The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by John2 »

Ben sent me a link to all of Bauckham's Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church and I'm enjoying that. Regarding Symeon bar Clophas, the second bishop of Jerusalem after James, Bauckham says that Eusebius says "Symeon" when he is paraphrasing Hegesippus but that when he quotes him directly Hegesippus says "Simon," and I never noticed that before. So I guess I'll start saying "Simon" now.

Simon seems like an interesting guy, and I'm enjoying reflecting on Hegesippus' account, which is the only source we have for him. And I've noticed that there is some discussion about Simon being said to have been 120 years old when he died, but there is nothing unusual about that, since this is the age that Moses is said to have died so it is said of other important (and more or less contemporary) figures in Judaism as well, i.e., Hillel, Rabban ben Zakkai (the founder of post-70 CE Rabbinic Judaism) and Rabbi Akiva (who was also tortured and executed, like Simon was). As Yadin-Israel notes (citing Sifre to Deuteronomy):
"And Moses was 120 years old" (Deut. 34:7). He was one of four who died at the age of 120, and these were Moses, Hillel the Elder, Rabban Yohannan ben Zakkai, and Rabbi Akiva.

https://books.google.com/books?id=GvjSB ... va&f=false


Also, Josephus notes that many Essenes lived to be over a hundred (not to say that Jewish Christians were Essenes; in fact, Hegesippus explicitly says they were not) in War 2.8.10:
They are long-lived also, insomuch that many of them live above a hundred years, by means of the simplicity of their diet; nay, as I think, by means of the regular course of life they observe also.
So Simon's age is no big deal in my view (though I suspect that all of these cases are exaggerated); it's a traditional age given to revered figures in Judaism because of Moses and is in keeping with Eusebius' statement that Hegesippus "mentions other matters as taken from the unwritten tradition of the Jews."

I think Hegesippus is the best source we have for early Christianity (after 70 CE, at least) and he answers many questions to my satisfaction. For example, "brother of the Lord" means a literal brother. Though I would have thought this anyway, Hegesippus makes no bones about it. It reminds me of the Maccabee brothers. I take it that they were literal brothers and see no reason to make any issue of it, and when one died another one took over the movement. I suspect the only reason it is an issue in post-70 CE (Pauline) Christianity is (in part) because of the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. I reckon this won't sway anyone, but it works for me.

And it means that there was an historical Joseph since Hegesippus says that Simon was the son of Joseph's brother (here it says Symeon in a direct quotation, so I will have to check Bauckham's observation).
The same author also describes the beginnings of the heresies which arose in his time, in the following words: “And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the Lord’s uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop."
They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.
And "according to the flesh" means that Jesus was a human being.
After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James.
Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Judas, who is said to have been the Lord’s brother according to the flesh.
And "descendant of David" means exactly that (or was at least thought to mean exactly that).
And when many were fully convinced and gloried in the testimony of James, and said, ‘Hosanna to the Son of David’ ...
Information was given that they [the grandsons of Judas] belonged to the family of David...
And he [Domitian] asked them if they were descendants of David, and they confessed that they were.
But there is nothing like hearing the historian himself, who writes as follows: “Certain of these heretics brought accusation against Symeon, the son of Clopas, on the ground that he was a descendant of David and a Christian; and thus he suffered martyrdom, at the age of one hundred and twenty years, while Trajan was emperor and Atticus governor.”
And the same writer says that his [Simon's] accusers also, when search was made for the descendants of David, were arrested as belonging to that family.
Last edited by John2 on Wed May 24, 2017 2:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by John2 »

Another issue that comes to mind regarding Hegesippus is Eusebius' statement that "he received the same doctrine" from the bishops he met on his journey to Rome in the mid-second century CE.
Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. His words are as follows: “And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. And when I had come to Rome I remained there until Anicetus.” His deacon was Eleutherus, and Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.


I have the impression that Hegesippus did not use any gospel besides the Gospel of the Hebrews (which I take to be one of the Matthews that was translated from Hebrew into Greek that Papias mentions), so this has always seemed like an odd thing for Hegesippus to say. How could he say this if he was Jewish Christian, right? But I bear in mind that the NT gospels didn't even have names yet during his time, or were just beginning to (and I suspect that Luke and Acts may not have existed until around this time too), and in any event Matthew seems to have been the most popular gospel (it is positioned as the first one in the NT after all), as this website notes:
The position of the Gospel according to Matthew as the first of the four gospels in the New Testament reflects both the view that it was the first to be written, a view that goes back to the late second century A.D., and the esteem in which it was held by the church; no other was so frequently quoted in the noncanonical literature of earliest Christianity.

http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/0

And Buchanan says that:
Kilpatrick noted from the works of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian and Augustine that Matthew was the most popular gospel of the NT canon. Wherever possible these fathers quoted from Matthew rather than one of its parallels.

https://books.google.com/books?id=rLVLA ... el&f=false
So I think this could be why Hegesippus said that the bishops he met on his journey shared the "true doctrine" (at least up to the time of Primus c. 150 CE), and I think Luke and Acts could have been written around this time in response to this Jewish Christian influence. This would be in keeping with MacDonald's idea (which I find persuasive) that Papias (c. 60 CE to 130 CE) did not know Luke. And notice that it says regarding this "true doctrine" that "In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord," which sounds very much like Matthew (and Jewish Christianity).
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by John T »

"The historicity of the Pella tradition is disputed,"...John2

By who, mythicists or respected scholars?

Just because you don't have excavated ruins of an Ebionite church in Pella does not mean the ante-Nicene fathers made it all up.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by John2 »

John T wrote:
The historicity of the Pella tradition is disputed,"...John2

By who, mythicists or respected scholars?

Just because you don't have excavated ruins of an Ebionite church in Pella does not mean the ante-Nicene fathers made it all up.
I already mentioned them.
...there are "respected scholars" who differ with his [Tabor's] conclusion as well. I already mentioned Brandon (who I need to re-read), and Harlow, who says "The historicity of the Pella tradition is disputed," adds Strecker, Munck, Gaston and Ludemann.


And then I added Luomanen to this, who says, "The tradition about the disciples' flight to Pella before the conquest of Jerusalem, as transmitted by Eusebius ... is hardly historical as such."
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by John2 »

And I'll need to refresh my memory, but I recall that part of Brandon's argument is that Josephus says that Pella was destroyed in 66 CE.

War 2.458:
Upon which stroke that the Jews received at Caesarea, the whole nation was greatly enraged; so they divided themselves into several parties, and laid waste the villages of the Syrians, and their neighboring cities, Philadelphia, and Sebonitis, and Gerasa, and Pella, and Scythopolis ...

http://lexundria.com/j_bj/2.458/wst
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by John T »

Eusebius apparently based his story of Pella not on Hegesippus but on Ariston of Pella 150 A.D.

http://www.bibarch.com/archaeologicalsites/pella.htm
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by DCHindley »

John2 wrote:And I'll need to refresh my memory, but I recall that part of Brandon's argument is that Josephus says that Pella was destroyed in 66 CE.

War 2.458:
Upon which stroke that the Jews received at Caesarea, the whole nation was greatly enraged; so they divided themselves into several parties, and laid waste the villages of the Syrians, and their neighboring cities, Philadelphia, and Sebonitis, and Gerasa, and Pella, and Scythopolis ...

http://lexundria.com/j_bj/2.458/wst
I'd think that "laid waste" means "burning the villages that feed the town" as I doubt that marauding bands of Judeans could really take a "city." Off hand, though, I do not remember if Pella was a fortified city or a Greek/Roman colony (meaning the residents were ex-soldiers or descended from same, who would know how to put up an effective defense). This is undoubtedly in Schuerer's Jewish People, including the PDF of the translation from the late 19th century.

Well, back to work...

DCH
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by John T »

DCHindley wrote: John2,

I just find the story of James' death to be too, well, weird, to be taken seriously. The speech on the wall about what is the "door of Jesus" (we do not know what the context of this demand was, as Eusebius does not give it) makes no sense to me as an early Christian relic.

DCH
Actually, if you consider the writings of the Dead Sea Scrolls it makes perfect sense. The Essenes believed the renewed Temple would have 12 gates surrounding it, one for each tribe and they would enter the court yard according to their respective tribe's gate.

What is the door to Jesus, was a trick question, a trap. The Pharisees knew James was an Essene because he alone was allowed to enter the sanctuary. If James said Jesus would enter the gate of Judah, James being a blood bother of Jesus would have been hunted down and killed by the Herodians for being of the same blood line of David. If James said that Jesus would arrive via one of the other 11 gates he would be disqualified as the messiah because the messiah would come from the line of David.

James frustrated the Pharisees saying that Jesus being the Son of Man would descend from the clouds. Ecclesiastical History, Book 2, Chapter 23.

Enochic Judaism gave birth to the Essenes, the Essenes gave birth to Christianity and the Pharisees tried to destroy them all in their crib.

Sincerely,

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by John T »

John2 wrote:John T wrote:
The historicity of the Pella tradition is disputed,"...John2

By who, mythicists or respected scholars?

Just because you don't have excavated ruins of an Ebionite church in Pella does not mean the ante-Nicene fathers made it all up.
I already mentioned them.
...there are "respected scholars" who differ with his [Tabor's] conclusion as well. I already mentioned Brandon (who I need to re-read), and Harlow, who says "The historicity of the Pella tradition is disputed," adds Strecker, Munck, Gaston and Ludemann.


And then I added Luomanen to this, who says, "The tradition about the disciples' flight to Pella before the conquest of Jerusalem, as transmitted by Eusebius ... is hardly historical as such."
I look up one of your links and found that the footnote seems to suggest otherwise.

Petri Luomaen does not agree with Ludeman that the Pella story is simply a legend. Luomanen says: "It is perfectly possible that they [Ebonites/Christians] survived when the Jews raided the town, [Pella 66 A.D.]." (pg 60).

https://books.google.com/books?id=ujIWl ... la&f=false
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by John2 »

John T. wrote:
I look up one of your links and found that the footnote seems to suggest otherwise.

Petri Luomaen does not agree with Ludeman that the Pella story is simply a legend. Luomanen says: "It is perfectly possible that they [Ebonites/Christians] survived when the Jews raided the town, [Pella 66 A.D.]." (pg 60).
My take is that Luomanen is saying that he doesn't buy the historicity of the Pella Flight "as such" as Eusebius and Epiphanius present it but perhaps the legend could be based on a somewhat different scenario (maybe from Aristo, and maybe they fled before the destruction of Pella and survived it somehow), which isn't that different from what I am thinking in the bigger picture, only my different scenario is that "I suspect that there were already Jewish Christians living outside of Jerusalem and Judea for as long as there had been a "new covenant in the land of Damascus" or people who "went out of the land of Judah to sojourn in the land of Damascus," as the Damascus Document puts it. And I suppose that this relocation process could have started long before the war and lasted all the way to the end of it and even after," as I put it earlier. And I reckon the need for this legend arose as a way to explain why there were Jewish Christians living in this region in the fourth century CE when Eusebius and Epiphanius were writing.

But feel free to take Luomanen off the list if you like.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Post Reply