Be careful. What you are saying is true. But it does not follow from that that it is "Not the same job description at all". The bishops together decided that it was better for the Church that the office of bishop be restricted to unmarried men. (As those ordained by the Apostles, they have the authority to make such decisions, just as they decided authoritatively which books belonged to the canon.) They did not take Paul's "the husband of one wife" to be saying that a bishop *must* be married. They understood Paul to be saying that a bishop must not have more than one wife. Paul himself says that he who does not marry does even better (1 Cor 7). Limiting the office to unmarried men does not change the "job description", or the authority endowed by ordination to the office of bishop.
-A8
Well then you agree with my original point. The biblical "episkopos" is not the equivelent of the modern Roman Catholic "bishop". As pointed out by you, tradition has defined the requirements for the Catholic bishop. It has passed from the realm of "biblical" to "traditional". Since I don't invest any authority in a tradition that contradicts the bible, and you do, than there's not much left for discussion.