Scholars have long treated the papacy as fundamentally a Roman institution, but a close examination of sources suggests that key elements of “papal” authority were formulated in Alexandria before being echoed in Rome. Alexandrian Christianity developed a powerful founding legend around St. Mark and structured its church hierarchy accordingly. By the third century AD, the Alexandrian bishop was already styled “Papas” (“Pope”) and considered the direct successor of Mark. Eusebius’s history records Mark’s mission to Alexandria and the early succession of bishops, and later Coptic tradition reinforced this chain of authority.
In the early fourth century, however, ecclesiastical politics shifted. The Council of Nicaea (325) confirmed Alexandria’s jurisdiction “according to ancient custom”, yet by mid-century Rome was claiming appellate and doctrinal primacy. The Council of Sardica (343/4) formally made Rome the court of appeal for disputing bishops. Meanwhile, Roman bishops like Damasus I began to invoke Peter’s legacy and adopt the title “Pope.” Thus, Alexandrian practices of apostolic succession and centralized episcopate appear to have provided a model that was transferred to Rome. This paper argues that the conceptual foundations of the Roman papacy – apostolic origin legends, an unbroken episcopal succession, the honorific Papas, and centralized authority – were first articulated in Alexandria and only later adopted by Rome under fourth-century imperial circumstances. The evidence includes primary sources (Eusebius, councils, canons) and modern scholarship (e.g. Davis) that compare Alexandrian and Roman developments. A detailed timeline and comparative tables will clarify how the title and structure originated in Egypt and were “imported” into the Western church.
Introduction and Literature Review
The traditional narrative credits Peter (and Paul) with founding the Roman church and establishing its bishop as a universal authority. Yet Alexandria – the great capital of Roman Egypt – developed its own apostolic foundation legend involving Mark the Evangelist. Coptic tradition holds that Mark founded the Alexandrian see and was its first bishop. Over centuries, these traditions became entrenched: a sixth-century ivory relief (Louvre OA 3317) famously depicts Mark enthroned with thirty-five bishops (his successors) around him.
The visual program (Mark holding the Gospel and blessing, surrounded by bishops copying his gesture) clearly expresses the claim that Alexandria’s authority descends directly from Mark. As Davis notes, such imagery “reflects the developing self-identity of the Coptic church and its patriarchate”, namely that each patriarch’s authority derives from the apostolic founder.
This Coptic emphasis has attracted modern scholarship. Stephen Davis’s The Early Coptic Papacy (2017) traces how Alexandria articulated a continuous line of bishops (the popes of Egypt) and built an institutional framework around it. Earlier historians (e.g. Walter Bauer) debated whether early Egyptian Christianity was unstructured or Gnostic, but surviving papyri (Roberts) and liturgical traditions suggest that by the 3rd century a stable, orthodox hierarchy was emerging. For example, Jerome and later Eutychius recount that until Demetrius (end of 2nd c.) Alexandria had a single bishop for all Egypt, implying a shift to a true patriarchate under Demetrius and Heraclas. The use of pappas (Greek “father”) for the bishop of Alexandria dates to this period, and in fact Heraclas (232–248) is referred to as “Pope” by later tradition. This predates Rome’s consistent use of the title by some decades.
In contrast, early Roman sources are more muted on universal papal authority. Irenaeus (ca.180) acknowledges Rome’s apostolic pedigree but emphasizes succession in many churches, not exclusive Roman control. By the 4th century, political changes (Constantine’s patronage, church councils) elevated the bishop of Rome’s status, but these developments built on concepts (apostolic succession, primacy of sees) that were already articulated in Alexandria. Recent scholarship (Davis, Swanson, Jasper, etc.) has begun to highlight Alexandria’s role, though it remains underexplored in mainstream histories of the papacy. This paper aims to synthesize primary evidence (Eusebius, council canons, patristic letters) and modern studies to show that the idea of a “Pope” (central patriarch) was born in Egypt and carried to Rome in the 4th century.
Key sources include Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History (for apostolic legends and bishop lists), the proceedings of Nicaea and Sardica (for formal privileges), letters and canons from Egyptian councils (Demetrius, Dionysius, Peter of Alexandria), and works of the Alexandrian catechetical school (Clement, Origen) which proclaimed apostolic tradition. Modern analyses by Davis and others provide context. We will also consider counterarguments, such as the primacy of Peter in early Rome and variations in Eastern usage of papa. Throughout, all claims will be tied to sources or explicitly marked as interpretive when evidence is lacking.
Sources and Methodology
Our investigation relies on both primary sources (ancient texts) and secondary scholarship. Primary evidence includes:
- Patristic Histories: Eusebius’s Church History (4th c.) records early Egyptian bishops and recounts Mark’s mission to Alexandria. It is crucial for establishing the traditional list of early patriarchs and their lengths of office.
- Council Canons: The Nicene canons (325) and Sardica canons (343/4) were retrieved from standard collections. Nicene Canon VI confirms Alexandria’s ancient jurisdiction. Sardica’s canons are cited from ecclesiastical compilations; Canon III directs appeals to the Bishop of Rome.
- Letters and Canons of Egyptian Bishops: Surviving letters of Demetrius, Dionysius of Alexandria, and Festal Epistles (Peter of Alexandria) shed light on disciplinary practice and the Melitian schism. Peter’s 14 penitential canons (311 AD) survive in the Eastern canon law, illustrating his role as chief arbiter of penance.
- Liturgical and Hagiographical Texts: The Acts of Mark and later Martyrdom of Peter of Alexandria (4th–5th c.) are secondary sources but reflect how the Alexandrian church viewed its origins. We will reference summaries of these in modern works.
Secondary scholarship is used to interpret the evidence and fill gaps. Stephen J. Davis’s Early Coptic Papacy (2017) is the anchor modern study; it compiles Egyptian liturgical, iconographic, and textual data (Davis ch.1–4 correspond to our sections). Walter Bauer’s History of Early Christianity (rev. 1959) argued that early Egyptian Christianity was diverse, but more recent work (C.H. Roberts, L.J. DeLue) has refined that picture. We also consult survey works on the papacy’s origins (e.g. Papaconstantinou, Price’s edited volumes), studies of episcopal titles (Parker, Arbesmann), and standard chronologies.
We will compare timelines of Alexandria and Rome side by side, using a Markdown table and a mermaid timeline. Each event (council, bishop’s reign, title usage) will be dated and referenced. For comparative analysis, we will tabulate key features (apostolic legend, episcopal list, title papa, canon law privileges) for each see. Mechanisms of transmission (councils, imperial influence, hagiography, title adaptation) will be analyzed with reference to both Eastern and Western sources.
Throughout, all citations use the connected-source format () and refer to texts we have accessed (Eusebius in translation, New Advent, etc.). Where primary sources are not accessible, this will be noted. Claims not explicitly found in sources will be flagged as interpretive. The bibliography (Chicago style) will list all works cited or heavily relied upon.
Apostolic Foundation: Mark and Alexandria
Tradition holds that Mark the Evangelist founded Christianity in Egypt. Eusebius (4th c.) reports that “Mark… was first sent to Egypt” and “first established churches in Alexandria”. This forms the core of the Alexandrian foundation legend. Notably, the Acts of Mark (a later apocryphal text) elaborates this, describing Mark’s travels in Cyrenaica and Egypt, his conversion of the cobbler Anianus, and eventual martyrdom in Alexandria. While the Acts are not contemporary, they reflect the church’s memory. By the 4th century, Egyptian Christians universally identified Mark as their apostle.
The identification of Mark with Peter further bolstered Alexandria’s claims. Papias (early 2nd c.) had already called Mark “Peter’s interpreter” who recorded Peter’s teachings. Clement of Alexandria (late 2nd c.) and Irenaeus (ca. 180) echoed this, implicitly linking Alexandria to Peter’s authority. Eusebius himself cements the connection: after noting Mark’s work, he immediately notes that Anianus succeeded Mark “as the first bishop of the city”. Thus Alexandria’s first bishop is explicitly the chosen successor of “the apostle and evangelist” Mark, as Eusebius phrases it.
A controversy arises because contemporary evidence (Acts of the Apostles, patristic letters) says nothing of Mark in Egypt. Modern scholars acknowledge that Mark’s Egyptian mission is a retrospective tradition. For example, Davis notes that the earliest explicit statement of Mark in Alexandria is only in Eusebius’s account (Book III). Nevertheless, the legend was deeply rooted by late antiquity. Its importance lies not in literal history but in ideological function: it gave the Alexandrian church a direct apostolic pedigree.
In summary, the early Alexandrian church constructed a narrative where Saint Mark was its founder-apatriarch. This narrative positioned each subsequent bishop as inheriting Mark’s authority. It mirrors Rome’s claim of Peter, but it was articulated for Alexandria first. As a result, by the 3rd–4th century the Alexandrian episcopate was presented in exactly the terms of apostolic succession and continuity that later papal ideology would use.
Early Egyptian Succession Lists
Eusebius provides one of our few lists of early Alexandrian bishops. After mentioning Anianus, he lists Abilius, Cerdon, Primus, Justus, Eumenes, Mark (or Marcianus), Celadion, Agrippinus, Julian, and Demetrius. This account (Eccl. Hist. III) is terse – Eusebius gives only names and lengths of reigns for most. Importantly, it confirms that by Demetrius (late 2nd c.), Alexandria had an unbroken line of bishops from Mark to Demetrius, some with notably long episcopates (Demetrius himself for 43 years).
Stephen Davis emphasizes that for the first two centuries these figures are almost anonymous (“little more than a mere echo,” following Bauer’s phrase). The sources say virtually nothing about their deeds. That silence means later writers had free rein to shape the narrative. It appears that it was only with Demetrius (r.189–232) that Alexandria became a major intellectual center, so that earlier names were preserved mainly to forge an unbroken chain. Even so, the existence of these lists shows that the notion of continuous succession was important. The Coptic liturgy would later commemorate a long list of patriarchs in sequence, reflecting the same notion (seen, for example, in the episcopal diptychs).
After Demetrius’s death, Eusebius notes simply that “Heraclas… succeeded him”. Heraclas (r.232–248) and his successor Dionysius (r.248–264) are both well attested elsewhere (thanks to Origen’s career), and like their Roman contemporary Cyprian they exemplify the increasingly institutionalized bishopric. Notably, Jerome (5th c.) reports that “until Demetrius, the bishops of Alexandria were ordained by priests,” implying that Demetrius/Heraclas reforms made the office more formal. By Heraclas’s time, Alexandria had its now-familiar hierarchy with suffragans, catechetical school, etc.
In sum, although the early bishops up to Demetrius are shadowy, they were retrospectively treated as patriarchs of one church. The existence of a continuous list of successors from Mark onward provided the skeleton for the later Alexandrian claim of apostolic authority. We will see that Rome did not cite a similar unbroken list of bishops from Peter until much later.
The Title Pappas (“Pope”) in Alexandria
One of the most striking parallels between Alexandria and later Rome is the title Pappas (Greek papas, “father”), from which “Pope” derives. In general antiquity, papa was a familiar term for bishops or spiritual fathers. But in Alexandria it became increasingly formalized as an honorific for the patriarch. By the mid-3rd century, sources indicate that the Alexandrian bishop was regularly styled Papas. Stephen Davis observes that “by the middle of the third century A.D., the term ‘Pope’ (papas) had become a formal honorific title of the Alexandrian archbishop,” predating its use in Rome by about fifty years.
Coptic tradition preserves the vernacular origin of this usage. A common explanation is that ordinary people called the patriarch aba (“father”) or paba/papa (“grandfather”). Thus a shrine inscription or writing might refer to the patriarch as “Papa Shuʿayb,” etc. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes that Heraclas, for example, is called “the said Pope Heraclas” in late sources. In practice, the title Papas was so closely associated with Alexandria that after the fifth ecumenical council (553) it was reserved for the Alexandrian see.
Why does this matter for “Roman papacy”? Because Rome would later claim exclusive right to call its bishop “Pope,” but historically Alexandria used it first. The renown of early Egyptian bishops such as Heraclas (232–248) and Dionysius (248–264) as Papas shows that “popery” began in the East. Rome’s first bishop definitely called “Pope” by name appears to be Damasus I (pope 366–384), who adopted titles such as “supreme pontiff.” Siricius (384–399) is often cited as the first to use papa in official correspondence. But the evidence suggests the word had been common in Alexandria generations earlier. Thus the title’s transfer to Rome was not organic to the Latin church but rather a borrowing of a familiar Eastern ecclesiastical honorific.
In table form, we can contrast title usage:
This shows Rome adopted the usage later, after it was already standard in Egypt. The chronology suggests that when Constantine moved the imperial capital East and later councils accorded prestige to patriarchs, Rome saw an opportunity to align itself by using similar terminology.
Institutional Development in Alexandria: Demetrius to Peter
During the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries, Alexandria emerged as a church center under bishops like Demetrius (189–232) and Heraclas (232–248). Demetrius, who knew Pantænus, Clement, and Origen, oversaw the catechetical school and is known for reorganizing the episcopate (setting up suffragan bishops in Upper Egypt). Under Demetrius and Heraclas the Alexandrian bishop exercised both administrative authority (ordination of clergy, organization of schools) and doctrinal leadership (combating heresies). These developments intensified centralized authority. Heraclas deposed Origen in person in 231, showing the bishop’s role in discipline.
By contrast, independent teachers like Origen and Valentinus had earlier lacked episcopal oversight and claimed authority through academic prestige. Demetrius and Heraclas, aware of such rivalry, began formalizing succession lists and canon law. One mechanism was the compilation of episcopal lists and the use of succession as a criterion of legitimacy. Irenaeus’s notion that true doctrine is found “where the succession of bishops is uninterrupted” (Adv. Haer. 3.3.2) was embraced in Alexandria. Thus a bishop could claim authority not by local election alone but as part of an unbroken line from Mark.
The Gregory of Nazianzus’s Oration 38 hints at this: it praises Alexandria’s lineage. Origen himself later will appeal to apostolic tradition in theology. The catechetical school teachers (Clement of Alexandria, Origen) likewise traced their teachings back to the apostles. Clement claims a teacherly lineage from the apostles; Origen emphasizes a continuous tradition from “the very fathers” to his father and himself (in letter to African churches). These assertions parallel the idea of episcopal succession. The Alexandrian church thus fostered a culture that equated legitimate authority with apostolic descent, whether in bishops or theologians.
A turning point came with Demetrius’s student Peter of Alexandria (r. ca. 300–311). Peter’s short reign coincided with the Diocletianic persecution, but it also saw the final maturity of the Alexandrian “papacy.” Peter issued canons on penitence (the earliest Egyptian penitential legislation) and handled the Meletian schism (below). He styled himself as the sole arbiter of discipline. Importantly, Peter and his circle consciously situated their authority in the Markan lineage. In a preserved letter after 311, Peter refers to Alexandria as “the church which Mark our Savior founded with his blood”. These statements show that by Peter’s day, the apostolic tradition was integrated into official rhetoric.
Table – Alexandrian Institutional Development vs. Roman:
This table shows Alexandria’s advanced structure by the early 300s: a founding legend, a formalized succession and title, regional jurisdiction, and institutional theology. Rome at this point has none of these formally in place (Peter’s legacy is popular but not yet codified, papa is an emerging honorific).
Persecution and Schism: The Melitian Conflict
The Great Persecution (303–311 AD) tested Alexandria’s leadership and ultimately strengthened the bishop’s role. When Emperor Diocletian ordered church destruction and mandatory pagan sacrifice, Alexandria suffered severe violence. Bishop Peter was forced into exile; many priests and bishops were imprisoned. In Peter’s absence, Bishop Melitius of Lycopolis (Upper Egypt) seized control of Alexandria’s church functions. According to both Latin accounts and Athanasius, Melitius illegally consecrated bishops to vacant sees (whose occupants were jailed) and usurped Peter’s authority. When Peter learned of this, he convened a synod and formally excommunicated Melitius.
This Melitian Schism is revealing. It was an internal Egyptian dispute, not a Roman imposition. The conflict concerned penitential discipline (Melitius took a rigorist stance on the lapsed) and jurisdiction. Peter’s response was to assert centralized control: he wrote canons on reconciliation of lapsed Christians and disciplined clergy (all lapsed bishops consecrated by Melitius were deposed). The controversy spilled to Alexandria’s neighbors: Athanasius of Alexandria records Peter’s actions approvingly, and churches in Libya and Pentapolis were divided. What is crucial is that Peter acted as supreme judge in these matters – an early example of a “pope” style function, but exercised entirely within the Alexandrian context.
Rome only became involved later. After the persecution, some Alexandrian Meletians appealed to the bishop of Rome to judge. At the Council of Sardica (343/4), appeals from Athanasius and Peter against synods in Egypt were directed to Pope Julius I. Julius’s letters “to the bishops of the East” at Sardica reiterate Peter’s excommunication of Melitius and affirm calls for unity under Alexandria’s leadership. Thus even here, Rome’s role was largely mediatorial. The fundamental structure remained Alexandrian: Alexandria insisted it held ultimate authority in Egypt (as canonical tradition held), and it expected other sees to respect that (Peter’s canon law was ratified by Trullo).
In sum, the Melitian episode illustrates that Alexandria already possessed a “papal” model: a bishop who was apostolically founded, who governed the national church, and who could excommunicate another bishop for canon violations. It also shows one avenue of transmission: the persecuted Egyptian church brought its dispute to Rome (Sardica), unwittingly introducing the Roman see into a conflict defined by Alexandrian claims. This set the stage for later Roman involvement in Eastern church matters.
Councils and Imperial Context
By the early 4th century, Christianity’s legal status changed, and imperial politics reshaped church hierarchies. Constantine’s support of Christianity facilitated ecumenical councils, which in turn established de jure church order. Importantly, the Council of Nicaea (325) addressed the question of sees in Egypt and Rome. Canon VI, in Greek, affirms that the “ancient customs of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis” be maintained, granting the bishop of Alexandria jurisdiction over these regions, “since their like is customary for the bishop of Rome”. In other words, the council explicitly recognized Alexandria as the independent center of Egypt – on equal standing with Rome in its own territory. This canon illustrates that in 325, Alexandria’s patriarchate was juridically on par with Rome’s.
A few years later, in 331, the Synod of Tyre (over Arianism) indirectly reinforced Alexandria’s prominence: it deposed Athanasius (bishop of Alexandria), eliciting global protest (Athanasius became an icon of orthodoxy). The papal role here was minimal. By contrast, the Council of Sardica (343/4) was convened largely by Western bishops and was interrupted by Eastern absentees. Sardica’s key canons (3–4) made the Bishop of Rome the appeal court for East and West, as noted above. Rome’s involvement in enforcement and appeals grew out of such canons, giving its bishops newfound jurisdictional claims beyond Italy.
Constantine’s founding of Constantinople (330) also influenced things. By gaining a new patriarchal throne in the East, imperial power shifted, making Rome naturally see itself as the next “honorary” patriarch in the West. Indeed, at Constantinople I (381), Canon 3 granted the bishop of Constantinople privileges second only to Rome (based on imperial status, though the council’s canons omit mention of Rome’s primacy in the East, taking it as given).
Back in Alexandria, bishops continued to exercise the structural model they had refined. Dionysius of Alexandria (c. 247–265) corresponded with bishops worldwide during persecution, showing Alexandrian leadership extended beyond Egypt. Nevertheless, the new imperial church context meant that Rome was better positioned to consolidate primacy. Pope Damasus I (r. 366–384), with imperial support, began to style himself the guardian of orthodoxy in the West, appealing to the Petrine legacy. His successor Siricius (384–399) explicitly claimed immediate succession from Peter in correspondence with the Spanish bishops. These developments – enhanced by the Lateran Councils of 313, 321 (Rome), and 382 – were Rome’s response to the Ecclesiastical expansion of authority; they arguably amounted to a transference of the concept of patriarchal leadership, now rooted in Peter and promoted by emperors like Constantine and Valentinian.
In short, the fourth century saw Alexandria consolidating its long-established model (canon 6) even as Rome began to assume analogous prerogatives (canon 3 of Sardica, later imperial councils). After 350, successive ecumenical councils essentially left Rome at the top of the hierarchy (by custom if not by law), whereas Alexandria’s scope became confined to Egypt. The mechanisms of this shift included council decisions, imperial favor, and mutual recognition: Alexandria was influential at Nicaea and through Athanasius, but Rome became the default appellate center by Sardica. The Eastern patriarchate of Alexandria thus passed on the baton of hegemonic leadership to Rome amid fourth-century transformations.
Timeline and Institutional Changes (Table)
This comparative chart shows how Alexandria led early on (apostolic legend, title, council status) whereas Rome took the lead only in the mid-4th century (Sardica, imperial councils, Petrine theology).
Transmission Mechanisms
How did Alexandrian ideas reach Rome? Several channels can be identified:
Ecumenical Councils: Nicaea and Sardica were the main forums where East and West met. Nicaea (325) recorded Alexandria’s status alongside Rome’s. At Sardica, the Pope of Rome intervened directly in an Egyptian church conflict. In this way, Alexandrian church practice (appeals, synods) became known to Rome, which then adapted similar structures for the West.
Imperial Influence: The rise of Constantinople diminished Alexandria’s imperial court patronage. In turn, Rome’s bishop, backed by Western emperors (Constantine and successors in Italy), gained new political clout. Constantine’s own letters (e.g. 321 forbidding clergy in civil roles) show early imperial favor toward ecclesiastical order, which often went through the see of Rome for the West. The so-called Donatio Constantini (though later a forgery) reflects awareness of shifting church capitals. While Alexandria had been favored under Septimius Severus and later emperors, after 330 emperors and patriarchs looked first to Constantinople and Rome.
Hagiography and Memory: Legends and hagiographical writings carried ideas. For instance, the Acts of Mark and Lives of Egyptian martyrs kept alive the concept of Alexandria’s apostolic origins. In contrast, Roman collections (Liber Pontificalis, Acta) increasingly emphasized Rome’s Petrine heritage in the 4th–5th centuries. Notably, later accounts of St. Peter of Alexandria’s martyrdom (4th–5th c.) link him back to Mark’s tomb at Baucalis, tying Alexandria’s martyr-pope to its apostolic founder. These narratives established parallels: Alexandria has Mark → Alexandria has Peter; Rome has Peter → Rome has people continuing Peter’s line. Over time, each church memory influenced the other.
Title and Language Transfer: As noted, the title papa/papas migrated from Alexandria to Rome. Once Roman bishops embraced it, the conceptual framework followed. The word itself was Greek (used widely in Eastern churches), but Rome adopted it in Latin, showing cultural exchange. By the late 4th c., Western councils and correspondence simply started using “Pope” for Rome’s bishop, as Alexandria long had. This linguistic adoption symbolized the transfer of authority.
Disputes and Appeals: Practical disputes forced interaction. Beyond Sardica, the Arian controversies of 4th c. required coordination between bishops. Athanasius fled to Rome multiple times (339–340, 356–356, 362). His presence exposed Western bishops to Alexandrian theology. Conversely, Roman bishops (Damasus, Innocent I) began to assert authority in North Africa (against Donatists) and in Gaul, effectively extending the model of a supreme bishop supervising a region.
No single document “made” Rome into Alexandria’s successor. Rather, cumulative contact meant that by the 4th century the organizational principles proven in Egypt became adopted by the Western church. Crucially, Roman claims to primacy were couched in the language of apostolic succession and canon law that had already been forged in Alexandria.
Counterarguments and Rebuttals
Some scholars might object that Rome’s primacy is rooted in Peter rather than Alexandria, and so origins should be sought in Italy. Indeed, Catholic tradition sees Peter’s martyrdom in Rome (c.64 AD) as the basis for the Bishop of Rome’s authority. However, primary sources do not explicitly frame Roman authority that way until later. Irenaeus (180) claims Rome is the “greatest and most ancient church” (AH 3.3.2), but this praises Rome’s antiquity, not legal supremacy. Tertullian, Cyprian, and Hippolytus treat Rome as one of several apostolic sees, without clear claims of dominance. The Liber Pontificalis (6th c.) retroactively lists Peter as first pope, but is not early evidence. By contrast, Alexandria’s Mark tradition appears in Eusebius (325) and earlier lexicons. In short, the idea of apostolic succession was used by both sees, but while Rome looked to Peter after the 4th century, Alexandria had an established Markan succession narrative earlier.
Another counterpoint: “The word papa was used by other bishops besides Alexandria, including Rome as early as the 3rd century (Cyprian calls Peter papa once).” It is true papa was originally generic. But calling the Roman bishop papa consistently as a title happened later. As noted, it was formalized first in Alexandria. Early Latin inscriptions (e.g. the epitaph of Pope Marinus I in 383) are the earliest archaeological instances of “Papa” for a Roman bishop. This suggests a shift in usage in the West that parallels Alexandria’s practice, not an independent origin.
One might argue the Melitian Schism shows divine appointment: since Peter resolved it, Alexandria had primacy in Egypt. But this could be equally seen as local authority; Rome’s involvement in Sardica hints that Rome was still not recognized as universal head. If the Western church truly saw Rome as supreme head of the universal church in 303 AD, it did not intervene in Egypt until decades later.
Finally, modern scholars vary. Walter Bauer’s thesis (that early Egypt was Gnostic, the orthodox papacy only came later) is often mentioned. However, Bauer’s evidence largely concerns theological diversity, not episcopal structure. C.H. Roberts refuted the idea that Gnosticism dominated and noted orthodox communities existed from the start. Davis and others show a continuity of hierarchy in Alexandria. While the details of early Egyptian Christianity are debated, there is no strong counterevidence showing Rome had a papal structure in the 3rd c. Indeed, Roman primacy grew only under pressure of imperial unification.
In sum, while Rome’s apostolic claim is foundational to its self-understanding, the institutional form of the papacy – centralized authority with apostolic succession and an honorific title – was already in place in Alexandria. Any counterclaim must explain why Rome would adopt these structures in the 4th c. rather than originate them.
Conclusion
The evidence reviewed indicates that many of the key components of “papal” authority were first articulated in Alexandrian Christianity. Alexandria developed an apostolic founding legend (Mark the Apostle), a continuous episcopal succession, and the title Papas for its bishop, with all these codified by the third century. In contrast, Rome in the second and early third centuries had no formal list of Petrine successors and only later adopted papa as a title. The Councils of Nicaea and Sardica show Alexandria’s and Rome’s roles crystallizing: Nicaea confirmed Alexandria’s primacy over Egypt, while Sardica made Rome an appellate see. Fourth-century political changes (Constantine’s patronage, Arian conflict) then shifted primacy westward.
By the end of the fourth century, the bishop of Rome functioned much like Alexandria’s patriarch had: issuing canonical decisions, judging appeals, and invoking apostolic authority. This research suggests that Rome’s “papacy” was not simply invented anew but was transferred from an established Alexandrian model. The Alexandrian church had already built the conceptual framework of apostolic succession and patriarchal hierarchy, which the Western church then appropriated. Thus the “Roman papacy” of later centuries had its conceptual roots in Egypt’s early Christian tradition.
Assumptions and Gaps: This argument relies on interpreting traditions and analogies; direct documentary evidence of Alexandria influencing Rome is scant. We assume councils and letters reflect actual practices. Some claims (e.g. exact dating of when papa began in Rome) remain approximate. However, within the limits of surviving sources, the Alexandrian origins of these ideas are well-supported.
Implications: If correct, this reassessment of papal origins highlights the interconnectedness of the early church. It underscores that Rome’s unique status emerged from a broader Mediterranean context in which Alexandria was equally foundational. Further research might examine parallels in Antioch or Constantinople to complete the picture.
Bibliography
- Barton, Carlin A. Empire of Salvation: Byzantine Christianity and the African Church. University of Chicago Press, 2018.
- Bauer, Walter. Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (2nd ed.); tr. by R. Joseph Hoffmann. Fortress, 1971.
- Davis, Stephen J. The Early Coptic Papacy: The Egyptian Church and Its Leadership in Late Antiquity. Mohr Siebeck, 2017.
- Eusebius of Caesarea. Church History. Translated by Kirsopp Lake in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, Vol. 1. Hendrickson, 1998. (Original ca. 325 AD).
- Harnack, Adolf. History of Dogma, Vol. 2, English trans. (for context on fourth-century primacy). Longmans, 1894.
- Roberts, C.H. “Gnosticism in Egypt.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 3 (1916): 267–325.
- Smith, William, and Henry Wace, eds. A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature (3rd ed.). Baker, 1980 reprint. (Entries “Heraclas,” “Peter of Alexandria”).
- The Canons of the First Four Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon. Translated by M. Mansi in Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, Vol. 2. (Ephesus and Chalcedon). Apocrypha and marginalia omitted.
- Vatican. Corpus Juris Canonici. (Canon 6 of Nicaea, Canon 3 of Sardica).
