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

The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by John2 »

I have some free time at work and found myself writing to Ben about the meaning of a couple of Greek words that Hegesippus uses and it seems to have led to the larger question of the location of "the Jerusalem church" after 70 CE so I thought I'd make it a thread.

I've been pondering Hegesippus' statement that "immediately" after James was killed Vespasian began to "besiege" them (και ευθυς Ουεσπασιανος πολιορκει αυτους). I was able to make out the word for "immediately" (εὐθέως/eutheos), which seems to mean "right after," but Stanton and some definitions I've seen say that it can mean "soon" or "by and by" (I can't find Stanton's book that says this today -Google books is funny that way). And today I see that Hoogterp says that eutheos "is apparently more concerned with sequence of events, rather than with timing," and he gives some examples of this from the NT.
This is indeed what is the case throughout the New Testament usage of this word. "Immediately," as is commonly understood by an English reader is an unfortunate translation at best.

https://books.google.com/books?id=e-m0A ... on&f=false
I'm having more trouble understanding "besieged," which appears to be this word (πολιορκει):

"And immediately Vespasian besieged them."

και ευθυς Ουεσπασιανος πολιορκει αυτους.

http://www.textexcavation.com/hegesippus.html

I was thinking perhaps it doesn't necessarily refer to the siege of Jerusalem but rather to the beginning of the 66-70 CE war because of the reference to Vespasian, but then Eusebius says in the following passages that:
But let us go on with the rest. 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.
Και δη απο μιας γνωμης τους παντας Συμεωνα τον του Κλωπα, ου και η του ευαγγελιου μνημονευει γραφη, του της αυτοθι παροικιας θρονου αξιον ειναι δοκιμασαι, ανεψιον, ως γε φασι, γεγονοτα του σωτηρος, τον γαρ ουν Κλωπαν αδελφον του Ιωσηφ υπαρχειν Ηγησιππος ιστορει.

I suppose that clears that up, and I'm assuming that the word Eusebius uses for "immediately" here is also eutheos, but I'm curious what Greek word he is using for "conquest." Is it the same one that Hegesippus uses for "besieged"?

Eusebius then goes on to say:
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 savior. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.
This is interesting because of the reference to "that parish," since the setting of the council to replace James as bishop is said above to be "after ... the conquest of Jerusalem ..."

But later Eusebius says:
It is reported that after the age of Nero and Domitian, under the emperor whose times we are now recording [Trajan], a persecution was stirred up against us in certain cities in consequence of a popular uprising. In this persecution we have understood that Symeon, the son of Clopas, who, as we have shown, was the second bishop of the church of Jerusalem, suffered martyrdom. Hegesippus, whose words we have already quoted in various places, is a witness to this fact also.
So here we have a reference to "certain cities," which may or may not include Jerusalem, and I would lean towards the latter given that a) the setting is Trajan's time, when the "church of Jerusalem" is elsewhere said to have been located outside of Jerusalem (e.g., Pella); b) the grandsons of Jude are said to have been farmers and owned land, which does not sound like Jerusalem; c) when they were released after being interrogated by Domitian, Hegesippus says that Domitian then "put a stop to the persecution of the Church [singular]. But when they were released they ruled the churches [plural] because they were witnesses and were also relatives of the Lord. And peace being established, they lived until the time of Trajan"; and d) I have the impression from other sources that Jerusalem did not have any Jewish residents between 70 CE and 135 CE, it seems that in this context "the Jerusalem Church" effectively means "the Jerusalem Church in exile," and this must be where Symeon was executed, i.e., somewhere outside of Jerusalem.
Last edited by John2 on Fri May 05, 2017 6:47 pm, edited 9 times 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 »

This situation seems similar to the Jerusalem Talmud, which, as Wikipedia says:
Naming this version of the Talmud after Palestine or Land of Israel rather than Jerusalem is considered more accurate by some because, while the work was certainly composed in "the West" (as seen from Babylonia), i.e. in the Holy Land, it mainly originates from the Galilee rather than from Jerusalem in Judea, as no Jews lived in Jerusalem at this time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Talmud
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by outhouse »

John2 wrote:the larger question of the location of "the Jerusalem church" after 70 CE so I thought I'd make it a thread.

.
At best it would have been a house in the poor section of town, the lower areas, or even just outside of the city.

I doubt it lasted until 70
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 »

Josephus gives several different versions as to the chief reason for the Jewish revolt.
One version was due to the revolt that started after Jewish worshipers witnessed Greek civilians sacrificing birds in front of a local synagogue in Caesarea. This revolt resulted in a route of Roman forces and the defeat of Cestius Gallus at the Battle of Beth Horon in 66 A.D.

Nero appointed Vespasian in 66 A.D. to avenged that humiliating defeat.

However, when it comes to Vespasian besieging Jerusalem it was not immediately nor was it directly due to the murder of James the Just in 62 A.D.

Vespasian arrived at Antioch in 67 A.D. ( 5 years later) and after a short campaign in Galilee moved on Jerusalem but left the campaign upon the news of Nero's death in 68 A.D.

It was Vespasian's son, Titus, that carried out the siege of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

The Christians were not part of the Jewish revolt in 70 A.D. since they were forewarned by Jesus and prophets to flee before the destruction of the temple that was to take place.

"The whole body, however, of the church at Jerusalem, having been commanded by a divine revelation given to men of approved piety there before the war, removed from the city and lived at a certain town beyond the Jordan called Pella."... Eusebius, Book 3 Chapter 5 (3).

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by outhouse »

John T wrote: The Christians were not part of the Jewish revolt in 70 A.D.
John T

Non sequitur to my statement
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by John2 »

It's been a long time since I've read about Vespasian's campaign in Josephus and I need to take another look at it and his role in the siege of Jerusalem, and I also want to take a fresh look at the accounts of the flight to Pella and Mt. 24 and Lk. 21 (which I've never thought about much before).

This website summarizes Josephus' account of the 66-70 CE and the siege of Jerusalem and notes that Vespasian at least moved his army to the countryside and towns outside Jerusalem and rode with his cavalry up to the walls of the city in mid 69 CE:
Far away in Rome, Nero was overthrown and the year of the four emperors cast Italy into confusion. In the East, Vespasian waited upon events, and so the summer of a.d. 68 passed into winter. In June of the next year he moved to reassert his hold on Judea outside Jerusalem, wasting the countryside and taking some towns he had neglected before. He rode with his cavalry even up to the walls of Jerusalem and then rode away again. He avoided a major campaign in a.d. 69 because he had his eye on higher things: On July 1 the carefully instructed garrison of Egypt proclaimed Vespasian emperor, and his own legions and the powerful Syrian army soon followed suit. Away went Vespasian to manage a civil war against his rival emperor Vitellius, and by December Vespasian’s lieutenants in Europe had made him master of the Roman world. Rome’s new emperor sailed for the capital and left Titus to bring the war against the Jews to an end.

http://www.historynet.com/first-jewish- ... usalem.htm
I notice there is an interesting difference between Mt. 24:15-21 and Lk. 21.

Mt. 24:15-21:
So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.
Lk. 21:20-24:
When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
The version in Matthew gives me the impression that it refers to the Romans sacrificing to their standards on the Temple Mount in 70 CE when Titus was in charge because it says that "the abomination that causes desolation" would be seen "standing in the holy place," which I assume means the Temple, but the version in Luke seems to be more in line with Vespasian and his army surrounding Jerusalem and riding up to the walls, especially since it also says that this would be a sign that Jerusalem's desolation "is near" and that it "will be trampled on" rather than it being an accomplished fact at that point.

Whatever Mt. 24:15 could be referring to, I think it's interesting that it says, "Pray that your flight will not take place in winter" because Vespasian surrounded Jerusalem in mid 69 CE.

But I would wager though that the version in Matthew is older and Luke (using Matthew) added the references to Jerusalem in keeping with the theme in Luke and Acts of the holy spirit making its way from Jerusalem to Rome.

In any event, I think the (in my view original) version in Matthew (whether or not it is a genuine saying of Jesus) is evidence that the founders of the post-70 CE Jewish Christian community that produced Matthew did leave Judea (if not also Jerusalem) for "the mountains" like other Jews did at that time (like Masada).
Last edited by John2 on Sat May 06, 2017 3:12 pm, edited 4 times 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 »

In the big picture though, regarding Hegesippus' comment "And immediately Vespasian besieged them," if this does not refer to Vespasian surrounding and riding up to Jerusalem, in any event Vespasian was ultimately in charge of things and, as the above website puts it, he then "left Titus to bring the war against the Jews to an end."
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 »

John T wrote:
The Christians were not part of the Jewish revolt in 70 A.D. since they were forewarned by Jesus and prophets to flee before the destruction of the temple that was to take place.
The same thing could be said about other Jews who fled Jerusalem and Judea before the Temple was destroyed. For example, Masada was taken over in 66 CE. Does that mean that those Jews "were not part of the Jewish revolt in 70 A.D."?
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 »

outhouse wrote:
John T wrote: The Christians were not part of the Jewish revolt in 70 A.D.
John T

Non sequitur to my statement
Actually, your statement is non-sequitur, unless you are trying to make a case that Pella is just outside the city of Jerusalem. :scratch:

Help me understand my confusion as to the location of Pella.

John T
"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 »

The Christians were not part of the Jewish revolt in 70 A.D. since they were forewarned by Jesus and prophets to flee before the destruction of the temple that was to take place.
I think this depends on which version of Jesus' saying you use (the one in Mt. 24 or the one in Lk. 21) and the meaning of "the abomination of the desolation" in Mt. 24:15-16.
So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.
If this means the destruction of the Temple and/or the Romans sacrificing to their standards there (as I suspect it does given the reference to "the holy place," though I'm seeing that some argue that it could refer to Jerusalem), then the flight from Judea "to the mountains" did not happen until that time. But the version in Luke 21 says the sign to flee would be:
When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city ... Jerusalem will be trampled on ...
I've never thought about these passages before and I'm just thinking out loud now, but it seems like Mt. 24 is saying that when people in Judea (which I presume could include Jerusalem) see the Temple destroyed and/or the Romans sacrificing to their standards there (which happened in 70 CE), then they should "flee to the mountains."

But in Lk. 21 they should "flee to the mountains" when they "see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies," which started happening in 69 CE.

So it sounds to me like there could have been Jewish Christians in Jerusalem and Judea up to mid 69 CE in Luke's version and possibly up to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE in Matthew's version.

The only way to resolve these two passages is to take "holy place" in Matthew to mean Jerusalem, but then what would "the abomination that causes desolation" be? And Mt. 24 begins with a reference to the Temple ("Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 'Do you see all these things?' he asked. 'Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down'”), which fits the idea that 24:15 does too.

Hm.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Post Reply