May the memories of the apostolic fathers be damned! You are all over the place here and not addressing the argument. We know that after the fourth century, this convention changed (hence we start seeing claims that St. Mark was the first bishop of Alexandria, St. Peter was the first bishop of Rome and Antioch, etc.). My point is that in the very earliest times it was not conventional to include the founder of a see as its first bishop.
First, i adressed the argument. I showed that for the pre-schism period, tha Tradition is clearly that st Peter is the First bishop of Rome. Second, in the Bible, St Peter is called an "elder", Episkopos, meaning a bishop, as it is also used by st Ignace of Antioche:
A bishop (English translation of the biblical Greek επίσκοπος episcopos "supervisor, protector").
"Presbyter and episkopos appear to be used interchangeably at other points in the New Testament and in I Clement. This usage makes it difficult to accept the thesis that Peter would not have been considered a bishop or episkopos while resident in Rome." www.catholic-convert.com/documents/PeterInRome.doc
The ambiguous words of the earliest times are not a problem if interpreted in the light of the Tradition of the Church. But here, the earliest is st Peter's epistle, where he's called a bishop.
And also, it is not because we have writings from st John Chrysostom of st Basil in wich they claim that the blessed virgin Mary sinned, that you believe it. Since it contradicts the whole tradition of the CHurch. THen you must apply the same standard to the priesthood of st Peter in Rome.
As for the Eusebius/Jerome thing. Given that we already have another work by Eusebius in which he calls Linus the first bishop, are we then to assume that Eusebius was inconsistent or that Jerome (whom we already know believed that St. Peter was thee first bishop of Rome from his other writings) edited Eusebius' book? We don't know what Jerome's additions are to that book, because no extant Greek version of Eusebius' original book remains.
Well you are arguing from Silence against st Jerome, simply for polemical purposes, and with no proof at all that st Jerome forged it.