I'm thinking more about the "after 70 CE" part of this thread, and aside from Hegesippus, who I now think gives the best account of (at least Jewish) Christianity from c. 30 CE to c. 115 CE, there isn't a whole lot there, but the next best thing appears to be Hegesippus' contemporary Justin Martyr, who says that there were (presumably Jewish) were persecuted by Bar Kokhba (First Apology 31), and that would take us down to c. 135 CE. However, I'm presently leaning towards the idea that Bar Kokhba did not capture Aelia Capitolina (i.e., Jerusalem), so I would assume this persecution did not include any Jewish Christians living there (if there even were any).
Harkabi writes:
Bar Kokhba had several successes, most preeminently, according to the accepted view, the conquest of Jerusalem. The Jewish sources have no mention of a conquest of Jerusalem nor of a reconquest by the Romans. For such an achievement by Bar Kokhba, the primary evidence has been the coins on which the name Jerusalem is impressed. From numismatic findings, however, we learn that while numerous "Kuzbi coins" (as they were called by the sages) have been discovered in the Hills of Judea and in Hebron, only one from the time of Bar Kokhba was identified among the approximately 15,000 uncovered since 1967 in the excavations of Jerusalem. it seems likely that had there been a garrison from Bar Kokhba's army in Jerusalem, or had Jewish resettlement there commenced, there would remain a quantity of Kuzbi coins. Thus some scholars have proposed that Jerusalem was not conquered and that the expression on the coins, "For the freedom of Jerusalem," served as a slogan in the struggle, a goal to which the Jews aspired.
https://books.google.com/books?id=rb00W ... em&f=false
I've already gotten the impression that there weren't any Jews in Jerusalem between 70 CE and the founding of Aelia Capitolina, but I noted earlier that Epiphanius places Jewish Christians in the latter in Weights and Measures 14-15:
And he [Hadrian] took the Aquila mentioned above, who was a Greek interpreter, since Hadrian also was a Greek -now Aquila was related to the king by marriage and was from Sinope in Pontus- and he established him there in Jerusalem as overseer of the work of building the city. And he gave to the city that was being built his own name and the appellation of the royal title. For as he was named Aelius Hadrian, so he also named the city Aelia.
So Aquila, while he was in Jerusalem, also saw the disciples of the disciples of the apostles flourishing in the faith and working great signs, healings, and other miracles. For they were such as had come back from the city of Pella to Jerusalem and were living there and teaching. For when the city was about to be taken and destroyed by the Romans, it was revealed in advance to all the disciples by an angel of God that they should remove from the city, as it was going to be completely destroyed. They sojourned as emigrants in Pella, the city above mentioned, in Transjordania. And this city is said to be of the Decapolis. But after the destruction of Jerusalem, when they had returned to Jerusalem, as I have said, they wrought great signs, as I have already said.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/epiph ... 3_text.htm
I can't tell exactly when this return to Jerusalem happened (by
any Jews), but Jewish Christians are said to have been there at least by the time Aquila arrived there to oversee "the work of building the city," which could be c. 130 CE, when Aelia was first being constructed (and which provoked the Bar Kokhba revolt), or after the revolt (i.e., sometime after 135 CE), but I would lean towards the latter (but then that doesn't fit with Hadrian's ban on Jews entering Jerusalem after 135 CE).
And this bumps into Eusebius' list of Jewish bishops of the Jerusalem Church in EH 4.5.
The chronology of the bishops of Jerusalem I have nowhere found preserved in writing; for tradition says that they were all short lived. But I have learned this much from writings, that until the siege of the Jews, which took place under Adrian, there were fifteen bishops in succession there, all of whom are said to have been of Hebrew descent, and to have received the knowledge of Christ in purity, so that they were approved by those who were able to judge of such matters, and were deemed worthy of the episcopate. For their whole church consisted then of believing Hebrews who continued from the days of the apostles until the siege which took place at this time; in which siege the Jews, having again rebelled against the Romans, were conquered after severe battles. But since the bishops of the circumcision ceased at this time, it is proper to give here a list of their names from the beginning. The first, then, was James, the so-called brother of the Lord; the second, Symeon; the third, Justus; the fourth, Zacchæus; the fifth, Tobias; the sixth, Benjamin; the seventh, John; the eighth, Matthias; the ninth, Philip; the tenth, Seneca; the eleventh, Justus; the twelfth, Levi; the thirteenth, Ephres; the fourteenth, Joseph; and finally, the fifteenth, Judas. These are the bishops of Jerusalem that lived between the age of the apostles and the time referred to, all of them belonging to the circumcision.
But despite his comment that "there were fifteen bishops in succession
there," I don't get the impression that "there" means that these bishops were all literally in Jerusalem, because not only does it appear that no Jews lived in Jerusalem between 70 CE and c.135 CE (though I suppose some could have), Eusebius himself says that there weren't any Jewish Christians in Jerusalem and Judea (at least for a certain period of time) after 70 CE, as he says in EH 3.5:
But the rest of the apostles [after James died], who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went unto all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, “Go and make disciples of all the nations in my name.”
But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella. And when those that believed in Christ had come there from Jerusalem, then, as if the royal city of the Jews and the whole land of Judea were entirely destitute of holy men, the judgment of God at length overtook those who had committed such outrages against Christ and his apostles, and totally destroyed that generation of impious men.
So even according to Eusebius himself there were not literally "fifteen bishops in succession" in Jerusalem. The only question is when they came back, and that means asking when they (or any Jews)
could come back, and that appears to be no earlier than the founding of Aelia Capitolina c. 130 CE, though I reckon there could have been Jewish Christians who lived elsewhere in Judea before this time like other Jews did, and that these are the (presumably Jewish) Christians Justin Martyr says were persecuted by Bar Kokhba.
And maybe they did come back to Jerusalem sometime between 70 CE and 135 CE, as Charlesworth supposes about other Jews.
Little is directly known about the Jewish population of Jerusalem between the two revolts ... Jerusalem, however, became a camp for the tenth legion, Legio X Fretensis. This would not have automatically implied the exclusion of the Jewish population from the city, the camp would normally rely upon locals for produce and labor. Moreover, Hadrian's ban on Jews entering Jerusalem after Bar Kokhba presupposes that there had been a Jewish population in and around Jerusalem prior to the Second Revolt.
https://books.google.com/books?id=QoIS7 ... an&f=false
So I suppose the best we can say is that at some point after 70 CE some Jewish Christians returned to Jerusalem. But they could not have been there for long since Hadrian banned all Jews from living in Jerusalem after 135 CE. So it looks to me like Jewish Christians, at least in Judea, suffered from their fellow Jews and the Romans from c. 30 CE and up to the 66-70 CE war, then again during the Kitos revolt (which is around the time that Simon bar Clophas was killed), and then again during and after the Bar Kokhba revolt, so it is not surprising that they seem to fade away (at least in Judea) after all this.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.