A critical analysis of the statements of Eusebius from Caesarea makes plausible the presumption that the indications of Papias administering an office as an ἐπίσκοπος in the city of Hierapolis in Asia Minor are not based on historically confirmed information accepted by Eusebius himself. Moreover these indications seem to depict a post-Eusebian construction. This presumption is likely to unsettle the historical reliability of Papias' episcopacy. This implies that Papias can no longer be treated as evidence for the hypothesis that for the congregations in the west of the Roman province of Asia the institution of an ἐπίσκοπος of the local church had already developed in the second quarter of the second century ce.
