen bishops in succession there, all of whom are said to have been of Hebrew descent, and to have received the knowledge of Christ in purity, so that they were approved by those who were able to judge of such matters, and were deemed worthy of the episcopate. For their whole church consisted then of believing Hebrews who continued from the days of the apostles until the siege which took place at this time; in which siege the Jews, having again rebelled against the Romans, were conquered after severe battles.
3. But since the bishops of the circumcision ceased at this time, it is proper to give here a list of their names from the beginning. The first, then, was James, the so-called brother of the Lord; the second, Symeon; the third, Justus; the fourth, Zacchæus; the fifth, Tobias; the sixth, Benjamin; the seventh, John; the eighth, Matthias; the ninth, Philip; the tenth, Seneca; the eleventh, Justus; the twelfth, Levi; the thirteenth, Ephres; the fourteenth, Joseph; and finally, the fifteenth, Judas.
4. These are the bishops of Jerusalem that lived between the age of the apostles and the time referred to, all of them belonging to the circumcision.
5. In the twelfth year of the reign of Adrian, Xystus, having completed the tenth year of his episcopate, was succeeded by Telesphorus, the seventh in succession from the apostles. In the meantime, after the lapse of a year and some months, Eumenes, the sixth in order, succeeded to the leadership of the Alexandrian church, his predecessor having held office eleven years.

Chapter 14. The Circumstances related of Polycarp, a Friend of the Apostles.

1. At this time, while Anicetus was at the head of the church of Rome, Irenæus relates that Polycarp, who was still alive, was at Rome, and that he had a conference with Anicetus on a question concerning the day of the paschal feast.
2. And the same writer gives another account of Polycarp which I feel constrained to add to that which has been already related in regard to him. The account is taken from the third book of Irenæus’ work Against Heresies, and is as follows:
3. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by the apostles, and acquainted with many that had seen Christ, but was also *appointed by apostles in Asia *bishop of the church of Smyrna.

I’m not sure if what you’re looking for is lists of people personally appointed by apostles to be bishops (I don’t think there is a list of all the bishops appointed by the apostles, either individually, or as a group) – or lists of the successors of the original 12 apostles.
As far as I know, the only continuous list of successors back to an individual apostle, is the list of those succeeding Peter. mb-soft.com/believe/txc/popes.htm
If I’m wrong, and there are lists that trace back to one or more of the other apostles, I would appreciate anyone sharing the info with a link to the list/s.

 

[ferdie]

I’m not going to do all the searching for you, but here are a few I came across.
Thanks I’ve already read Book ii, iii and iv.

I’m not sure if what you’re looking for is lists of people personally appointed by apostles to be bishops (I don’t think there is a list of all the bishops appointed by the apostles, either individually, or as a group) – or lists of the successors of the original 12 apostles.
As far as I know, the only continuous list of successors back to an individual apostle, is the list of those succeeding Peter. mb-soft.com/believe/txc/popes.htm
If I’m wrong, and there are lists that trace back to one or more of the other apostles, I would appreciate anyone sharing the info with a link to the list/s.

That is exactly what I am looking for. I have the list of the bishops of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem (Eusb. iv ch 5).