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.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 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 John2 »

Secret Alias wrote: Sat Jul 21, 2018 3:18 pm
Eusebius clearly cites Hegesippus regarding these Roman bishops
Does he really? He cites Hegesippus as saying that when he came to Rome he wrote up a list of bishops of Rome but when Eusebius cites from the episcopal list of Rome or makes reference to the bishops (in the form that generally resembles the underlying chronology common to Hegesippus, Irenaeus et al) it is in the same anonymous manner as with the Jerusalem list. In other words, he does cite his source with either list, he doesn't say 'this is Hegesippus' for either the Jerusalem or Roman list.
I'm not saying that the Roman bishop list cited by Eusebius and Irenaeus came from Hegesippus, only that Eusebius cites Hegesippus as saying he had "made a diadoche as far as Anicetus" regarding Roman bishops. And I'm not convinced that the Roman bishop list in Eusebius and Irenaeus came from Hegesippus. (I'm not sure if Irenaeus knew Hegesippus at all; does he ever mention or cite him?)

This is the way I look at it. If Hegesippus was able to learn something about Roman bishops when he was in Rome, so could have Irenaeus (who, unlike Hegesippus, was a bishop himself). And like Eusebius, Irenaeus gives no indication that the list came from Hegesippus in AH 3.3.2-3, and Eusebius says he got his list from Irenaeus in EH 5.5.9:
In the third book of his work Against Heresies he has inserted a list of the bishops of Rome, bringing it down as far as Eleutherus (whose times we are now considering), under whom he composed his work. He writes as follows ...
Why would Eusebius cite Irenaeus about this and not Hegesippus if the list came from Hegesippus?
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
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

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Sat Jul 21, 2018 4:56 pmWhy would Eusebius cite Irenaeus about this and not Hegesippus if the list came from Hegesippus?
Because the list he cites came from Irenaeus, and Hegesippus' list was necessarily less complete; it is natural to quote from the more complete of the two. This does not mean, however, that Hegesippus did not have such a list.

The list itself as we find it in Irenaeus, from internal considerations, seems to have originally run only to Anicetus. (Epiphanius also gives us such a list: one running only to Anicetus.) Somebody else, probably Irenaeus himself, added Soter and Eleutherus.

ETA: I agree that it is not certain that the Roman list came from Hegesippus (hence the question mark in the title of that other thread). But it would explain the coincidence of the list originally having gone up through Anicetus and Hegesippus himself saying that he stayed in Rome until Anicetus.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 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 John2 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Jul 21, 2018 5:14 pm
John2 wrote: Sat Jul 21, 2018 4:56 pmWhy would Eusebius cite Irenaeus about this and not Hegesippus if the list came from Hegesippus?
Because the list he cites came from Irenaeus, and Hegesippus' list was necessarily less complete; it is natural to quote from the more complete of the two. This does not mean, however, that Hegesippus did not have such a list.

The list itself as we find it in Irenaeus, from internal considerations, seems to have originally run only to Anicetus. (Epiphanius also gives us such a list: one running only to Anicetus.) Somebody else, probably Irenaeus himself, added Soter and Eleutherus.

ETA: I agree that it is not certain that the Roman list came from Hegesippus (hence the question mark in the title of that other thread). But it would explain the coincidence of the list originally having gone up through Anicetus and Hegesippus himself saying that he stayed in Rome until Anicetus.
Great link. I forgot about that thread. Very useful. You asked (in the thread):
Perhaps Hegesippus did give a list of Roman bishops, but one only up to Anicetus, which both Epiphanius and Irenaeus used?
Maybe, but it still seems strange that neither of them connect it in any way to Hegesippus (and even more so for Eusebius, given all his references to Hegesippus elsewhere).
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
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

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Sat Jul 21, 2018 5:31 pmMaybe, but it still seems strange that neither of them connect it in any way to Hegesippus (and even more so for Eusebius, given all his references to Hegesippus elsewhere).
Again, I feel like this is far less strange given that Irenaeus' list is the same list only more complete. Why not use the more complete list? This explains Eusebius. What explains Irenaeus is that Irenaeus is not Eusebius: he rarely attributes his material to other writers by name. He fails even to name Ignatius (Peregrinus?) when quoting that bit about being the wheat of God.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 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 John2 »

Again, I feel like this is far less strange given that Irenaeus' list is the same list only more complete. Why not use the more complete list? This explains Eusebius. What explains Irenaeus is that Irenaeus is not Eusebius: he rarely attributes his material to other writers by name. He fails even to name Ignatius (Peregrinus?) when quoting that bit about being the wheat of God.
But he at least acknowledges his existence and cites him in AH 5.28.4:
As a certain man of ours said, when he was condemned to the wild beasts because of his testimony with respect to God: “I am the wheat of Christ, and am ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of God.”
Does Irenaeus ever say anything like this about Hegesippus? Wouldn't the Roman bishop list in AH 3.3.1-3 have been a good place to do that, at least?
It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times.
Not even a "thanks in part to a certain man of ours, who writes as follows, 'On my arrival at Rome, I drew up a list of the succession of bishops down to Anicetus'"?

And again, I think if Hegesippus was able to learn about Roman bishops when he was in Rome, all the more so could have Irenaeus, especially since he was a bishop himself (unlike Hegesippus).
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
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

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Sat Jul 21, 2018 6:28 pm
Again, I feel like this is far less strange given that Irenaeus' list is the same list only more complete. Why not use the more complete list? This explains Eusebius. What explains Irenaeus is that Irenaeus is not Eusebius: he rarely attributes his material to other writers by name. He fails even to name Ignatius (Peregrinus?) when quoting that bit about being the wheat of God.
But he at least acknowledges his existence and cites him in AH 5.28.4:
As a certain man of ours said, when he was condemned to the wild beasts because of his testimony with respect to God: “I am the wheat of Christ, and am ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of God.”
Does Irenaeus ever say anything like this about Hegesippus? Wouldn't the Roman bishop list in AH 3.3.1-3 have been a good place to do that, at least?
It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times.
Not even a "thanks in part to a certain man, who writes as follows, 'On my arrival at Rome, I drew up a list of the succession of bishops down to Anicetus'?
When he is adding to the list himself? Hegesippus' list, if such existed, went up only to Anicetus.

As a better example, it has long been argued that Irenaeus anonymously incorporated Justin's Syntagma into his own work at various places. This contingency is not certain, and if you wish to deny it that is fine, but I tend to regard it as likely. What is certain is that Hippolytus, Victorinus, Tertullian, and many other church fathers anonymously plagiarized both Justin and Irenaeus, and it would hardly be surprising that Irenaeus would do the same. Eusebius stands out as rather unique in his almost constant naming and verbatim quoting of sources.

All of this to say: I have absolutely zero issue with Irenaeus using Hegesippus anonymously. It happened all the time among the fathers; and in this case especially, in which one is not only adding to a now incomplete list of bishops but also wanting to make the list appear to be common knowledge, omitting the exact source makes eminent sense.

ETA:
And again, I think if Hegesippus was able to learn about Roman bishops when he was in Rome, all the more so could have Irenaeus, especially since he was a bishop himself (unlike Hegesippus).
That is true. But it does not explain why the syntax changes at Anicetus, nor does it do anything about the coincidence that Epiphanius' list also ends with Anicetus.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 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 John2 »

I think it's possible Irenaeus could have known of Hegesippus, but is there any other evidence (apart from the Roman bishop list) that he did (like Lawlor re: Epiphanius and Hegesippus)?
Last edited by John2 on Sat Jul 21, 2018 7:26 pm, edited 2 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: How Could Symeon be James the Just's Successor on the Episcopal Throne of Jerusalem if He was Crucified Under Trajan

Post by John2 »

Perhaps there are similarities between Hegesippus and Irenaeus regarding heresies? I haven't looked at that issue closely before, but that would be my first guess.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
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

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Sat Jul 21, 2018 6:53 pm I think it's possible Irenaeus could have known of Hegesippus, but is there any other evidence (apart from the Roman bishop list) that he did (like Lawlor re: Epiphanius and Hegesippus)?
The three main bits of evidence of which I know are as follows:
  1. The Roman bishop list, which we have been discussing.
  2. The fact that both Hegesippus and Irenaeus seem preoccupied with the succession of apostolic bishops, especially as a counter measure against heretical teachings.
  3. The fact that Hegesippus had a lot to say about the heresies; he served, it seems, as a primitive heresiologist. It makes more sense, then, that Irenaeus, the most prominent early heresiologist, would have read him than that he would not have even known of him. Communication among the various churches around the Mediterranean may have been sketchy for a while, but by the time Irenaeus rolled around Christian books seem to have been copied to all corners without much effort (Irenaeus used Justin; Tertullian and Hippolytus used Irenaeus and Justin; Clement of Alexandria used Hippolytus; and so on). The only hard limitation on these Christian authors' knowledge of previous works seems to have been the language barrier between Greek and Latin, but that would not come into play between Irenaeus and Hegesippus.
There may be others, but those are the three that I am working with.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Sat Jul 21, 2018 7:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
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

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Sat Jul 21, 2018 7:01 pm Perhaps there are similarities between Hegesippus and Irenaeus regarding heresies? I haven't looked at that issue closely before, but that would be my first guess.
You read my mind. Our posts crossed. That is one of them.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply