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

[Joseph D. L.]

It's important to keep in mind when such a list emerges. Eusebius dates it to Hegesippus, who was active anywhere from 120-180 ad. But who was Hegesippus? What were his motifs?

One possible solution that I have thought of in the past was that popes, papas, high ranking figures in the early church, were leaders of pagan cults whom the church coopted into Christians. So people like Linus, Hyginus, and even Clement, were originally pagans turned Christians.

[Secret Alias]

We've established the text was written 147 CE.

[MrMacSon]

But whether or not it is artificial it has to be explained. ... there has to be an underlying explanation of how Romans¹ 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.

¹ Which Romans? When (what dates)?

If they 2 or more generations later, it's likely they would have accepted any information they were given as fact.

----------------------------------

... 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

Yep, wishful religious / evangelical thinking. With Protestantism declining and the Catholic church on-the-nose worldwide, some may see the Russian Orthodox church and wandering bishop Vladamir Putin as the best saviour of [muscular] Christianity

[John T]

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.

Obviously you see a conspiracy in almost everything.
And I'm afraid that there is very little in the history of Christianity that you will accept as explained.

Your so-called logic and ad hoc criteria for historical evidence is not of a scholarly nature but rather insufferable arrogance.

Perhaps if you can explain your understanding of the following it will clear things up in your own head a bit better.

Trump is the current president and he goes to Russia.

Does that make him a wandering star?
Does it make him president of Russia?
Is Trump no longer president when he leaves D.C. for a diplomatic mission?
Jimmy Carter is still alive and is still addressed as President Carter out of respect for his service, does that mean when someone today calls him President Carter they actually believe he is still the acting president and not President Trump?

[Joseph D. L.]

We've established the text was written 147 CE.

Maybe "pseudo-Josephus". Hegesippus would have an extensive career, especially if he were connected to the Royal Hall. On the off-chance that he is the Apelles/Apollos figure of Rhodon, that extends his sphere of activity to at least 175 ad.

If he is the Damis/Demas figure, then roughly 190 ad.

[Joseph D. L.]

Trump is a clown. Stick to the subject at hand.

[John T]

Trump is a clown. Stick to the subject at hand.

Sometimes the best way to understand a confusing subject is to use an analogy.

But analogies are often froth with misapplication by those who only see things through their own personal/subjective lens. One of the tactics of the sophist is; if they can pick apart the offered analogy then they can fool the audience into thinking they have successfully invalidated the premise of the original argument when they haven't.

There are literally scores upon scores of different Christian denominations. One can't help but wonder how/when they all came to be and experts like Eusebius are very helpful in outlining the chronological history of the early schisms.

Try not to forget that much of the division between the early churches were started by using analogies to explain the Christian idea of resurrection.
Gnosticism and Marcionism are just two examples of heretical sects that sprung up when they decided to pick apart the argument for a resurrection and then replace it with their own faulty analogies of the heavenly realm.

Eusebius and other church fathers document and criticize the earliest of these heresies and/or schisms by citing their errors and then giving the correct answers.

To say that the Ante-Nicene Fathers had a bias and therefore disqualifies them from exposing the fallacies of their opponents is one thing but to insinuate they made-up all of their history or worse yet, the Ante-Nicene fathers did not even really exist is just absurd.

[Secret Alias]

The Trump analogy was originally referenced simply to show that despite everything we should struggle to make sense of everyone's rationale. Clearly Trump was 'owned' by Putin at Helsinki. But understanding how and why his supporters don't see that is an important intellectual exercise. The same thing is true for understanding Hegesippus's 'history.' To argue that there aren't wholly fabricated religious texts is to ignore Joseph Smith and Mormonism. It ignores Ezra writing the Pentateuch or a Tetrateuch in Moses's name and so on. This has nothing to do with 'mythicism' per se. One can write a fake history based on actual characters (like the Hitler diaries). So with that out of the way the question is to understand what Hegesippus is intending to convey when his work has both Roman and Jerusalem bishop lists with 'wandering star' bishops. The wandering bishop is the best way to explain why Symeon could succeed James but then have five or six successors himself before dying under Trajan. The same is true for 'Peter and Paul' and their successors before their death under Nero.

What is so frustrating at this forum is that on the one hand you have half the participants always going back to 'it's fake, it's fake - mythicism lives!' as their only talking point. What that shows me is that the only reason they participate in the forum is because they 'believe' in mythicism and all research is conducted to further that end. The other half of the forum are strangely obsessed with a Jerusalem Church which allegedly preserved 'Jewish Christianity' with this knowledge being available to us or knowable to us via Acts, Hegesippus, the Clementine Literature or whatever 'literary cocktail' they want to put together. If these people admitted that their 'concocted truth' really had the flimsiest of likelihoods I'd be happy. But given that you will never convince anyone to admit they are wrong this is wholly unlikely. Yet what really bothers me about them is that they can't simply stick to 'what Hegesippus intended' in any of these discussions rather than branching off into their pet theories.

So with that said let's stick to what Hegesippus intended - or better yet the final edition of his work because I don't believe that he published the final edition of the Roman episcopal list which ended with Eleutherius. Let's leave behind the question of whether or not any of this is 'true' - on both sides of the issue of 'truth' i.e. the mythicists who say it is completely fake and the literalists/historicists who say it is true or somewhat true. The objective is to treat the text as a text. What does Hegesippus believe? What does he want us to believe about the early Church? My answer is that the reason why Symeon and 'Peter and Paul' are not fixed to their thrones is that he wanted to establish the idea that bishops weren't fixed to a throne.

I don't understand or appreciate all the implications of this understanding. I am used to looking at a list of bishops and assuming 'dead, dead, dead' after each entry. Yet clearly this was not true or at least it isn't what Hegesippus wanted to convey by at least one of these lists. The important implication of this understanding is to look at Irenaeus's use of Hegesippus in his letter to Victor. This is the reason I brought up Putin and Trump. The meeting of Polycarp and Anicetus necessarily poses a problem for Irenaeus's notion of Roman supremacy and the ideal bishopric. For the two met at Rome. Both men were 'bishops.' Yet Polycarp met Anicetus or encountered Anicetus at Rome - Anicetus's home turf.

Irenaeus attempts to use the encounter (which must have been known to Victor in some form) as a demonstration of how Victor should treat the Asian churches. The underlying message was tolerance. Yet given the fact that Irenaeus also accepted Acts (and perhaps orthodox Galatians) retelling of ur-Galatians (i.e. Marcion's) story of Paul 'condemning' Peter at Antioch - i.e. a complete glossing over of a conflict - the accuracy of Irenaeus's retelling of the encounter between Polycarp and Anicetus is doubtful.

I have mentioned in other posts many times that the name Polycarp is in my mind likely a Greek translation of the Aramaic title Maphrian, a title traditionally associated with the head of the Syrian orthodox church. The maphrian is literally the progenitor. He is the sower of seeds in Mark's gospel. His seeds turn into bishops and heads of Christian communities for his role is essential to the ordination of the clergy. The idea of 'progenitor' is a direct byproduct of him being a living manifestation of the Father or the owner of the male seed or sperm. He shoots or scatters his seed in all directions and plants grow making him fruitful or have 'many fruit' (= polycarpos).

It is hard to explain why this figure would be at Rome. You just have to think about it. If the Roman church believed it was the head of the worldwide Church then Polycarp's presence in Rome was something of a challenge to the authority of Roman bishop. If I accept the authority of the Roman bishop I celebrate the mass and the liturgy in his manner - in the manner of Orthodox believers who attend a Catholic church service or vice versa. The meeting between the two, whatever happened, seems to boil down to a conflict over orthodoxy. Here is the story:

And when the blessed Polycarp was sojourning in Rome in the time of Anicetus, although a slight controversy had arisen among them as to certain other points, they were at once well inclined towards each other [with regard to the matter in hand], not willing that any quarrel should arise between them upon this head. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [in his own way], inasmuch as these things had been always [so] observed by John the disciple of our Lord, and by other apostles with whom he had been conversant; nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anicetus to keep [the observance in his way], for he maintained that he was bound to adhere to the usage of the presbyters who preceded him. And in this state of affairs they held fellowship with each other; and Anicetus conceded to Polycarp in the Church the celebration of the Eucharist, by way of showing him respect; so that they parted in peace one from the other, maintaining peace with the whole Church, both those who did observe [this custom] and those who did not.

This is how Irenaeus tells the story. We don't know what the truth is. But a parallel story is injected into Socrates Scholasticus which we can examine later. Let me get back to this later. Have to go.

[Secret Alias]

Ok I am back. My point was merely to say you have this story of a meeting in Anicetus's 'house' between two leaders of two communities being used as an example for the current bishop of Rome (Victor) to act 'peacefully' with the Asian Church. Does the story come from Hegesippus? I don't know but I suspect so. It is Eusebius who preserves the story for us saying:

At this time, while Anicetus was at the head of the church of Rome, Irenæus relates that Polycarp, who was still alive, was at Rome, and that he had a conference with Anicetus on a question concerning the day of the paschal feast.

Ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν δηλουμένων, Ἀνικήτου τῆς Ῥωμαίων ἐκκλησίαςἡγουμένου, Πολύκαρπον ἔτι περιόντα τῷ βίῳ γενέσθαι τε ἐπὶ Ῥώμης καὶ εἰς ὁμιλίαν τῷ Ἀνικήτῳ ἐλθεῖν διά τι ζήτημα περὶ τῆς κατὰ τὸ πάσχα ἡμέρας Εἰρηναῖος ἱστορεῖ. [4.14.2 ]

But this makes it sound as if Irenaeus is describing a synod. This is not at all clear from the material cited from Irenaeus as we shall see. Eusebius makes clear that the first mention of this 'meeting' is in Book Three and then he proceeds to cite the whole reference to Polycarp from that book:

At this time, while Anicetus was at the head of the church of Rome, Irenæus relates that Polycarp, who was still alive, was at Rome, and that he had a conference with Anicetus on a question concerning the day of the paschal feast. And the same writer gives another account of Polycarp which I feel constrained to add to that which has been already related in regard to him. The account is taken from the third book of Irenæus' work Against Heresies, and is as follows:

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by the apostles, and acquainted with many that had seen Christ, but was also appointed by apostles in Asia bishop of the church of Smyrna. We too saw him in our early youth; for he lived a long time, and died, when a very old man, a glorious and most illustrious martyr's death, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, which the Church also hands down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those who, down to the present time, have succeeded Polycarp, who was a much more trustworthy and certain witness of the truth than Valentinus and Marcion and the rest of the heretics. He also was in Rome in the time of Anicetus and caused many to turn away from the above-mentioned heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received from the apostles this one and only system of truth which has been transmitted by the Church. And there are those (at Rome) that heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe in Ephesus and seeing Cerinthus within, ran out of the bath-house without bathing, crying, 'Let us flee, lest even the bath fall, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.' And Polycarp himself, when Marcion once met him and said, 'Do you know us? replied, 'I know the first born of Satan.' Such caution did the apostles and their disciples exercise that they might not even converse with any of those who perverted the truth; as Paul also said, 'A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing he that is such is subverted, and sins, being condemned of himself.' Titus 3:10-11. There is also a very powerful epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those that wish to do so, and that are concerned for their own salvation, may learn the character of his faith and the preaching of the truth. Such is the account of Irenæus.

What is often missed in this citation is that Eusebius rightly understands the entire emboldened section deals with Polycarp's presence at Rome. When Irenaeus brings up Polycarp he has just finished reading off Hegesippus's Roman episcopal list. Polycarp is juxtaposed as 'the other Church' - the rival Church which is in Asia. This is very important because the same divisions show up in the letter to Victor.

In the letter to Victor we have 'the Church of Rome' introduced again with a reference from Hegesippus's list and juxtaposed once again against this tradition is the Church of Asia with Polycarp as its leader:

Thus, in fact, the difference [in observing] the fast establishes the harmony of [our common] faith. And the presbyters preceding Soter in the government of the Church which you now rule — I mean, Anicetus and Pius, Hyginus and Telesphorus, and Sixtus — did neither themselves observe it [after that fashion], nor permit those with them to do so. Notwithstanding this, those who did not keep [the feast in this way] were peacefully disposed towards those who came to them from other dioceses in which it was [so] observed although such observance was [felt] in more decided contrariety [as presented] to those who did not fall in with it; and none were ever cast out [of the Church] for this matter. On the contrary, those presbyters who preceded you, and who did not observe [this custom], sent the Eucharist to those of other dioceses who did observe it. And when the blessed Polycarp was sojourning (ἐπιδημήσαντος) in Rome in the time of Anicetus, although a slight controversy had arisen among them as to certain other points ...

The use of the term ἐπιδημήσαντος is quite perplexing in the greater context. At once Polycarp is presented as the leader of Asia, he embodies the other Church and is bishop of Smyrna. But strangely he is 'at home' or residing = 'ἐπιδημήσαντος' at Rome at the time of his conflict. This challenges our traditional understanding of a bishop again for what is a bishop of Smyrna and the leader of the Asian churches doing 'residing' in Rome?

Indeed this residence is hinted at in Irenaeus's original statement from book 3 that Polycarp was combating heresy in Rome. What was a foreign bishop living in Rome is one question but combating heresy? Wasn't this the job of Anicetus? It's like Putin coming to America and fighting 'bad guys' in Trump's United States. There is an assumed understanding of sovereignty which Polycarp seems to be transgressing.

[Secret Alias]

So in case you can't connect the dots it goes like this. An ἐπίσκοπος is just an overseer. Yes in the LXX God is the ultimate ἐπίσκοπος. But the terminology doesn't necessitate a static figure. Perhaps one of the earliest Christian uses of the terminology is found in 1 Peter 2:25:

For "you were like sheep going astray," but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls (ἐπὶ τὸν ποιμένα καὶ ἐπίσκοπον τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν)

A shepherd isn't a static figure. He wanders with his sheep and if the idea develops from the parable of the lost sheep (which I think it does) it could involve traveling far and wide (which certainly dovetails with Polycarp's activity and residence in Rome). It should be noted that Polycarp in his letter to the Philippians cites 1 Peter no less than 11 times in the short epistle including the section where the above quotation derives:

Let us then continually persevere in our hope, and the earnest of our righteousness, which is Jesus Christ, who bore our sins in His own body on the tree, [1 Peter 2:24] who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth, [1 Peter 2:22] but endured all things for us, that we might live in Him. Let us then be imitators of His patience; and if we suffer [Acts 5:41; 1 Peter 4:16] for His name's sake, let us glorify Him. For He has set us this example [1 Peter 2:21] in Himself, and we have believed that such is the case.

The original passage in 1 Peter:

To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.

22 “He committed no sin,
and no deceit was found in his mouth.”[e]

23 When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. 24 “He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.” 25 For “you were like sheep going astray,”[f] but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

Clearly in my mind when you contextualize (a) the importance of 1 Peter to Polycarp (b) Polycarp's travels and sojourn in Rome and (c) Polycarp's paradigmatic role as a bishop and head of the Asian Church you start to interpret this passage in a necessarily 'Patripassian' manner.

1 Peter is referencing 'Christ' but in such a way that he is telling his audience that they are second Christs (= 'you should follow in his steps'). Polycarp making extensive reference to this particular section of 1 Peter is using it in a specific manner. His hearers are these 'second Christs' but he himself the uber-Christ - the living paradigm of Christ 'the Shepherd and Overseer' of the lost sheep. In order to bring back souls to Christ he has to travel far and wide - even to Rome itself. But interestingly when they see him they clearly address him as 'father' - or perhaps better yet 'Father' - because he is the living embodiment of the Holy Father who is Christ.

So it is that in the next chapter Polycarp goes on to cite a number of predecessors who - like Polycarp himself - have manifest the role of the 'Father' or Christ to them:

I exhort you all, therefore, to yield obedience to the word of righteousness, and to exercise all patience, such as you have seen [set] before your eyes, not only in the case of the blessed Ignatius, and Zosimus, and Rufus, but also in others among yourselves, and in Paul himself, and the rest of the apostles. [This do] in the assurance that all these have not run Philippians 2:16; Galatians 2:2 in vain, but in faith and righteousness, and that they are [now] in their due place in the presence of the Lord, with whom also they suffered. For they loved not this present world, but Him who died for us, and for our sakes was raised again by God from the dead.

Note also the collective body of 'fathers' who cleave to one another in the next paragraph which again cites 1 Peter:

Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood, 1 Peter 2:17 and being attached to one another, joined together in the truth, exhibiting the meekness of the Lord in your intercourse with one another, and despising no one.

The implication is of a mystery religion which recreates the image of Christ - the Father - over and over again so that there is absolute equality between members.

I walk away from this examination assuming that all bishops were equal with one another because they were all 're-made' after the image of Christ, the Father. This is how they came to referenced as 'fathers' themselves. They were the living embodiment of the Father. It really wouldn't matter who you had on the throne. Through the eyes of a Christian there were different physical bodies but one and the same Father.