Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

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?

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?

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. YMMV. (I do not have this theory before my eyes right this moment, and may be misremembering key aspects of it.)

Yes something like that must be the answer. I will have to attempt to read Bauckham again. I struggled the last time because I found the whole thesis so absurd. It's hard to maintain an 'as if' position (i.e. theoretically going along with a writer's assertion) when the author is so 'it's true! it's true!' Reminds me of going through ancient scientific manuals about how the planets revolve, blood flows through the body and you're like 'WTF? Really?' for page after page. But it has to get done.

This - https://books.google.com/books?id=oCOdB ... 22&f=false. Yes, certainly this is what the author(s) of the various works had in mind. Note:

From the narrative of Acts it seems that in the early years of the church the twelve apostles were based in Jerusalem, though some of them certainly made missionary journeys to other parts of Palestine, and were the effective leaders of the church in Jerusalem.

I think the result explains why Symeon could have been on a 'council' and acted as a missionary. In case any one is interested I think the situation with Symeon helps explain Hegesippus, Polycarp and Peregrinus. Peregrinus is said to have had a leadership position in Palestine but also wandered the earth. I think that the author of the work identified as 'Hegesippus' or 'Josephus' (Clement) was the second last member on the list. I think he actively presented himself in messianic terms. He was a fraud. Polycarp = Maphran the 'fruitful' (Polycarp = many fruit) one. It goes back to a title for the Biblical Joseph. Joseph is a fruitful son/bough (ben forat). That's why Joseph was called Polycarp. The history of the Jerusalem Church was so arranged around the reality of this huckster who claimed to be a member of this 'council' in Jerusalem and had a messianic lineage.

MrMacson in the other thread brings up a good point. How did Polycarp have equal status to Anicetus? How were they peers? The answer can only be what I suggested. He was Joseph/Hegessipus. He was a member of the episcopal council, the Davidic line.

I like the fact that Bauckham is engaging with the evidence:

Some, like James the son of Zebedee, were martyred, others, like Peter and probably Thomas, engaged in more distant missionary activity in the diaspora, some may well have settled in other parts of Palestine. A group of elders in the Jerusalem church is first mentioned in Acts 11:30. At the time of the council of Jerusalem, Acts repeatedly (15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23, 16:4) refers to the Jerusalem leadership as the apostles and the elders, as does the decree itself (15:23), whence perhaps Luke derived his perception of the composition of the leadership at this stage.

But the part I have difficult stomaching is that any of this is based in anything resembling reality. However that's not the point. We are trying to understand - or at least I am trying to understand why 'Hegesippus/Josephus' (= 'Joseph'), Polycarp/Ignatius/Peregrinus could be wandering throughout the world and still be considered to be an 'elder' or have a leadership position in the Church.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Wed Jul 18, 2018 11:18 am We are trying to understand - or at least I am trying to understand why 'Hegesippus/Josephus' (= 'Joseph'), Polycarp/Ignatius/Peregrinus could be wandering throughout the world and still be considered to be an 'elder' or have a leadership position in the Church.

It may be a honorific title. Kim Il-Sung is still the president of North Korea, so sometimes even death is not sufficient to vacate a position.

I'm a little lost. What's the specific conundrum?

If Symeon died under Trajan, and John in the ninth or tenth year of Trajan, why not just assume a death early in Trajan's reign for Symeon followed by short windows for Judah, Zachariah, Tobiah and Benjamin - e.g. a few months or years each? Wouldn't that solve it? (not that I trust that list, but if we're assuming it for the sake of the question...). Am I missing something?

How could he have been the head of the church in the apostolic age (= before the destruction) and then died fifty years later while a half dozen other men are listed as occupying his seat? Bishops tended to have their positions for life.

^By my count, it's only 30yrs between Nero and Trajan (68CE - 98CE)

Obviously the best explanation is that there is error in the list. But if we're assuming it to be accurate, then it's not completely out of the question that someone would be there for 30yrs followed by a handful of people who only lasted a few months/years each. Such is often the case after long periods of reign. Just look at the Roman Emperors and the inconsistency of their lengths of rule...