How Could Symeon be James the Just's Successor on the Episcopal Throne of Jerusalem if He was Crucified Under Trajan?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Could Symeon be James the Just's Successor on the Episcopal Throne of Jerusalem if He was Crucified Under Trajan

Post by Secret Alias »

Do you have to clutter this thread with inane responses like this? What are you doing, jacking off with one hand and typing with the other? Please devote your energies to reconciling the simple problem:

1. a chronological list of 14 or 15 names of bishops of Jerusalem with clear time markers (i.e. the names of Emperors)
2. Symeon listed as both the successor to James (in the apostolic age) and his crucifixion in a much later period (Trajan)
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: How Could Symeon be James the Just's Successor on the Episcopal Throne of Jerusalem if He was Crucified Under Trajan

Post by MrMacSon »

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:27 pm Do you have to clutter this thread with inane responses like this? What are you doing, jacking off with one hand and typing with the other? Please devote your energies to reconciling the simple problem:

1. a chronological list of 14 or 15 names of bishops of Jerusalem with clear time markers (i.e. the names of Emperors)
2. Symeon listed as both the successor to James (in the apostolic age) and his crucifixion in a much later period (Trajan)
Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Jul 18, 2018 6:09 am Bauckham has a theory that many/most of the names on this list were those of a group who sat on some sort of council; they were all contemporaries in their office, whatever it was. Only later were their names flattened out into a line of subsequent bishops, in imitation of the other churches' lists.
Secret Alias wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 10:02 pm The episcopal list of Hegesippus as preserved in Epiphanius and Eusebius (independently of one another) reads:
1. James, who was martyred in Jerusalem by beating with a cudgel. [He lived] until the time of Nero.
2. Symeon, was crucified under Trajan.
3. Judah
4. Zachariah
5. Tobiah
6. Benjamin
7. John, bringing us to the ninth [or] tenth year of Trajan (98, 99 CE)
8, Matthias
9. Philip
10. Seneca
11. Justus, bringing us to Hadrian (c. 117 CE).
12. Levi
13. Vaphres
14. Jose(ph)
15. Judah, bringing us to the eleventh year of Antonius.(147 CE) The above were the circumcised bishops of Jerusalem.
How is that explained?
If some or all on that list were members of a council as Bauckham has proposed, and the apostolic age is later than is generally thought, then it might fit with one (or more) of the later dates. Note from the reference on your other thread -
Recently it has been asserted that Hegesippus’s account of James’s martyrdom was probably based on “some sort of Grundschrift,”
see Sh. Mitchell, 'Perfect Martyr: The Stoning of Stephen and the Construction of Christian Identity' (Oxford, 2010), 82–4, see further infra, 819.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: How Could Symeon be James the Just's Successor on the Episcopal Throne of Jerusalem if He was Crucified Under Trajan

Post by Ulan »

Leaving aside the point that the list looks a bit dubious and that that Symeon story always struck me as somewhat weird (120?), a simple explanation like toejam's is of course always possible. You may have lots of people who had been waiting to follow on the "bishop" position for ages, but Symeon simply wouldn't die. When he was finally gone, they each got their turn, all being old themselves at that point and dying shortly after their appointment. If there really was some "family business" involved, they may have all been from the same generation. When the bunch of the old guys had all had their short moment of fame, finally someone new got the position. (In your list, shouldn't "John" be 105/106 CE?)

Alternatively, some of them may have done some stupid stuff during the Kitos War which was too embarrassing to tell, but I somehow doubt that that wouldn't have been turned into some grandiose martyr legend.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Could Symeon be James the Just's Successor on the Episcopal Throne of Jerusalem if He was Crucified Under Trajan

Post by Secret Alias »

But do we or don't we assume that bishops had their positions for life? I think this is the ultimate question. If bishops basically 'made the throne' and then lived out their lives as the leader of the community you'd expect some sort of explanation. The fact that no explanation is given, no story is given about 'giving a turn' to others I think something else is at work here. For, as I mentioned, the Roman list stands alongside the Jerusalem episcopal list in the same document. I've never heard anyone suggest - 'hey there was a log jam of candidates so this or that bishop just decided to clear the deck for the next guy.' To that end I think, I suspect - that these positions weren't for life. It was something else.

Let me give you another example. There is a great deal of difficulty in the Roman list which people forget about. I remember reading in Lawlor that even though the actual episcopal list from Hegesippus appears in Book 2 of the Panarion Epiphanius seems to have the page open in his section on Carpocrates. Lawlor making a convincing case that he is not dealing with Irenaeus's account of Carpocrates but is dealing with an entry associated with the episcopal list direct from Hegesippus:
I heard at some time of a Marcellina 27 who was deceived by them, who corrupted many people in the time of Anicetus, Bishop of Rome, the
successor of Pius and the bishops before him. (2) 28 For the bishops at Rome were, first, Peter and Paul, the apostles themselves and also bishops — then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, a contemporary of Peter and Paul whom Paul mentions in the Epistle to the Romans. And no one need wonder why others before him succeeded the apostles in the episcopate, even though he was contemporary with Peter and Paul — for he too is the apostles’ contemporary. (4) I am not quite clear as to whether he received the episcopal appointment from Peter while they were still alive, and he declined and would not exercise the office — for in one of his Epistles he says, giving this counsel to someone, “I withdraw, I depart, let the people of God be tranquil,” 29 (I have found this in certain historical works) — or whether he was appointed by the bishop Cletus after the apostles’ death.

6,5 But even so, others could have been made bishop while the apostles, I mean Peter and Paul, were still alive, since they often journeyed abroad for the proclamation of Christ, but Rome could not be without a bishop. (6) Paul even reached Spain, and Peter often visited Pontus and Bithynia. But after Clement had been appointed and declined, if this is what happened — I suspect this but cannot say it for certain — he could have been compelled to hold the episcopate in his turn, after the deaths of Linus and Cletus who were bishops for twelve years each after the death of Saints Peter and Paul in the twelfth year of Nero.)

6,7 In any case, the succession of the bishops at Rome runs in this order: Peter and Paul, Linus and Cletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Xystus,
Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, and Anicetus, whom I mentioned above, on the list. 30 And no one need be surprised at my listing each of the items so exactly; precise information is always given in this way. (8) In Anicetus’ time then, as I said, the Marcellina I have spoken of appeared at Rome spewing forth the corruption of Carpocrates’ teaching, and corrupted and destroyed many there. And that made a beginning of the so-called Gnostics.
If you haven't read Lawlor I am not going to over the arguments again, but Epiphanius is now staring down at the succession list in that book and reading lines from material to his stenographer. What is openly musing about is what I have struggled with regards to the other succession list from the same author - i.e. the Jerusalem succession list - and that is the bishops aren't seated figures who became part of the furniture. The assumption is that "Peter and Paul" (i.e. the first entry on the succession list) don't occupy the throne until they die just as Symeon in Jerusalem does not. They leave the throne and someone else takes over. Do you get what I am talking about? Do you catch my drift?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: How Could Symeon be James the Just's Successor on the Episcopal Throne of Jerusalem if He was Crucified Under Trajan

Post by John T »

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:06 am I don't think you are getting the point. How long do you think a bishop of Jerusalem held his office?
I think they (Bishops) kept the episcopal seat of authority as long as they held the trust of the council and could physically carry out their duties. Simeon was named the successor of James (Book 3 Chapter 11) but I don't know of any writings that said Simeon or any other Bishop for that matter was appointed for life, do you?

Much like the position of Chairman of the Board.

Likewise, I don't know of a list that includes the exact number of years that each Bishop held the position, do you? I don't even know of a list that tells how long each high priest held their title after the destruction of Jerusalem, do you?

Again, I don't think you are getting the point of James Tabor regarding the list and I would respectfully request (once again) that you read his book, "The Jesus Dynasty".
Last edited by John T on Thu Jul 19, 2018 3:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Could Symeon be James the Just's Successor on the Episcopal Throne of Jerusalem if He was Crucified Under Trajan

Post by Secret Alias »

I am not even considering the point of that stupid book because it God awful. No wonder that same author has made so much about a forgery (the Tailpot box). It's a stupid book and a stupid thesis and this thread was never about that stupid thesis so why do I have to consider it? It's not like anyone takes that insipid suggestion seriously in academia.

Here's what I am thinking about (given that it is my OP). I think with Hegesippus and the second century Church there is a different understanding of the bishop, one that has direct relationship with Polycarp/Peregrinus/Ignatius. In football terms (I am sorry but that is all that I really think about these days) many people have this image of a goalkeeper or a 'stay at home' defender. These roles were traditionally quite static just as our inherited notion of the 'bishop' is. We look at a succession list and usually assume after each entry 'dead, dead, dead' - i.e. that the reign of one bishop ends as he dies. We think that anyone looking at the list would have the same assumptions - even in antiquity. But I now don't think this was the case. I think Polycarp/Peregrinus/Ignatius wasn't 'that kind of bishop.' Polycarp is arguing with Anicetus in Rome. But Rome isn't his see. This always puzzled me. But now I think we have part of the answer - bishops were 'wandering stars' rather than 'fixed stars.' Think about the criticism from 'Jude' who is clearly supposed to be associated with the Jerusalem church.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Could Symeon be James the Just's Successor on the Episcopal Throne of Jerusalem if He was Crucified Under Trajan

Post by Secret Alias »

I don't know of any writings that said Simeon or any other Bishop for that matter was appointed for life
But when I look at the Roman episcopal list I think 'died, died, died' after each entry. Don't you? Why should we think any differently about the Jerusalem list set down by the same author. Just look at Wikipedia for any of the 'Popes.' It's just assumed that each 'Pope' dies when another takes over. Yet the same difficulties are present in the Roman list that we saw with Symeon - i.e. that the list doesn't make sense being read like that.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Could Symeon be James the Just's Successor on the Episcopal Throne of Jerusalem if He was Crucified Under Trajan

Post by Secret Alias »

Everyone on this list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes is assumed to have died where their reign ends, no? But as Epiphanius points out how we reconcile the succession at the time of Peter? First of all the entry in Hegesippus was clearly 'Peter and Paul' not Peter. Did one sit on top of the other like a kid asking Santa Claus for a gift? No. Were there two thrones? And then Clement's succession seems odd. Peter and Clement have a special relationship. Forget that the Clementia is fake history. Someone had the idea that Peter was in Palestine for long periods of time while presumably he was bishop of Rome.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Thu Jul 19, 2018 3:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: How Could Symeon be James the Just's Successor on the Episcopal Throne of Jerusalem if He was Crucified Under Trajan

Post by Joseph D. L. »

The list seems wholly artificial. But Simon to me does have some historicity to him.

Strange how now one appreciates him be crucified in the last years of Trajan, when Kitos was underway.

Simon of Jerusalem = Simon of Cyrene = Lukuas Andreas
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Could Symeon be James the Just's Successor on the Episcopal Throne of Jerusalem if He was Crucified Under Trajan

Post by Secret Alias »

But whether or not it is artificial it has to be explained. I had the same kind of discussion with my wife last night about Trump. Even though this Russia thing makes no sense - especially that his followers wouldn't see the events of these last few days as a suggestion Putin has something on him you can't just dismiss his followers are mindless idiots. You have wonder about their thought processes. You have to think, you have to use reason to understand how they reconcile the lies, the secrecy and the strange behavior. In the same way there has to be an underlying explanation of how Romans understood Peter, Linus, Cletus, Clement to all have been bishops in some sense even though they didn't spend any or much time in Rome. Similarly with Symeon being 'next in line' to James but there being a series of successors between his inheritance and his death at the dawn of the second century. The only way I can reconcile this baffling understanding in early Christianity is that bishops were 'wandering stars.' They weren't fixed to a specific see.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Post Reply