Historical reference for Apostle John as a bishop

[MarcoPolo]

An older thread stated he may have been bishop of Ephesus. I know he went there (I forget which early Church doc states that), but is there a record stating he was bishop?

 

[utunumsint]

An older thread stated he may have been bishop of Ephesus. I know he went there (I forget which early Church doc states that), but is there a record stating he was bishop?

Clement of Alexandria has him appointing bishops all over the region.

newadvent.org/fathers/0207.htm

XLII. And that you may be still more confident, that repenting thus truly there remains for you a sure hope of salvation, listen to a tale? which is not a tale but a narrative,[3] handed down and committed to the custody of memory, about the Apostle John. For when, on the tyrant’s death, he returned to Ephesus from the isle of Patmos, he went away, being invited, to the contiguous territories of the nations, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, there to ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit.

I’ll keep on looking for somethign more specific.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Euseubius also quotes Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus in book 3 chapter 31 of his church history.

For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the last day, at the coming of the Lord, when he shall come with glory from heaven and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, (6) who sleeps in Hierapolis, (7) and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; (8) and **moreover John, who was both a witness (9) and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and being a priest wore the sacerdotal plate. (10) He also sleeps at Ephesus." **

Here he only refers to him as a priest. Earlier on, he also mentions that Timothy was the first bishop of Ephesus. So it seems as though there was no tradition that mentions John as bishop, although Clement of Alexandria does have him appointing bishops.

Of course, this John may also be John the Presbyter mentioned by Eusebius in Book 3 chapter 39… But it certainly doesn’t seem that way given the context of the quote from Polycrates.

Hope this helps,
God bless,
Ut

 

[MarcoPolo]

It does help, thanks!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

It does help, thanks!

Perhaps the reason you’ve not found anything is that Apostles are much much much much much much much much [you get the idea…] much much more than bishops. A priest is merely a bishop in miniature - or a bishop is a priest on a larger scale: they are comparable, because there is a proportion between them. An Apostle is something else entirely - to talk of an Apostle as a mere bishop is a bit like saying that Father Wojtyla died at Rome in April 2005. True as far as it goes - but it goes hardly anywhere: it is a giant of an understatement. The reason that an Apostle is so much more than a bishop is theological: Apostles are foundational to the Church in a way no Pope or other bishop could be: they are unique. There have been hordes of bishops, dozens upon dozens of Popes - but only 12 or 13 Apostles. The Church is built on them in a way that it is not built on their successors; who inherit much of their position - but not their Apostleship. That is the difference - and it is crucial to understanding Apostolic succession, the Sacrament of Order, & very much more.

 

[utunumsint]

Perhaps the reason you’ve not found anything is that Apostles are much much much much much much much much [you get the idea…] much much more than bishops. A priest is merely a bishop in miniature - or a bishop is a priest on a larger scale: they are comparable, because there is a proportion between them. An Apostle is something else entirely - to talk of an Apostle as a mere bishop is a bit like saying that Father Wojtyla died at Rome in April 2005. True as far as it goes - but it goes hardly anywhere: it is a giant of an understatement. The reason that an Apostle is so much more than a bishop is theological: Apostles are foundational to the Church in a way no Pope or other bishop could be: they are unique. There have been hordes of bishops, dozens upon dozens of Popes - but only 12 or 13 Apostles. The Church is built on them in a way that it is not built on their successors; who inherit much of their position - but not their Apostleship. That is the difference - and it is crucial to understanding Apostolic succession, the Sacrament of Order, & very much more.

Agreed. But Wojtyla was still a priest, was he not?

There is also historical evidence that indicates James was bishop of Jerusalem, Peter was bishop in Antioch and Rome, to name only a few. So even though they were apostles, they did sometimes function as bishops. Wouldn’t you agree?

Of course, I’m sidesteping to fact that the office of bishop was not fully developed at the time of the apostles. I certainly believe that the apostles, and those with authority from the apostles, were prototypical bishops. For example, Titus 1:5.

God bless,
Ut

 

[MarcoPolo]

There is also historical evidence that indicates James was bishop of Jerusalem, Peter was bishop in Antioch and Rome, to name only a few. So even though they were apostles, they did sometimes function as bishops. Wouldn’t you agree?

I thought the same when reading Gottle’s post. Peter’s or James’ bishopricks did not take anything away from them being Apostles. That’s why I was wondering if John was a bishop like they were, but it remains unclear.

 

[Kasey1]

Clement of Alexandria has him appointing bishops all over the region.

newadvent.org/fathers/0207.htm

I’ll keep on looking for somethign more specific.

God bless,
Ut

thans a lot mate!!!