Well, Epiphanius actually says "Antonius," which makes no sense. Conjectural emendations have been suggested. Since we do not know what Epiphanius meant there, the only data remaining are that Justus (number 11 of the circumcised bishops) brings us up to Hadrian while Julian (number 20 overall or number 5 of the gentile bishops) brings us up to the tenth year of Antoninus Pius.John2 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 8:06 pmRight, but I'm referring to the Jewish bishops, and Eusebius says that those bishops existed up to the Bar Kokhba war, and Epiphanius says they existed up to Antoninus Pius.This is not quite true. Eusebius says that the fifteen Jewish bishops go up to the revolt, but he then names several more bishops of Jerusalem who were gentiles, beginning with Marcus.
How Could Symeon be James the Just's Successor on the Episcopal Throne of Jerusalem if He was Crucified Under Trajan?
- Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: How Could Symeon be James the Just's Successor on the Episcopal Throne of Jerusalem if He was Crucified Under Trajan
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Re: How Could Symeon be James the Just's Successor on the Episcopal Throne of Jerusalem if He was Crucified Under Trajan
Hm.Well, Epiphanius actually says "Antonius," which makes no sense. Conjectural emendations have been suggested. Since we do not know what Epiphanius meant there, the only data remaining are that Justus (number 11 of the circumcised bishops) brings us up to Hadrian while Julian (number 20 overall or number 5 of the gentile bishops) brings us up to the tenth year of Antoninus Pius.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
-
- Posts: 18761
- 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
Well getting back to Ben's question for me. Here is what Eusebius cites from Hegesippus:
My point was that we have this other Jerusalem succession list which draws on details from Hegesippus which strangely goes down to a very similar time period. It is hard to make sense of what years correspond to what bishop but every indication is that Anicetus's reign coincided with Antoninus Pius. When Eusebius cites his Jerusalem succession it appears as if he drew up the material himself. But when Epiphanius cites a near verbatim list it has all the characteristics of a chronological succession list with references to Emperors and historical details. What's more that succession list ends at the exact same date as Clement of Alexandria's 'Josephus' chronicle - 147 CE.
The names Hegesippus and Josephus do intersect (with respect to the Latin edition of Josephus). The names are then interchangeable or plausibly interchangeable. Epiphanius never cites the name 'Hegesippus' when he cites his material. But I don't need to cite Lawlor's arguments again to confirm that I think Hegesippus was his source for the Roman succession list. I don't see how Hegesippus can't be the source for the Jerusalem succession list despite what Eusebius writes.
So my point was that at the very least the succession list went to Anicetus. This is plain. If there was an original Roman succession list - a Hegesippian Roman succession list it ended at Anicetus. Let's stop there. Even if all of this is a second hand it acknowledges that Hegesippus's original Roman succession list down to Anicetus.On my arrival at Rome, I drew up a list of the succession of bishops down to Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. To Anicetus succeeded Soter, and after him came Eleutherus. But in the case of every succession, and in every city, the state of affairs is in accordance with the teaching of the Law and of the Prophets and of the Lord....
My point was that we have this other Jerusalem succession list which draws on details from Hegesippus which strangely goes down to a very similar time period. It is hard to make sense of what years correspond to what bishop but every indication is that Anicetus's reign coincided with Antoninus Pius. When Eusebius cites his Jerusalem succession it appears as if he drew up the material himself. But when Epiphanius cites a near verbatim list it has all the characteristics of a chronological succession list with references to Emperors and historical details. What's more that succession list ends at the exact same date as Clement of Alexandria's 'Josephus' chronicle - 147 CE.
The names Hegesippus and Josephus do intersect (with respect to the Latin edition of Josephus). The names are then interchangeable or plausibly interchangeable. Epiphanius never cites the name 'Hegesippus' when he cites his material. But I don't need to cite Lawlor's arguments again to confirm that I think Hegesippus was his source for the Roman succession list. I don't see how Hegesippus can't be the source for the Jerusalem succession list despite what Eusebius writes.
“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
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
-
- Posts: 18761
- 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
And to tackle Bob's question about Eusebius Book 4. I think we can make sense of what he is saying if we look carefully. Yes the first line is:
I wonder if χρόνους simply means 'times' rather than chronology. In other words, he doesn't know 'how long' each bishop reigned. That's why in the very next line:The chronology (χρόνους) of the bishops of Jerusalem I have nowhere found preserved in writing; for tradition says that they were all short lived.
I think παρείληφα is probably better translated 'received' which makes explicit that the list which follows comes from a written text. I don't think it is all that problematic.But I have learned this much from writings (τοσοῦτον ἐξ ἐγγράφων παρείληφα), 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.
“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
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
-
- Posts: 18761
- 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
What I see is that Eusebius struggled with the list from Hegesippus (or whomever else you wish to assign this list) in the same way I do. It doesn't make sense.
“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
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
-
- Posts: 18761
- 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
This is also important to note from Schaff:
The list given here by Eusebius purports to contain fifteen names, Marcus being the sixteenth, and Narcissus being the thirtieth; but only thirteen names are given. In the Chron., however, and in Epiphanius (Hær. LXVI. 20) the list is complete
“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
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
- Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: How Could Symeon be James the Just's Successor on the Episcopal Throne of Jerusalem if He was Crucified Under Trajan
So far we agree.Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 9:13 pm Well getting back to Ben's question for me. Here is what Eusebius cites from Hegesippus:
So my point was that at the very least the succession list went to Anicetus. This is plain. If there was an original Roman succession list - a Hegesippian Roman succession list it ended at Anicetus. Let's stop there. Even if all of this is a second hand it acknowledges that Hegesippus's original Roman succession list down to Anicetus.On my arrival at Rome, I drew up a list of the succession of bishops down to Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. To Anicetus succeeded Soter, and after him came Eleutherus. But in the case of every succession, and in every city, the state of affairs is in accordance with the teaching of the Law and of the Prophets and of the Lord....
I assume that your clause "despite what Eusebius writes" is referring to his telling us that he found no chronology of the bishops. In his History he certainly gives none. But in his Chronicon he is virtually forced by the very format to at least take a stab at making the bishops fit in logically. As far as I can see so far, he simply inserts the Jerusalem bishops into the chronological flow in little blocks or chunks. Maybe Epiphanius is doing much the same thing; or perhaps he is even using Eusebius' Chronicon itself.My point was that we have this other Jerusalem succession list which draws on details from Hegesippus which strangely goes down to a very similar time period. It is hard to make sense of what years correspond to what bishop but every indication is that Anicetus's reign coincided with Antoninus Pius. When Eusebius cites his Jerusalem succession it appears as if he drew up the material himself. But when Epiphanius cites a near verbatim list it has all the characteristics of a chronological succession list with references to Emperors and historical details. What's more that succession list ends at the exact same date as Clement of Alexandria's 'Josephus' chronicle - 147 CE.
The names Hegesippus and Josephus do intersect (with respect to the Latin edition of Josephus). The names are then interchangeable or plausibly interchangeable. Epiphanius never cites the name 'Hegesippus' when he cites his material. But I don't need to cite Lawlor's arguments again to confirm that I think Hegesippus was his source for the Roman succession list. I don't see how Hegesippus can't be the source for the Jerusalem succession list despite what Eusebius writes.
Yes, I noticed that. Eusebius' list has gaps. This could be his own clumsiness, or it could be scribal. At any rate, since in both your view and mine he is copying from another list, the gaps are just copy errors in either case.Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 9:43 pm This is also important to note from Schaff:
The list given here by Eusebius purports to contain fifteen names, Marcus being the sixteenth, and Narcissus being the thirtieth; but only thirteen names are given. In the Chron., however, and in Epiphanius (Hær. LXVI. 20) the list is complete
I agree that the list is weird. Hence attempts like Bauckham's to explain the multiple names after two long bishoprics (James and Simeon).Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 9:31 pm What I see is that Eusebius struggled with the list from Hegesippus (or whomever else you wish to assign this list) in the same way I do. It doesn't make sense.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
- Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: How Could Symeon be James the Just's Successor on the Episcopal Throne of Jerusalem if He was Crucified Under Trajan
This is what I have been saying. Eusebius found a list, but that list had no lengths of the bishops' reigns.Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 9:23 pm And to tackle Bob's question about Eusebius Book 4. I think we can make sense of what he is saying if we look carefully. Yes the first line is:
I wonder if χρόνους simply means 'times' rather than chronology. In other words, he doesn't know 'how long' each bishop reigned.The chronology (χρόνους) of the bishops of Jerusalem I have nowhere found preserved in writing; for tradition says that they were all short lived.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
-
- Posts: 18761
- 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
It's amazing two people who have no prejudice or bias and at least some reasoning capabilities arrive at the same conclusions from looking at the same evidence. Gives me faith in humanity.
“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
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
-
- Posts: 18761
- 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
But that is the crazy part. Eusebius says I believe (I just woke up) the bishops (i.e. all the bishops) had short reigns. But at the same time he says he doesn't know the 'times' of the reigns and he cites Hegesippus verbatim to show that Symeon at least died in the reign of Trajan and - oddly enough - James dies after a long reign. Maybe he means that once we get out of the apostolic age they had short reigns ... but that can't be right because he still references Symeon being crucified under Trajan. Again, and I know we agree on this, we come back to the fact that Eusebius simply had a 'bald' or bear episcopal list. He read into the list insofar as the reigns were brief. He just saw a list of names and tried to make sense of it.two long bishoprics (James and Simeon).
“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
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote