Well, we're not sure why Mr. Tobin didn't think he had the freedom to think for himself while he was a Christian, but based on his Skeptics Guide to Christianity, it seems he didn't much access that freedom once he became an atheist.  Our staff apologist, Mark Bonocore, takes Mr. Tobin to the cleaners for his shoddy and comical claims regarding Apostolic Succession in the early Church.

Mr. Tobin's comments are in red text; Mark's responses are in standard text format (black).

[Mr. Tobin begins:]

Have we?

I'm sorry, but that is complete nonsense.  What this person is referring to are the two EXAMPLES cited by Irenaeus of Lyon in his Against the Heresies.  However, the two EXAMPLES of the Apostolic succession of the city-church of Rome and the city-church of Smyrna are given as part of an overall challenge issued to the heretics to check the succession in all the Apostolic city-churches everywhere.  Irenaeus writes…

Irenaeus then goes on to recount the Apostolic succession of the city-church of Rome, and he then supplements this by referring to the Apostolic succession of the city-church of Smyrna in Asia Minor.  So, what we see here is three-fold:

Irenaeus is clearly saying that Apostolic succession is easy to trace in ALL the Apostolic city-churches, and he challenges the heretics to do this for themselves – a challenge he would never make if it could not be done, since that would undermine his argument (i.e., that the doctrines of the heretics are alien to the city-churches, which have preserved authentic doctrine from the time of the Apostles on).

Irenaeus only presents the succession of Rome and Smyrna as two examples of an overall phenomenon; and he does this for the sake of brevity, because, as he says, "…it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all [these] men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops."

The reason that Irenaeus chooses these two particular churches (i.e., Rome and Smyrna) is because those are the two Apostolic churches that Irenaeus himself had personally belonged to – Smyrna, which was Irenaeus' own home town, drew its succession from the Apostle John; and Rome, which was the Western metropolitanate that Irenaeus' new church of Lyon (in Gaul) answered to, drew its Apostolic succession from both Peter and Paul.  Thus, citing the venerable successions of Rome and Smyrna were enough to prove Irenaeus' point, and were examples he could testify to from his own first-hand experience.

What's more, by limiting himself to the statement of Irenaeus, our skeptical author simply disregards the rest of patristic literature on this subject; for, a generation before Irenaeus, we have the testimony of the Jewish-Christian, St. Hegessipus, who traveled, not merely to Smyrna and Rome, but to most of the Apostle-founded city-churches between his native Palestine and Italy; and Hegessipus says…

So, here, we have an independent witness testifying to the fact that all the city-churches, now including Corinthians as the example, had a valid and continuing succession from the Apostles.

And we could present other practical examples like this to illustrate that the ability to verify Apostolic succession was in no way limited to Rome and Symyrna (and Corinth) alone.  For example, Ignatius of Antioch's consistent instruction that Christians of all city-churches should obey and cling to their bishop is based upon the premise of valid Apostolic succession.  Otherwise, Ignatius' exhortation would be totally meaningless.  For, he writes…

These bishops got there via a specific process; and the universal witness of the ancient Church, as well as that of the Scriptures themselves (Acts 14:23, 2 Timothy 2:2) say that their appointment came from the Apostles themselves.

But, our skeptical friend goes on…

…And Papias, and Anicetus, and Victor.  All give independent witness of this.  Polycarp wielded significant authority in the Church of his day.  Both Pope Anicetus and Pope Victor recognized this when it came to the Easter date issue – granting the Asian argument because the alternate Asian Easter date came directly from St. John.  If Polycarp had no connection to John, the Roman prelates would simply have ignored him as a unsubstantiated subversive.  But, that's not what they do.  Rather, as Irenaeus recounts the story for Victor (and there were many others still alive in Rome at the time who could verify these facts):

And, of course, because of this very letter, Pope Victor withdrew his threat to excommunicate all the Asian city-churches who celebrated the alternate date for Easter; and all based on the authority of Polycarp (following the Tradition he personally received from St. John) and on Victor's own predecessor's (Pope Anicetus') acceptance of Polycarp's connection to John.  Indeed, why would the Bishop of Rome concede the celebration of the Eucharist (on the feast of Easter yet!) to the priestly ministry of an otherwise obscure, provincial bishop (i.e., Polycarp) unless there was something very special about this bishop – in other words, unless he was a first-hand witness to St. John?  And, again, this was not merely some scenario born of Irenaeus' imagination, but the recounting of a relatively recent event that could be verified by numerous living witnesses, and was perhaps even seen by Victor himself.

However, our skeptic goes on…

"Earlier tradition"?  There is no "earlier tradition".  Polycarp was one generation away from the Apostle; and Irenaeus, Anicetus, and Victor were of the following generation.

"Mistake"?  I beg to differ.  Indeed, if our skeptical author had bothered to present the ENTIRE quote from Papias which he cites as "proof" of this supposed "mistake", we could all see how baseless his claim is.  For, in toto, Papias writes…

Please notice how Papias calls the Apostles and other first-hand witnesses of Jesus "the elders" (i.e., "…any one who had attended on THE ELDERS came, I asked minutely after their sayings…"); and he likewise says that he himself received teachings from these same "elders" (i.e., "…whatsoever instructions I RECEIVED with care at any time FROM THE ELDERS…").  Thus, when he speaks of asking others who "attended the elders" for their sayings, this does not mean that Papias personally had no contact or instruction from the elders, but merely that he asked everyone else for their opinion of what the elders said so as to supplement his own first-hand information and acquire a more comprehensive understanding of the Apostolic Faith.

Also, Papias does give first-hand information which he himself received from St. John:

And our skeptic spouts yet more nonsense, saying…

Now, this is simply ridiculous.  In short, our skeptical author's argument for this supposed "alternate tradition for the succession of Smyrna" is based entirely on two, very late works of literature (The Apostolic Constitutions and The Life of Polycarp), which our author ADMITS are historically "unreliable" – his exact word.  However, even if these works are based on a valid succession list for the city-church of Smyrna (which is debatable), there is nothing in the list itself which contradicts accepted Christian history or the witness of Irenaeus, Tertullian, and other early fathers.  Indeed, this "alternate succession list", as presented in the Apostolic Constitutions, runs as follows:

Now, notice the historical (or supposed-historical) timeframe here: The Apostolic Constitutions, speaking in the person of John the Apostle (John bar-Zebedee) is referring to the first bishops of the two largest sees in the Roman province of Asia – Ephesus (the capital of Asia) and Smyrna, the next most important city in the province; and it's addressing a time in which "Timotheus" (that is, TIMOTHY of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Epistles) is appointed, not by St. John (who HAD NOT YET SETTLED IN EPHESUS – the place where he ended his days), but ST. PAUL, who presided in Ephesus about THIRTY YEARS BEFORE JOHN DID.  Indeed, St. John (and I do mean the Apostle John bar-Zebedee …we can discuss the problem of a supposed "other John" some other time) did not reign as Bishop of Ephesus until after his imprisonment on the island of Patmos, some twenty to thirty years later.  So, what we see here is a situation in which St. Paul, an Apostle, presided as Bishop of Ephesus, passing that ministry on to his disciple Timothy; and then, upon Timothy's martyrdom, the episcopate is taken over by another Apostle, John himself.  Ah!  … But, let's look at Smyrna as well.  What The Apostolic Constitutions, again, speaking not of the time of the Apostle John in Ephesus, but of the time of St. Paul (twenty-to-thirty years before), tells us that Aristion (who, according to Papias was a hearer of Christ …perhaps one of the Lord's Seventy-two disciples, see: Luke 10) was the first to preside over Smyrna.  He is then succeeded by Strataeas the "son of Lois" (and so a relative of St. Timothy through his grandmother: 2 Timothy 1:5), and then (as with John in Ephesus) the church of Smyrna is taken over by Aristion, a first-generation disciple, again.  But, needless to say, all this would have happened during the odd twenty or thirty years between the time in which Paul and Aristion first appointed shepherds over these Asian churches and when John himself personally took control of Ephesus.  Yet, given that John was Bishop of Ephesus, which was the metropolitan authority for all Asia, it would have fallen to him, an Apostle, to appoint a new bishop for Smyrna when Aristion (or his immediate successor) died; and, according to all the information available to us, Polycarp was this man.  And so, by the time Ignatius of Antioch (in A.D. 107 …only a few years after the death of St. John in c. A.D. 100) writes to all the bishops of the Asian city-churches, these would have been the bishops appointed, not in Paul's time, but during the sojourn of John – a later tier of Apostolic appointment.  And among these men, according to Ignatius, were…

Polycarp – bishop of Smyrna

Polybius – bishop of Tralles

[Unnamed] – bishop of Philadelphia

Damas – bishop of Magnesia

Onesimus – John's own successor as Bishop of Ephesus (and possibly the same man who is a disciple of Paul in his Epistle to Phillipians).

All of these men would have been appointed bishop by the Apostle John; and from that source they drew their Apostolic succession.  The idea that there were bishops who ruled over these same city-churches before them, having been appointed by Paul and other Apostles, is entirely beside the point.

What's more… And this is a very important realization… St. Irenaeus NEVER presents a comprehensive list of all the bishops of Smyrna, as he does for the bishops of Rome.  Rather, all he does is connect his own childhood bishop, Polycarp, to the Apostle John.  He never denies the idea that there were earlier bishops of Smyrna before Polycarp.  And, indeed, there almost certainly were, since we know that St. John lived in Asia during his old age, during a period when the Church had already been established in these Asian city-churches (including Smyrna) for some time.  However, Irenaeus merely claims that Polycarp was a disciple of John and drew his authority from him.  Irenaeus never claims that Polycarp was the first bishop of Smyrna to be appointed by an Apostle.

So, bottom line: There is no "alternate tradition" for the succession of Smyrna as our skeptical author ridiculously claims.

However, he goes on…

Nonsense.  This is a very tired old argument – the idea that Rome and other churches had no early monarchial bishops, but were ruled by some phantom "body of presbyters" prior to the "innovations" of Ignatius of Antioch, etc.  However, such a view is based in secular-liberal / anti-Catholic bigotry and a failure to seriously analyze the primary sources themselves.  Needless to say, Ignatius, as early as 107, speaks to bishops whom he had never met, and who were already in place as the monarchial leaders of the individual city-churches that he addresses; and he also clearly writes (as I already presented above) that bishops are "settled EVERWHERE, to the UTMOST BOUNDS OF THE EARTH" by the will of Jesus Christ.  This would include Rome too.  In fact, the one and only reason that Ignatius does not address a bishop of Rome in his Epistle to the Romans is because that would expose the Roman bishop to the same fate that Ignatius himself was undergoing, having been arrested and made a "sobering example" for all those who would embrace the Christian faith …and for the specific reason that he, as Bishop of Antioch, was the primate of Christian Asia, the third ranking patriarch of the Church after Rome and Alexandria.  And if anyone wants to dispute this and justify the "body of presbyters" theory, they must account for the fact that Ignatius never addresses a Roman "body of presbyters" either.  Thus, the theory is based on "Protestant" / secular-liberal wishful thinking, and on nothing more.

Ha!  Such a revisionist claim flies in the face of both Scripture and Tradition.  And what is it based on?  Substantial evidence?  Nope. . It's based on anti-Catholic bigotry and nothing more.  However,with that said, the claim that the church of Rome was established by Peter and Paul needs to be qualified, given that no Catholic is saying that Peter (or Paul) was the first to bring the Faith to the city of Rome.  Far from it.  The first Roman Christians consisted of the Jewish pilgrims from Rome who were converted in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost (see Acts 2:9-10).  These Jewish-Christians would later return home and form the first Christian house-churches in the imperial capital.  But, as such, they were still answerable to the Apostles, with Peter of course holding the primacy among the Twelve.  For example, if one turns to Romans 16:7, Paul refers to his relatives Andronicus and Junia, two native Roman Jewish-Christians who are "prominent before the Apostles" and "in Christ before [Paul.]".  Since they were Christians before Paul, that means they were converted very early on; and so were most likely among the Roman Jewish pilgrims referred to in Acts 2:10.  And this shows both that they were disciples of Peter, who gave the address at Pentecost, and it shows that the Roman city-church always had direct ties, and was directly answerable to, the Apostles.  What's more, although it is not depicted in Scripture (Acts of the Apostles being primarily concerned with the history of the Gentiles churches founded by Paul, not the Jewish churches founded by the Twelve), the Jewish city-churches established by the Pentecost pilgrims of Acts 2:9-10 received frequent visits from the Apostles (Galatians 2:7-8, 1 Corinthians 9:5, and many other Scriptures bear witness to this); and Peter's first sojourn to Rome occurred, so says all of Tradition, in A.D. 42, being the "other place" that Peter flees to in Acts 12:17 when he must leave Palestine to escape the clutches of King Herod Agrippa.  So, while Peter was not the first to directly bring Christianity to Rome, he was "Rome's Apostle" – the one who came and organized the Church there.  And Paul himself, if one knows how to read him, makes mention of this in Romans 15:20, where he foregoes the idea of spending too much time evangelizing in Rome itself (at this early stage) because he does not wish to build "on another man's FOUNDATION".  In Pauline language, such a "foundation" always refers to the work of an Apostle (see: Ephesians 2:19-20, 1 Corinthians 13:10, etc.).  And, given that Rome, long before Paul arrives there, was a church composed of both Jews and Gentiles, and given that, aside from Paul, the only other Apostle who ministered to Gentiles was Peter, who then do you suppose this "foundation" in Rome was?

When Irenaeus speaks of both Peter and Paul "establishing" the church of Rome, he's actually referring to the final state of the Apostolic period, in which Peter and Paul synthesized the Jewish elements and Gentile elements of Christianity, making Rome a shining example of this and establishing Rome as the primary see for the universal Church.  For example, Irenaeus writes…

Clearly, Irenaeus does not mean to say that there was no Christian church in Rome before this time.  Rather, he refers to the "foundation of the church" of Rome as it would become known to his own day – Rome as the primary see; the primary beacon of the Christian Faith.  It's in this sense that Peter and Paul established the church of Rome; and all of ancient Christian literature bears witness to this:

Clement of Rome (c. A.D. 90):

Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 107), writing to the Romans:

Dionysius of Corinthians (166 A.D.):

Irenaeus of Lyon (c. 180 A.D.):

Clement of Alexandria (190 A.D.):

Gaius (198 A.D.):

Peter of Alexandria (306 A.D.):

Lactantius (316 A.D.):

Cyril of Jerusalem (350 A.D.):

Optatius (367 A.D.):

Epiphanius (374 A.D.):

Damasus I (382 A.D.):

Now, can you show me one ancient piece of evidence that denies that Peter and Paul established the Church of Rome?

Really?  Great.  Show me one substantive example of this.  Show me one person, or even one HERETIC, who ever denied that Peter and Paul established the church of Rome.

Uh-huh.  Whereas your stream of nonsense does, I suppose?  Think again.

Again, the cases of Rome and Smyrna were merely examples within an overall context of verifiable contemporary witness – i.e., Irenaeus' challenge that the heretics go check it out for themselves.  You are not recognizing that context; nor are you interested in doing so, since it would refute your thesis.

It is your logic that is both ahistorical and spurious.  You are twisting the evidence to suit your own foregone conclusions.  That is a no-no.

Balderdash.  I again give you the testimony of Hegessipus, who you make mention of, but never bother to quote:

This is the overall context that you are ignoring – the verifiable proof that was available to Irenaeus and his contemporaries …including his heretical opponents, who were SILENCED by his challenge because they KNEW it was true.

Also on the subject of Polycarp, our skeptical author makes a few more mistakes, as when he writes…

This is simply incorrect and perhaps intentionally deceptive.  Polycarp did not write any epistle to other churches aside from his Epistle to the Philippians.  In fact, the only reason he wrote to the Philippians is because they had recently encountered Ignatius of Antioch (who had to pass through Philippi in Macedonia, after leaving Smyrna in Asia, on his way to execution in Rome), and Ignatius himself had encouraged the Philippians to write to Polycarp and ask for some exhortation from him.  As Polycarp writes…

…and…

So, it was only the occasion of Ignatius of Antioch being transported to Rome for execution, and his suggestion that the Philippians write to Polycarp for exhortation, that led to the production of Polycarp's one Epistle.  However, why would Ignatius suggest that the Philippians seek the wisdom of Polycarp at all, unless there was something special about Polycarp?  …Unless, like Ignatius himself, Polycarp had been the association of Apostles, chiefly the Apostle John, and so could speak with some special authority.  Our skeptical author totally fails to address this aspect of the story, let alone the genuine historical context behind it.

Indeed, our skeptical author manifests even more disregard for historical and literary context, when he writes…

Here, as with his earlier "shortened" quote from Papias, it seems our skeptical author is playing hard and fast with the literary text – only giving us enough of the quote to "prove" his point.  But, such "proof" totally disappears once the quote is viewed in its proper context.  For, what St. Ignatius says in toto in Chapter 12 of his Epistle to the Ephesians is as follows:

So, why does Ignatius mention St. Paul in his Epistle to the Ephesians?  Clearly, it is not to recount the history of the Ephesian church or to list which Apostles were associated with it.  Rather, the one and ONLY reason that Ignatius mentions Paul is because, like Ignatius is about to do himself, Paul died AS A MARTYR …and, when he too was about to die for Christ in Rome, Paul was comforted by the faith and the prayers of the Ephesians (see 1 & 2 Timothy, which were addressed to Timothy while at Ephesus).  So, Ignatius only mentions Paul in association with his own plight as a soon-to-be martyr.  He has no need to mention John, since John did not die as a martyr, but died of old age.  And, if our skeptical author bothered to actually appreciate the context of the epistle, rather than using it as an anti-Catholic "proof text", he would have realized this immediately.

What's more… We know from Scripture itself that Timothy presided as bishop of Ephesus, and that Apollos (Acts 18), and Priscilla & Apulia (Acts 18), and Peter himself (1 Peter 1:1) were closely associated with Ephesus.  We also know, from independent accounts, that some important church leader named "John" (whomever you wish to make him out to be) once governed and instructed the Ephesian city-church (Revelation 2; 2 John 1, 2 John 1, etc.).  Yet, Ignatius of Antioch doesn't mention any of these people in his epistle; nor does he need to, since the epistle simply isn't concerned with informing the Ephesians of their own recent history.  Rather, it is concerned with other, more pressing matters, including Ignatius' pending martyrdom.

And, also ignoring literary context, our skeptical author asserts…

Exactly.  And what's so surprising about that?  Polycarp simply employs the major commonality between the church of Philippi and his own Asian tradition – that is, both were founded by St. Paul.  Indeed, Philipi was fully recognized as Paul's church – a church which he directly founded; and so Polycarp cites him as the Philippian's own authority.

Why so?  Again, we know that someone named John was an important and renownedly inspired leader in the Ephesian/Smyrna churches (e.g. Revelation 2); and this person clearly would have been a first-hand authority (a hearer of Jesus) who was personally known by Polycarp; but Polycarp doesn't bother to quote Revelation or any of the Johanine Epistles to the Philippians.  Rather, he focuses on Paul because Paul is his common link with this European church (Philippi).…which is, of course, why Polycarp doesn't mention Peter, or James, or Jude, or Barnabas or any of the other Apostles/disciples either.

On the "problem" of the "two Johns", our skeptical author writes…

Here, and in several places, our skeptical author makes a number of wild presumptions based on faulty analysis of the primary text(s).  First of all, as we're already seen, our author fails to provide us with the entire quote from Papias above, thus making it seem as if Papias had no first-hand association with the Apostles, when the full context of the quote clearly tells us that he did, whereas his inquiries from others about the sayings of the Apostles/disciples were only meant to supplement and enhance his own first-hand experience.

Secondly, … On the issue of whether there were one or two Johns who ruled as bishop over the city-church of Ephesus, much ink has been spilled on this subject, and even many church fathers (e.g. Dionysius of Alexandria, c. 250 A.D.) were genuinely confused about it – not knowing what to think.  But, all of this is based on Papias' very early saying above, where he seems to imply that John the Apostle and "John the Presbyter (Elder)" are two different men.  However, if we again carefully consider the language that Papias is using, it suddenly becomes clear that he is not talking about two individuals at all, but only one.  In order to see this, we must first gain an appreciation of how Mediterranean people speak, both now and in ancient times.  For, when Papias lists the Apostles whose sayings he collected from others, he is not speaking formally or systematically, but merely mentioning names (as cursory examples) off the top of his head; and he writes…

Please notice also the context of how Papias collected these sayings.  Here, we must remember that Papias was bishop of the city-church of Heliopolis in Asia – a church that, like Smyrna, was under the metropolitan authority of Ephesus, but was a good distance from Ephesus (and Smyrna).  So, what Papias is saying is that, while he was bishop in Heliopolis, if any traveling Christian who knew the Apostles / disciples of Christ came into town, he would question him in detail so as to collect all the sayings – that is, to find out what the Apostles/disciples of Christ said to other Christian communities as well as to his own.  This "geographical" point shall be shown to be very significant in a moment.

Also, please notice above how Papias refers to the Apostles as "elders" – that is, "presbyters" ("presbuteroi" in Greek).  Thus, our skeptical author's argument that Papias' reference to "the Presbyter John" must make this John a distinct person from the Apostle is entirely baseless, due to the fact that "presbyter" and "elder" are the same word in Greek, and so calling a second John "the presbyter" would not be a valid way to distinguish him from the Apostle, since all the Apostles were know as "presbyters"/"elders", both to Papias and to others, per 1 Peter 5:1-4, etc.

Rather, if anything, Papias' reference to "the presbyter John", is not to distinguish between him and his aforementioned reference to John the Apostle, but merely to distinguish between the sayings given to the churches by St. John during his days as an itinerant Apostle (that is, his evangelical oral proclamations of the Gospel) and the sayings and ecclesial instructions given by this SAME St. John while he ruled as "presbyter" of Ephesus (that is, bishop …compare 1 Peter 5:1-4 with Titus 1:5-7, etc. – in earliest times, the terms "presbyter" and "bishop" were used interchangeably).  Among such ecclesial instructions given by "John the Presbyter" (that is, "John AS Presbyter") would be his preference for the date on which the Asian churches would celebrate the feast of Easter – something that we know was an important issue for them, and which they received from this John.

And, indeed, our skeptical author himself provides all the key information for us to see the way in which Papias is really speaking …once we consider the geographical context, that is.  For if we realize, as I said, that Papias was bishop of Heliopolis; and, in that "static" capacity, he collected the sayings of the disciples from those who came to Heliopolis, these would include the sayings of Apostolic bishops (reigning presbyters) who presided in other, neighboring churches.  And, this would include the sayings of both "John the Presbyter" ("John AS Presbyter") and those of Aristion, who presided over nearby Smyrna.  For, as our author himself presented from the Apostolic Constitutions, the Tradition was that Aristion both established and later ruled over the city-church of Smyrna:

So, according to the Tradition, John and Aristion, who, as Papias directly says, were both first-hand disciples of Christ, proclaimed the Word as itinerant evangelists, and then later "settled down" (in their old age) to be presbyter-bishops of the city-churches of Ephesus and Smyrna, respectively.  In this capacity (as primates of the first and second city-churches of Asia), they governed, organized, and gave ecclesial teaching and instruction (e.g. the Johnnine date for Easter) to the other Asian city-churches, including Papias' own church of Heliopolis.  And once we realize this Tradition, the context of Papias statement suddenly becomes clear.  For, he is not citing two "Johns" at all, but he first speaks about collecting the sayings of the Apostles in regard to their itinerant preaching and then supplements this by saying how he also collected what Aristion and John the Presbyter "say" – that is, the ecclesial traditions which they presented to the Asian churches when, later in life, they personally ruled as bishops in Asia.  In this, it should also be noted that the followers of John when he ruled, later in life, as Bishop of Ephesus, would not have been the same followers who accompanied John during his Apostolic travels in his youth.  Rather, they would be separated by a generation or more.  Papias would have questioned both sets of followers, however.

Our skeptical author makes much ado about Papias' use of the present tense (i.e., " …what things Aristion and the presbyter John …SAY."), arguing that this implies that Aristion and John the Presbyter were "still alive" when Papias was writing.  But, such a suggestion is totally ridiculous, given that Papias wrote about 130 A.D. – at a time when Polycarp himself was already reigning as bishop of Smyrna.  This would make it impossible for Aristion to still be the bishop there; and indeed, Ignatius of Antioch, who had encountered Polycarp as bishop of Smyrna years earlier in 107 A.D., of course makes no mention of Aristion "co-ruling" in Smyrna or of any "John" presiding over Ephesus, where Onesimus was the contemporary bishop.  And we know that this "John" could not have ruled Ephesus after Onesimus, since Revelation and the Johnnine epistles (to say nothing of John's Gospel) are all 1st Century documents.  So, in short, Papias' present-tense expression ("say" as opposed to "said") cannot mean that John the Presbyter (or Aristion) were still alive at the time he is writing.  Indeed, many other statements by Papias, drawn by Eusebius from Papias' same book, make it very clear that John the Presbyter was dead when he (Papias) was writing.  As I already presented, in regard to the origins of Mark's Gospel, Papias says…

…and also…

And, indeed, if our skeptical author had bothered to look at the full context of the quote he provides, he would have seen that Papias' very next line makes it clear that John the Presbyter and Aristion were no longer alive when he is writing.  For, in full, he says…

But, if Papias' use of the present tense ("…which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, SAY") does not imply that they were still alive at the time, then what does it mean?  What is Papias really saying?  Well, as I already noted, the most obvious meaning is that Papias is "tacking on" this reference to Aristion and John, who, in addition to being itinerant evangelists, later reigned as local bishops, as an afterthought.  In other words, Papias' present tense "say" is there to refer to their later work as bishops – the instructions which they instituted in the local churches – that is, the "published canons" (all-be-they in oral form) of the Asian city-churches, which came from John and Aristion.  This is all that the present tense refers to – to distinguish between the oral proclamation of the Gospel itself (which came from all the Apostles) and the later instructions, clarifications, and re-affirmations of that Gospel which came from John and Aristion as they reigned as bishops in their old age.  And, as I've shown, there is absolutely nothing about this distinction which even remotely implies that John the Presbyter could not be the same man as John the Apostle.

What's more, … In the interest of not leaving any stone unturned, I should also point out that there is an alternate reading of the quote provided from our author from the Apostolic Constitutions, which, as with Papias, seems to provide us with two "Johns" – both the Apostle and a later bishop by the same name, who was made bishop of Ephesus by the Apostle.  For, it reads…

While, on the surface of it, this really does seem to imply two men; in both Latin and Greek (assuming that there was a Greek original), this can also be rendered as " …And [then] John by MYSELF" …meaning that the Apostle John made himself the Ephesian bishops – that is, he drew on his own Apostolic authority.  In fact, the line is intentionally obscure; and this is probably a "diplomatic" move by the author of the Apostolic Constitutions, who was aware of the "Papias controversy" and the fact that some people assumed that there was more than one "John" who presided over Ephesus.

And this brings us to our final point – a point that exposes our skeptical author's anti-succession argument as the hogwash that it is.  And that is the fact that, even if I, and Irenaeus, are wrong (though we're not – even if John the Presbyter is not the same person as the Apostle John, then the fact still remains that, according to Papias and everyone else, this "John the Presbyter" (along with Aristion) was a first-hand disciple of Jesus Christ (one of the Seventy-Two in Luke 10?), who was recognized and approved as a disciple by the rest of the Church (i.e., the Apostles themselves), and so carried Apostolic authority, thereby endowing his episcopal successions at Ephesus (and throughout Asia) with that same Apostolic authority.  For, Papias himself clearly says…

So, even if one wishes to deny that John the Apostle and John the Presbyter are the same person, according to Papias, both Aristion and the Presbyter John are DISCIPLES OF THE LORD on par with Peter and the other Apostles. …That is, they are first-hand hearers of Jesus and men of Apostolic authority.  This cannot be denied.  And so, any succession from these Apostle-approved men (even if they themselves were not Apostles) qualifies as full Apostolic succession – the very thing which our skeptical author denies.

What's more, our skeptical author's position becomes even more embarrassing once we consider the fact that, even if John the Presbyter is not the Apostle John, then even the so-called "alternate tradition" declares that John the Apostle did preside over Ephesus and that he appointed John the Presbyter to be his successor there.  So, any way one wishes to view it, the Apostolic succession of the Asian metropolitanate originates with the Apostle John.  However, in his zeal to denounce the reality of Catholic Tradition and promote his secular-liberal / "Protestant" claims, our skeptical author total ignores this inevitable conclusion – this "brick wall", which he simply cannot circumvent.

And I believe that pretty much covers all his silly claims in regard to Polycarp and Smyrna.  I'll address his claims about Clement and the Roman succession as soon as possible.

On the issue of the Apostolic succession of Rome, and the role of St. Clement of Rome in particular, our skeptical friend writes…

"Later tradition"?  Name one patristic reference to Clement of Rome which identifies him as anything but the Roman bishop.  As for his Epistle to the Corinthians being "unsigned", that is simply not true.  The Epistle is written in the name of the church of Rome – something only the bishop of that church could do, and something which later bishops of Rome continued to do – the implication being that the minister himself was not important; what mattered was the authority of Petrine Rome itself; and it's from this authority that Clement draws when he writes to the Corinthians.

"Help resolve"?  Try again.  The letter DID resolve the Corinthian schism, as St. Dionysius of Corinth, St. Irenaeus, and many others bear independent witness to.

Here, again, our skeptical author puts his own anti-Papal "spin" on the evidence.  Clement did more than "call for" the reinstatement of Corinth's rightful presbyters.  Rather, he COMMANDED it.  For, he writes…

Here, Clement now issues a direct command, ordering the trouble-makers to submit to the local Corinthian presbyters.  …Which of course begs the question: Why does Clement, speaking for the church of Rome, have the authority to do this?  Why should these Corinthian dissidents listen to him when they refused to listen to their own Corinthian hierarchy, which, like Clement, was so recently put in place by the Apostles??  Ah!  But listen to Clement and to the Roman church they did!  Clearly, there was something special about Clement and about the authority of the church of Rome.  For, it was not Clement himself who decided to intervene, but, as the Epistle itself tells us, the Corinthians had APPEALED to Rome for a solution to this schism:

So, why did the Corinthians appeal to Rome?  And, as even our author himself admits, the Corinthians had "unlawfully" deposed their presbyters – the term which Clement uses.  But, why is Clement (and Rome) the guardian of this "law"?  And where did this "law" come from?  The answer to both questions is the Apostles themselves – the principal of Apostolic succession, which was maintained both at Rome and at Corinth, just as we've already seen St. Hegessipus say, and just as Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, says, about A.D. 170, writing independently of Irenaeus and Hegesippus.

But, our author goes on…

So what?  No secular historian could be any more accurate when it comes to the dates of a lot of 1st and 2nd Century figures.

But, he goes on…

It is quite amusing how our secular author is most willing to draw on 4th and 5th Century sources (like The Apostolic Constitutions and the Life of Polycarp) when he feels that they support his dissident arguments, but is very quick to ignore the traditions that come down to us about Linus and Anacletus, as recorded in the same and other 4th & 5th Century sources, claiming how "we know nothing about" them.  Amazing!

And he goes on…

First of all, Streeter is a doodie-head who doesn't know what he's talking about.  Our skeptical author's assertion, based on Streeter and other short-sighted liberals like him, which is that "Tertullian is almost totally dependent on Irenaeus", completely ignores the fact that:

Tertullian traveled widely as a new Christian, seeking first-hand information about his new Faith.  This included trips to Ephesus, Smyrna, and Rome, And so, even though he apparently draws from Irenaeus' book to make his argument about Clement and Polycarp, Tertullian DID possess first-hand experience of the oral traditions known throughout both Asia and Italy.

The fact that Tertullian was privy to such first-hand knowledge of Italian and Asian traditions is illustrated by information contained in Tertullian which we do not find in Irenaeus or any other contemporary sources.  For example, only Tertullian (speaking as if it is a matter of common knowledge) recounts the story of how the Apostle John had survived a bath of boiling oil in Rome itself, before being transported and consigned to the penal colony on the island of Patmos.  Clearly, Tertullian did not get this from Irenaeus.  So, where did he get the story from, if not from the oral Tradition of the churches?  What's more, … As for what Tertullian has to say about Clement being ordained personally by St. Peter (which we shall deal with directly in a moment), Tertullian is not drawing this from the Pseudo-Clementines at all (most of which were not yet written at the time! …nor would they have been available to him in Africa; but is rather championing the Tradition that was common throughout the Latin-speaking Church, which recognized Clement as Peter's immediate successor.  And this is testified to by many Greek fathers and by Augustine himself, who all express profound confusion about the discrepancy, since it seems to contradict Irenaeus (again, I will address that issue shortly).

Like Irenaeus, Tertullian – who was trained as a lawyer, don't forget – challenges the heretics to trace the succession of all the city-churches for themselves! …Something he himself was in a position to do during his early travels; and not something that a trained lawyer would challenge his opponents to do if it obviously could not be done!  For, he writes …

So, again, Streeter is simply ignorant, or intentionally deceptive; and our skeptical author's position is built upon a faulty foundation indeed.

Yet, what of this discrepancy between Linus and Clement for direct succession from St. Peter?  Does this really, as our skeptical author asserts, represent a "glaring contradiction" between Tertullian and Irenaeus (and presumably Hegessipus)?  Not at all.  And for two possible reasons:

Firstly, please notice what Tertullian actually says about Peter and Clement:

Now, as we've already seen in regard to the case of Polycarp, our skeptical author is prone to jumping to wild and unsubstantiated conclusions, seeing "contradictions" where no such contradictions exist.  You will, of course, remember how he presumed an "alternate tradition" for the succession of the church of Smyrna based on the list in The Apostolic Constitutions, which traces the succession of Smyrna from Aristion.  However, as I showed, this list in no way contradicted Irenaeus, who never claims that Polycarp was the first bishop of Smyrna, but merely that he was made bishop of Smyrna by John – that is, after the three (or four) previous Apostle-appointed bishops mentioned in the list of The Apostolic Constitutions.  Well, the case of St. Clement is no different, since, here again, our author jumps to conclusions.  For, Tertullian NEVER SAYS that Peter ordained Clement as his immediate successor.  All Tertullian says is that Peter ordained him – PERIOD.  And, indeed, Tertullian directly connects this to John's ordination of Polycarp, saying that Peter ordained Clement "in the same manner".  However, as was of course known to Tertullian (and to anyone with even a pedestrian knowledge of Christian history in Asia), Polycarp was not the first bishop of Smyrna, nor did anyone claim him to be.  Rather, he was merely one of many men ordained by the Apostles to administer that church.  And, when it comes to the case of Clement and the church of Rome, St. Clement's OWN TESTIMONY in his Epistle to the Corinthians (1 Clement to the Corinthians) reveals what is, most likely, the intended context of Tertullian's assertion.  For, St. Clement himself writes…

So, as Clement himself clearly tells us, the Apostles did not merely appoint one immediate successor to govern the churches in their place; but because of their "perfect foreknowledge" they appointed a second-string of "substitutes", who were to govern the church if the first appointee was to die or be killed …as was commonly the case in the early days.  Here, Clement, is most likely talking about himself.  …That is to say, Clement was appointed as one of these "back-up bishops" to follow Linus, and then Anacletus; and so, as Tertullian says, he was indeed personally ordained by Peter and could trace both his succession and his authority to the Chief Apostle.  However, this does not have to mean (nor does Tertullian ever imply) that Clement was Peter's immediate successor.

However, with all this said, there is also another possibility.  Earlier I mentioned how the prevailing tradition of the Latin-speaking Church was that Clement, and not Linus or Anacletus, was Peter's actual successor – that is, the second Pope, not the fourth.  Well, this idea is either based merely on Clement's fame (Clement being the first to exercise his Petrine authority outside the territory of Rome itself, per 1 Clement to the Corinthians, etc.) or it is a historical reality.  However, far from contradicting Irenaeus, it merely forces us to read Irenaeus in a different context.  For, in truth, Irenaeus' objective is clearly not to provide a list of Papal succession, but merely to illustrate how, as in all the churches, there is a continuous succession of bishops in Rome, and that none of these bishops support the various heresies.  And, given that this is Irenaeus' objective, there is no reason to suppose that Linus and Anacletus (the first two bishops on his list – the immediate predecessors of Clement) are actual successors to Peter.  Rather, they may have been bishops who ruled in Rome during Peter's lifetime – that is, auxiliary bishops who governed the church of Rome in Peter's physical absence, but who were answerable to Peter all the same.  If this is the case, it would mean that Linus and Anacletus were indeed Roman "bishops", but not Popes …since Peter still held the Papal ministry.  It would therefore also mean that the second Pope was Clement, who was (so the argument goes) the first full Bishop of Rome to reign after the death of Peter, thus succeeding to Peter's Papal office too.  And, indeed, far from this being a contradiction of Irenaeus, it actually seems to support the language that we see in Irenaeus himself.  For, as Ullmann says…

But, whatever the case, whether Clement was indeed Peter's literal successor (Rome's second "full bishop" and so the second Pope), or whether, as Clement himself mentions, he merely belonged to a "second string" of Apostle-appointed men who were established as stand-ins in the event that something should happen to the Apostles' immediate successors, the bottom line is that our skeptical argument is totally baseless.  When one considers the actual content – that is, the plain statements of the texts in question, we see no contradiction between Irenaeus and Tertullian, and no challenge whatsoever to the claim that Clement drew his succession (in one form or another) from the Apostle Peter himself.

Yet, our skeptical friend goes on…

"Scholars" know nothing of the sort.  Rather, what our author is referring to is the fact that a certain popular Protestant / modernist-liberal notion has developed in recent years, based on a very sloppy misreading of the primary texts, that the early city-churches were all originally governed by a body of supposedly "equal" (democratic?) presbyters, and that monarchial bishops were a later development.  But, as I mentioned earlier, this is a lot of nonsense, based mostly on what Protestants and modernist liberals would like to see, while totally ignoring a virtual mountain of evidence to the contrary, which we find in both Scripture and the patristic record itself.  For example, in the New Testament Scriptures, it is very clear that figures like James (at Jerusalem), Timothy (at Ephesus), and later John "the Presbyter" (also at Ephesus) were all monarchial leaders of those respective city-churches.  For, of James, we read…

…and also…

Similarly, Timothy held the office of monarchial leader in Ephesus.  For, using the SINGULAR "YOU" in Greek, Paul instructs Timothy how to manage the Ephesian church, saying…

From this you-singular use of his verbs, it is very clear that Paul is not issuing instruction to the entire Ephesian church, or conveying them to Timothy on behalf of a greater "body of presbyters" (that is, what Timothy and his associates should do), but is rather issuing episcopal guidelines for Timothy PERSONALLY.  Timothy was the one who both ordained presbyters (by the laying on of hands) and who sat in judgment of them.

Also, in 2 John 1 and 3 John 1, John identifies himself as "THE Presbyter" – not something he would be able to do if he was merely one of many "equal" leaders in the church of Ephesus.

And, indeed, this whole notion of the churches being governed by a supposedly equal college of presbyters totally misapplies what is meant when Scripture and the patristic record speak of "the presbyters of the church".  For, even in the pre-Christian Jewish tradition (which is where the custom of a "presbyterate" comes from), any body of presbyters ALWAYS had a nominal head – a "chief rabbi", if you will.  And we see this all throughout the New Testament, as when Jesus tells his own disciples,

So, this very modern idea that any body ofchurch presbyters acted in an "equal" or "democratic" way is simply alien to both history and ancient Christian tradition.  All bodies of church presbyters had an official leader – a "bishop", even if (in earliest times) he was not known by that specific title.

And, indeed, terminology is the key to our skeptical author's mistaken notions.  For, he writes…

Wrong.  There was no "evolution" at all.  As we've just seen from the Scripture quotes above, the single, monarchial leader was always there …even if he was not exclusively called "the bishop".  Indeed, the only thing which was "interchangeable" about "episkopos" ("bishop"/"overseer") and "presbuteros" ("presbyter"/"elder") were the TERMS THEMSELVES– the TERM "episkopos" ("bishop"/"overseer") not being exclusively applied to the leading presbyter of a city-church until the days of Ignatius of Antioch.  Indeed, we can see the original, fluent use of these terms all through the New Testament Scriptures:

…and…

Now, from the quote immediately above (Acts 20:17-28), we can see what a rash mistake it is to presume that any reference to a body of presbyters prevents these presbyters from having an official head or leader.  For, here, Paul had called for the presbyters of the church of Ephesus; and, as we just saw from 1 Timothy 5:17-22, at THIS VERY SAME TIME, Timothy himself was the monarchial leader of these self-same presbyters of Ephesus! …Only Acts does not mention this, for the understanding is presumed.

Thus, once again jumping to wild and unsubstantiated conclusions, our skeptical author takes what is merely a semantic development (the term "episkopos"/"bishop" eventually being reserved exclusively for the leading presbyter of a city-church) and cooks up the idea that the present three-tiered system of bishop-presbyters-deacons supposedly evolved from an earlier two-tiered system.  And, as we shall see, he has no substantial evidence for this whatsoever.  Rather, it is all based on mere semantics.

For, he goes on, saying…

Poppy-cock.

Do we?

So what?  Clement was writing at the tail end of the 1st Century.  He is still using the semantics that we find in the New Testament, in which "bishop" and "presbyter" are still interchangeable TERMS.  But, this in no way suggests that each city-church lacked a monarchial leader or that the presbyters of a church operated as "equals" or "democrats".  Such is one of our author's wild assumptions.

But, he goes on, quoting 1 Clement again…

Funny how our author doesn't bothered to present the full quote (as I myself did above in regard Clement's ordination at the hands of Peter.  Please notice how he left that part of the text out (the part about the Apostles ordaining a "second string" of replacements for their immediate successors) so as not to undermine his earlier argument that Tertullian and Irenaeus supposedly contradict each other.  Interesting.

However, needless to say, the fact that Clement uses the TERMS "bishop" and "presbyter" interchangeably is totally meaningless.  The term "bishop" had not yet begun to be applied exclusively to the monarchial head, that is, the leading presbyter, of a city-church.  Rather, leadership was always presumed; yet not typically referred to because of the principals of modest leadership laid down by Christ Himself.

But, our author goes on…

A faulty and totally irresponsible conclusion.  For example, … During the entire 37-year reign of Augustus over the Roman Empire, the TERM "emperor" was not used.  Rather, Augustine was referred to as "princeps" – that is, "first citizen of Rome".  So, does this mean that Augustine did not rule as Emperor?  …that the authority of the republic was still in place and that he was not the monarchial ruler of the Roman world???  Come on.

Okay.  Well, I already addressed the case of Ignatius of Antioch in an earlier section of my response; but since our author's claims above are so ridiculous (and so stupidly common these days), I think covering this territory again is in order.  I'll also add a few things for good measure.

Firstly, as I already pointed out, the idea that there was no bishop of Rome in the time of Ignatius is refuted by Ignatius himself, who writes…

For Ignatius, unlike Clement and the New Testament, the term "episkopos" ALWAYS refers to the monarchial leader of a city-church; and if bishops were "settled everywhere, to the utmost bounds of the earth", this meant that, by necessity, Rome had one too.

Indeed, the evolved terminology of Ignatius (in which "bishop" is exclusive to the leader of a church and "presbyter" refers exclusively to the ministers who are immediately under him) seems to have begun in greater Asia/the Roman Orient, and was perhaps still unknown to the city-churches of Europe during Ignatius' lifetime.  For, as our author points out, Ignatius does not use this terminology when he addresses the Romans, but only speaks exclusively of "the bishop" when he refers to his own church of Antioch (in Syria) and to the five Asian city-churches that he writes to.  Ah!  But, we have yet another piece of evidence to add to the mix here; and this evidence comes, not from Ignatius, but from his associate Polycarp – a man who Ignatius clearly (and in two different letters) identifies as the monarchial bishop of Smyrna.  Yet when, at Ignatius' suggestion, Polycarp writes to the Philippians, a church in Europe, Polycarp does not speak of himself as "the bishop of Smyrna", but rather opens his letter to the Philippians with the salutation:

In other words, when writing to these Europeans, Polycarp reverts to the older, New Testament-style TERMINOLOGY, identifying himself as a presbyter among other presbyters …just as with James in Acts 21 and Peter in 1 Peter 5:1-4, along with the language of 1 Clement and others.  And, indeed… It is not unreasonable to say that, if we did not have the Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch, in which Polycarp is called the "bishop of Smyrna", our skeptical author and other members of his liberal-modernist ilk would most certainly assume that Polycarp was merely one of a number of "equal" Smyrnaean presbyters.  However, we know from Ignatius that this is not the case.

So, in short, all we are dealing with here is an issue of semantics and nothing more.  The three-fold ministry of bishop/presbyter/deacon (to use the Ignatian terminology) was always there, being Apostolic in origin.  But, don't take my word for it.  Consider the witness of Clement of Rome himself.  For, in another section of his Epistle to the Corinthians – another section which our author fails to cite – St. Clement writes …

There's the three-fold ministry for you.  Making an analogy to the Jewish Temple services, Clement describes, in a Christian and Eucharistic context, the service of (1) a "high priest" (what Ignatius would later call "a bishop"); (2) "priests"– plural (that is, the "presbyters") and (3) "Levites", which, even well into the 5th and 6th Centuries, was a stock term in the Church for "deacons".  And Clement contrasts these THREE (not two) tiers of ministry with the place of "the laity", who are not to claim the same privileges as the bishop/presbyters, and deacons …which is, of course, the whole reason why Clement writes to the Corinthians – that is, because some Corinthian laymen had expelled the rightful presbyters.  Yet, as for these presbyters themselves, just as in Polycarp's address to the Philippians, it is abundantly clearly that, for Clement, all bodies of presbyters included a "high priest" – that is, a leading presbyter, who would soon come to be known exclusively as "the bishop".  So, I'm afraid there is no "anachronism" at all in regard to the early bishops of Rome.  They may not have been called by the exclusive TERM "bishop", but they were bishops all the same.  To say otherwise is simply being dishonest with the historical evidence.

And speaking of historical dishonesty…In his statement above, our author asserts that Ignatius refers to Rome as merely "presiding over the district of Rome".  But, is that really what he says?…That Rome only presides in that district?  Nope, not at all.  Again, our author does violence to the actual meaning of the patristic text by only presenting the bits of it that strike his fancy.  But, let's look at the entire quote, in which Ignatius writes …

Now, here Ignatius twice says how Rome "presides".  For this, he uses the Greek word “prokatthemena,” which is defined as an authoritative, jurisdictional position; and this is the meaning of the word whenever Ignatius uses it.  However, Ignatius never applies this word to another church, but only to Rome.  Why so?

Now, like our author, many have tried to claim that Ignatius is referring to Rome's local authority – meaning that Rome presided over the surrounding churches of Italy.  And, at first glance, this seems quite plausible, since Ignatius says that Rome: "presides in the chief place of the Roman territory"…Or, in another translation: "which presides in the chief place of report of the Romans." Both these could be read as referring to Rome's local jurisdiction …That is, until one considers the alternate possibility, which is much more plausible considering the context of the letter.

For example, we know from Chapter X of the Epistle that Ignatius is writing from Smyrna in Asia Minor, where he and his imperial guards were staying with St. Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna.  He writes…

Therefore, given this "international" context, why would Ignatius be referring to Rome's local jurisdiction?  If that was his meaning, surely he would have referred to the surrounding Italian churches in the context of his letter.  Yet, he does not.  Therefore, we are only left with a second possibility:

While the phrase: "which presides in the chief place of the Roman territory" can be read to mean: "which presides in the chief place of the Italian (or Western) churches." (something Ignatius could easily have said)… It can also be read to mean…

That is to say, that Rome holds the chief place …or "the place of report" (as in the alternate translation).

And this is surelySt. Ignatius' meaning, since this sentence is his first address to the Roman church by name.  Look again at the quote:

So, the sentence in question identifies who he is writing to:

In other words…

…or…

And, notice that Ignatius uses the word "presides" (prokatthemena) once again.  This time, he says how Rome "presides in LOVE" and adds "maintaining the LAW of Christ".  Well, …?  Which "law" is this?  It is the SAME law that we saw St. Clement enforcing earlier in his command to the Corinthians, remembering, for Ignatius, that "prokatthemena" ("presides") means an authoritative jurisdiction.  So, Ignatius' meaning is abundantly clear.  Rome was what Jerusalem used to be in Acts 15.  It was the principal Church (as Cyprian would later call it).  And, this is why, in the conclusion of his letter, Ignatius writes:

…That is, the PRESIDING (ruling / governing) love of Rome.

Now, I realize that all of this is a bit off topic, but I couldn't let our author's "swipe" at the reality of Roman primacy go by without addressing it.  And, far from calling it into question, Ignatius' letter is a very strong proof of Roman primacy …if one knows how to read it, that is.

Getting back on topic, our author also wrote above how…

"Most", huh?  And which "scholars" are these?  Needless to say, such a "scholarly opinion" totally contradicts Hegessipus, who was alive at this time, and who claims to have made a succession list of the bishops.  So, was Hegessipus lying?  Was Irenaeus?  Was Tertullian?  If so, why didn't any of the heretics ever bother to refute them?  Face it, my friend, "most scholars" are simply wrong.  "Most scholars" are not scholars at all.

I already addressed this in an earlier section of my response.  Clearly, by "established (or "founded") the church of Rome", Irenaeus does not mean that Paul, or Peter and Paul, were the first to introduce the Christian faith to the imperial city.  As I already said, that honor belonged to the Jewish pilgrims from Rome (Acts 2:10), who, after being converted in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, returned to Rome and established the first house-churches there.  Rather, what Irenaeus is referring to is the church of Rome as it was known in his day – that is, the leading church of the universal communion – the church with "preeminent authority", with which all other churches "must agree".  This is what was "established" by Peter and Paul when they organized the church of Rome and set it up to be the new primary episcopate of the universal Church.  Our author also says …

And this story is consistent with the testimony of many fathers, including Gaius of Rome, who bears witness to it at exactly the same time.

Which corresponds perfectly with Acts 12:17, when Peter must flee Judea "for another place".  Universal tradition has always said that this "other place" was Rome …which explains why, from that point on, Peter strangely disappears from the Acts narrative, suddenly and inexplicably re-appearing in Jerusalem in Acts 15, when he is present there for the so-called "council" to decide the question of Gentile circumcision.  This took place, as everyone agrees, in the year A.D. 49 – the same year when, according to both Acts 18:2 and the Roman historian Suetonius, the Emperor Claudius expelled all Jews from ROME; and Suetonius tells us that this was because of a violent riot over someone named "Chestus" – clearly a mishearing of "Christus" ("Christ").  This event was part of Peter's first sojourn in Rome, which the apocryphal Acts of Peter ties unsuccessfully to recount.

Is that why they were written?  And you know this based on what?  I say they were written as an attempt to preserve various oral Traditions that were commonly known and recounted; some of these Acts being more successful and accurate that others.  However, Peter's presence in Rome, and his reigning as bishop there, is not based on the Acts of Peter alone.  Rather, it is based on the universal testimony of the ancient Church – a universal testimony that no one ever questioned (not even the worst heretics) until the Protestant Reformation in the 16th Century; and on the witness of Scripture itself.  For, in 1 Peter 5:13, Peter writes …

As any student of Scripture and early Christian history knows, "Babylon" was the Christian code-name for imperial Rome (e.g. Revelation 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2, 18:10, 18:21, etc.).

You fail to appreciate the very loud silence of Acts of the Apostles.  The fact that Peter disappears from the narrative between Acts 12:17 (when he flees Judea as a marked man) and Acts 15:7, which is his last appearance in narrative Scripture, is most telling.  The author of Acts was protecting the Church's principal leader; and not referring to his whereabouts on purpose.  As both Edmundson and Robinson have brilliantly and irrefutably argued, the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles were written while Peter and Paul were still alive …just as Irenaeus and all the fathers always said.  The late chronology for the Gospels and Acts is merely the product of modernist-liberal flights of fancy, which has unfortunately taken root and become popularized throughout academia.  However, a good scholar can easily refute that claim.  Go read Robinson's Redating the New Testament.

And our author continues…

Empty liberal rhetoric.  Why don't you produce some of this so-called "evidence"?  You can't; and you know it.  …Because there isn't any.

Sure he did. …And you already quoted it: Romans 15:20.  Peter is that "other man".  As I already pointed out, "foundation", in Pauline language, always refers to an Apostle (Ephes 2:19-20; 1 Corinthians 3:10, etc.).  The reason that Paul does not mention Peter by name is, again, because (like Paul's disciple who wrote Acts), he is protecting the Church leadership from its enemies.  …Something that would clearly be in order if all Jews had been recently expelled from Rome because of Peter's ministry there.

Peter wasn't in Rome at that time.  He was presiding in Antioch.  From the context of Paul's Epistle to the Romans, it is clear that the Roman church, at this time, was composed primarily of Gentiles.  There are, however, some Jews, who Paul asks the Gentile Romans to greet in Romans 16.  Among these were Priscilla and Aquila (see Romans 16:3), who had been among the Jews expelled from Rome by Claudius because of the riot (see Acts 18:2).  So, it seems what is happening here is that Jews were just beginning to return after a prolonged time of banishment.  Peter would eventually join them, but not just yet.

Oh, please, that is sheer nonsense.

I'm sorry, but there is nothing in the context of Galatians 2 which even remotely implies that Peter did not accept the rebuke.  2 Peter 3:15-16 shows that he did.  However, if you don't accept the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter (most liberals don't), then the fact that Peter and Paul shared common disciples, such as Silvanus, a.k.a., Silas, (compare 1 Peter 5:12 and 1 Thessalonians 1:1) and Mark (compare 1 Peter 5:13 with 2 Timothy 4:11 and Colossians 4:10) illustrates that they got along with each other and worked together.  …As did Paul and Barnabas (see 1 Corinthians 9:6 and Colossians 4:10) after their conflict in Acts 15:39 …which had to occur at the same time as Paul's conflict with Peter at Antioch.  Likewise, Luke (or whomever you think wrote the Acts of the Apostles), who is clearly a disciple of Paul (see the "we" passages beginning in Acts 21:7) speaks very highly of Peter throughout the Acts narrative.  What's more, in regard to Galatians itself, Paul would not have boasted of his rebuke of Peter unless it had its intended effect.  He also speaks highly of Peter as an important authority in Galatians 1:18, as well as throughout 1 Corinthians.  So, this idea that Peter and Paul were "rivals" is a modernist fairy tale.

"Resorted", huh?  This is more nonsense.  In Romans 15:25, Paul is referring to his secondary ministry, which was to take up the collection for the poor of Jerusalem – something which he started doing in Acts 11:30, and a ministry which he continued to exercise all throughout his career – see: 1 Corinthians 16:2.  In fact, in the very same Epistle where he supposedly "splits from Peter and the rest of the Jerusalem church", he mentions how his Apostolic commission to evangelize the Gentiles was granted by the hierarchy on the condition that he and Barnabas continue to take up the collection for the needy in Judea.  In Galatians 2:9-10 he writes:

So, the full terms of the partnership continued all through Paul's career.  There was no "split" between Paul and the church in Judea.

You're chasing moonbeams, my friend.

Is it?

Then why does he suddenly "drop" the character of Peter after Acts 12:17?  …Only mentioning him once again briefly as the authority at the Council in Acts 15.  There's much more at play here, and you're not seeing it because you've divorced yourself from the Tradition.

Again, all of this makes perfect sense if Luke wrote Acts during Peter and Paul's lifetimes – that is, WHILE the Roman church was still being built up.  Indeed, the one and only reason why Luke's theme is the 'spread of Christianity from Jerusalem to Rome' is because Luke himself was participating in the establishment of that Roman church under Peter and Paul.  What's more, as Edmundson points out, there are textual clues in both Luke's Gospel and Acts that suggest that Luke intended to write a third volume for "Theophilus", in which he would unite his themes, pick up his narrative about Peter, and tell what happened after Paul was released.  Otherwise, you best ask some other questions which you neglected to cite …such as, why didn't Luke recount the story of Paul's martyrdom in Rome, which would obviously have been a fitting and dramatic conclusion to his narrative (connecting the martyrdom of Stephen to that of Paul, and so bringing us full circle)?  The reason he didn't do this is because Paul was still alive, as was Peter; and both were wanted men, marked by the imperial agents of the Neroian persecution, at the time.  And this would have been especially true of "Peter" (who was really known to the Church by his Aramaic name "Kephas" – Galatians 1:18, etc., but called "Peter" [a Greek translation] in the Gospels for the very same purpose – to protect him).

So, you're saying that Acts was written in A.D. 62???  Gee, that doesn't fit with the rest of your liberal scenarios very well, does it?  Most liberals date Acts between A.D.  (oops!  I'm sorry: C.E.) 80 and C.E. 100.  So, which is it?

What's more, if you're going to deny, based on the Acts narrative, that Peter was in Rome between 42 and 49 (that is, that he governed the Roman church before 62), then you need to explain why Luke doesn't mention the "authentic history" of the Roman church at all – that is, who founded it; why the riot happened (Acts 18:2), and how all these Roman Gentiles ended up being Christians before Paul ever showed up.  Obviously, Luke assumes that his readers are already familiar with this story; and so he doesn't mention it.  But, that being the case, what makes you so sure that Peter wasn't part of the story?  Indeed, as I already said, if Peter is so important to Luke, why doesn't he tell us where Peter "really was" after Acts 12:17?  Face it, my friend; your position is half-baked and simply cannot stand up to these very obvious and reasonable questions.

More than "hinted at"; Clement also peaks of them as "OUR Apostles", implying that they ministered to both the Romans and the Corinthians …and we know from 1 Corinthians 1 that both Peter and Paul spent extended periods in Corinth.  1 Clement also speaks of the "jealousy" that certain people had (in Rome) against Peter and Paul.  This, of course, implies a protracted ministry there.  …Which, of course, is the Tradition.

Gaius wrote in the 190's, not in 200.  Also, long before them in 107, Ignatius writes to the Romans:

This strongly implies that Peter and Paul gave extensive teaching to the Romans – that they directly governed the Roman church, not that they merely showed up and were martyred.  After all, that's what happened with Ignatius of Antioch himself!

Not in 64.  The fire happened in 64.  As Edmundson illustrates, the Neroian persecution did not begin until late in 65, and continued well into 67.

That would require that you PRESENT some first.  So far, I just see a bunch of misdirection and half-truth.  Come now, you can surely do better than that.

Ha!

Ha!  Ha!

That is not the Tradition, nor does the authentic evidence support that conclusion.  You are making it up out of faulty premises and because it suits you, not because you can illustrate any of it …as I've shown.

Sorry.  That's not the Tradition; there is no competing tradition.  All of this is just a bunch of modernist revisionism.

Also… Under the silly heading entitled The Founding Myth: An Invention of the Roman Church, our author writes …

Our author is spouting more empty rhetoric and ignoring historical reality.  Hegessipus (assuming he is the source for Irenaeus …which is just one theory, not a fact) did not, like Athena, "spring fully-grown from the head of Zeus" in 150 or 160 A.D.  Rather, by that time, he was an old man who was very familiar with the Church of his day and was merely recounting the traditions of the city-churches that he visited.  However, our author seems to wish to imply that Hegessipus merely made everything up.  Yet, if that were the case, as I said, he would never have gotten away with it.  Indeed, such an assertion seriously underestimates the cosmopolitan nature of ancient Rome and what a "high traffic area" the imperial capital was, being visited regularly by people (and Christian leaders) from all throughout the known world.  So if, as our author claims, there was no bishop of Rome before, say, Pius I (c. A.D. 140) – that is, a time when Hegessipus himself was a middle-aged man, then what our author is really saying is that Hegessipus was a liar and a major fabricator, and that the entire world bought his fib …even though they could easily have refuted it by looking at the facts for themselves.

Did he?  Says who?  That, again, is a totally unsubstantiated statement.  Hegessipus seems to have merely been a historian.  Rather, it was Irenaeus and others (assuming Hegessipus was their only source) who used the succession list of Hegessipus to refute the heretics.  And, as I've said ad nausea now, this was always in the context of challenging the heretics to look up the facts for themselves …something they could easily have done.  Indeed, not only were the successions of the bishops never refuted by the heretics; but we don't even have ONE heretic objecting to the fact that it could be done, or even belittling Irenaeus' (or Tertullian's) proposition in any way, shape, or form.  And that, of course, speaks volumes.

Wrong.  Go read what Hegessipus says.  He says that he found out for himself that all the Apostolic churches have the same teachings – that they matched the teachings of his own Palestinian church.

And John F. Kennedy could have been shot by space aliens.  Where's your evidence?  You have none.  Like modern UFO sensationalists, you're making it up based on your own imagination and wild conjecture.  That is poor history.

Bull ka-ka.  You have also yet to establish that it is a "myth".  In this, I've already exposed your myriad of faulty arguments and irresponsible presumptions.

Nope.  I already demolished this one, my friend.  Rome did not impose itself at all.  Rather, it was Corinthians that appealed to Rome for a solution:

[Mr. Tobin continues:]

That's not all that Clement says about them, though.  As I already pointed out, he speaks of Peter and Paul as "OUR Apostles" and as their "PILLARS" – meaning that the doctrinal traditions of Corinthians and Rome came from them.  He also speaks of some mysterious act of "jealousy" which led to their Roman martyrdoms, thus implying a scenario of intrigue and of comprehensive activity on the part of the Apostles at Rome.  What's more, Clement's reference to the Apostles has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH establishing the authority of Rome.  Rather, he merely cites them as EXAMPLES OF VIRTURE AND FIDELITY that the Corinthians should imitate.

[Mr. Tobin continues:]

Oh, so this was "Rome's doing"?  …That is, Ignatius (a native of far-off Antioch, writing from almost-as-far-away Smyrna) had "fallen for the Romans' propaganda"???  Come on!  Not only is this quite silly and completely far-fetched, but it fails to consider WHAT POSSIBLE MOTIVE the early Roman church (i.e., an illegal, underground organization UNDER PERSECUTION by the imperial government) could have behind its "strategy" for 'extending its hegemony over other churches.' …and all before 107 A.D. Indeed, me thinks I smelleth the stench of "Whore-of-Babylon"-style anti-Catholic bigotry on the part of our author and his "authority", Mr. Bauer.  …As if some "diabolical force" was already at work, urging "the Beast" (the Papacy) to "dominate the world".

But, he goes on with his silliness …

Oh?  Then, again, why do we see them interacting with each other's disciples in their Epistles?  "Poof!" Argument gone!

See above.  See also 2 Peter 3:15-16.

Think a little harder.  Ignatius was bishop of ANTIOCH – the very church where Peter and Paul had their "spat" in Galatians 2.  If Peter and Paul were never reconciled, Ignatius (who was acontemporary of both Apostles) would have known it.  So, another of our author's empty arguments disappears into the all-assuming ether.

No.  That's not what he says.  Really, our author simply has to learn to actually READ the texts that he cites.  What Dionysius really writes is …

Do you see a reference to both Peter and Paul "founding" the church of Corinthians there???  Rather, all he says is that Peter and Paul "planted" and "taught" in Corinth …which is confirmed, both by 1 Corinthians 1 and by Clement's epistle.

Uh-huh.  But, like I said, Dionysius never claims that Peter "founded" the Corinthian church.  All he says is that Peter "taught" them; and in 1 Corinthians 1:12, Paul cites a faction among the Corinthians who say "I belong to Kephas (Peter)" – that is, Peter's own Corinthian disciples.  Likewise, in 1 Corinthians 5:9, he refers to Peter being in Corinth with his wife.  So, Peter WAS there.  Indeed, if you know anything about Roman travel and geography, he HAD TO BE there, since (even as Hegessipus himself experienced), Corinthians was one of the stop-over points between Palestine and Rome; and our author already admits that Peter ended up and died in Rome.  Paul would also have normally had to pass through the port of Corinthians on his journey to Rome in Acts 27 if it wasn't for the storm which blew them off course.

What's more, …, As long as we're mentioning Paul's account of Peter's sojourn in Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 1, this is also substantial proof that Peter and Paul were reconciled after their conflict at Antioch in Galatians 2.  For, in 1 Corinthians 1:12-13 and 3:22, Paul all but SCREAMS the fact that he and Kephas (Peter) are in communion with each other – being "one Body" in Christ.  Indeed, speaking to all the Corinthian factions of 1 Corinthians 1:12-13 (including those who say "I belong to Kephas"), Paul, in 1 Corinthians 10:17 says:

And he further comments on this principal of "one Body"/"one Church" in 1 Corinthians 12:12-26.  So, bottom line: Paul was not "split" from Peter at all.  1 Corinthians abundantly proves it.

Does it?

Utter nonsense and more wild conjecture.  If anything, Peter's "top billing" is rooted in the fact that he bore the primacy among the Apostles, being always listed first throughout the Gospels, and especially in the Gospel's lists of Apostles (i.e., Matthew 10:2-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, John 21:2, etc.) So, unless our author wishes to claim that the GOSPELS THEMSELVES were the victims of some "Roman strategy", he must come to terms with the fact that he's embraced a loony theory.  Indeed, any ancient Christian familiar with the Gospels would find it perfectly natural to name Peter before Paul.

A loony, totally non-sequitur argument.

Wrong.  See above.

Wrong again.  See above.

He did in the sense that Irenaeus means it.  Try again.

An unproven, revisionist assertion which pays no heed to authentic ancient evidence.

Again, a totally unproven assertion.  Our author should be completely ashamed of himself.

The historical Jesus rose literally from the dead, and Paul personally encountered this historical Jesus on several occasions (e.g. Acts 9:3-6, Acts 18:9, Acts 23:11, 1 Corinthians 23, etc.).  The idea that you accept the testimony of these texts as historical evidence when it comes to other matters, yet ignore what they have to say when it comes to miraculous events, shows how duplicitous and irrational you are.  If the verses listed above are untrue, then it's ALL up for grabs and you should not pit Acts and 1 Corinthians against what the Church fathers have to say …or, I more correctly, what you mistakenly interpret them to say.

It is you are deceptive and spurious, as I have no shown repeatedly.

I've already addressed this.  Go read Edmundson's The Church of Rome in the First Century.  He proves conclusively from primary, secular Roman evidence that the Neroian persecutions, which were launched in reaction to the fire of A.D. 64, did not begin until late in A.D. 65, continuing well into A.D. 67.  Given that Peter writes his first Epistle during the period of persecution (e.g. 1 Peter 4:12, 1 Peter 5:13), it is perfectly reasonable that his martyrdom could have taken place as late as 67.  What's more, it was not merely Jerome's translation of Eusebius that claims Peter presided over Rome for 25 years.  Eusebius' original Greek says this too …and so it is totally erroneous (and most likely dishonest) for our author to claim that the notion came from the Roman West via Jerome.  It did not.

A fabrication.

I'm sorry, but the ancient fathers were not prone to your habits.

I really wish that our author would stop making these extraordinary displays of ignorance, since, now, they're even starting to embarrass me!  Needless to say, by "Hebrew", neither Irenaeus or Papias mean "Hebrew" in a literal sense.  Rather, just like Acts 21:40, Irenaeus and Papias are using a popular, Greek expression to refer to the language of the Hebrews who lived in their day – that is, Aramaic.  Secondly, our author totally fails to realize that, in a Koinic Greek, the word Papias uses ("oracles") does not merely refer the "sayings" of Jesus, but also includes narrative deeds.  And we see this all throughout Koinic Greek literature; so Irenaeus did not make an faulty "inference" at all.  He knew what Papias was saying, in their own common, native language.

I refuted this earlier too.  There is no need to repeat the facts again.  Bottom line: Our skeptical author doesn't know what he's talking about.