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.
Post Reply
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'm having trouble understanding this argument, so correct me if my summary of it is wrong. I gather it is being argued that a) there was a "first edition" of Hegesippus (who is actually Josephus, as per Clement of Alexandria?) that was published in 147 CE, and b) it or a later "second" edition contained a list of the bishops of Jerusalem, and c) it's difficult to reconcile the timeframe of the deaths of the other bishops with Symeon's death (which happened sometime during Trajan's reign according to Hegesippus).

Here is a comment Stephan has made that I think illustrates all of this:
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.
Not only am I not convinced that the list of Jerusalem bishops Eusebius mentions in EH 4.5.3-4 comes from Hegesippus, Eusebius says in 4.5.1:
1. The chronology of the bishops of Jerusalem I have nowhere found preserved in writing; for tradition says that they were all short lived.
And I don't see (and perhaps it's already been mentioned in the thread and I overlooked or forgot about it) how we can deduce when any of the bishops died. Nothing in the list itself appears to indicate this, at least.
3. But since the bishops of the circumcision ceased at this time, it is proper to give here a list of their names from the beginning. The first, then, was James, the so-called brother of the Lord; the second, Symeon; the third, Justus; the fourth, Zacchæus; the fifth, Tobias; the sixth, Benjamin; the seventh, John; the eighth, Matthias; the ninth, Philip; the tenth, Seneca; the eleventh, Justus; the twelfth, Levi; the thirteenth, Ephres; the fourteenth, Joseph; and finally, the fifteenth, Judas.

4. These are the bishops of Jerusalem that lived between the age of the apostles and the time referred to, all of them belonging to the circumcision.
So unless it can be demonstrated otherwise (and I'm not saying it hasn't been, just that I don't recall if it has and would like to see it laid out again if it has), I'm thinking that all these other bishops would have had time to rule after Symeon died (sometime between 98 CE and 117 CE), anywhere between 98 CE-117 CE and c. 135 CE, and there were so many of them (at least according to the tradition) because they were all short lived. I don't see why it is any more complicated than this.

The only thing throwing me off (somewhat) is what Eusebius says in 4.5.2 (in contrast to 4.5.1):
2. But I have learned this much from writings [note the plural], 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. For their whole church consisted then of believing Hebrews who continued from the days of the apostles until the siege which took place at this time; in which siege the Jews, having again rebelled against the Romans, were conquered after severe battles.
I'm not sure how the "chronology of the bishops of Jerusalem" (which Eusebius "nowhere found preserved in writing") differs from what he says he learned "from writings" (that "there were fifteen [Jewish] bishops in succession" in Jerusalem up to the Bar Kokhba war). My guess is maybe there were multiple writings (perhaps including Hegesippus, but Eusebius doesn't mention him here) that said there were fifteen bishops of Jerusalem between the time of James and the Bar Kokhba war (and at least one of which presumably named them), and none of these writings (excepting, if he counts here, Hegesippus re: Symeon) specified the exact years that they ruled, but a tradition said that they were short lived.

I think it's possible that Hegesippus had a list of bishops of Jerusalem, and he was certainly aware of a succession of some Roman bishops in EH 4.22.3:
3. And when I had come to Rome I remained there until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.
But, as I said, Eusebius doesn't mention Hegesippus in connection to the Jerusalem bishop list, and though he does say that there were multiple writings that said there were fifteen bishops there, it strikes me as odd that he doesn't mention Hegesippus here, as he usually does when using him.
But Hegesippus, who lived immediately after the apostles, gives the most accurate account in the fifth book of his Memoirs.
For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.
And of the fact that a sedition did take place in the church of Corinth at the time referred to Hegesippus is a trustworthy witness.
These things are related by Hegesippus.
Hegesippus, whose words we have already quoted in various places, is a witness to this fact also.
Among these Hegesippus was well known. We have already quoted his words a number of times, relating events which happened in the time of the apostles according to his account. He records in five books the true tradition of apostolic doctrine in a most simple style, and he indicates the time in which he flourished when he writes as follows ...
Hegesippus records that he himself was in Rome at this time, and that he remained there until the episcopate of Eleutherus.
Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views.
The same author also describes the beginnings of the heresies which arose in his time ...
The same writer also records the ancient heresies which arose among the Jews, in the following words ...
And he wrote of many other matters, which we have in part already mentioned, introducing the accounts in their appropriate places ...
How easy would it have been for Eusebius to similarly say regarding the list of bishops of Jerusalem, "Hegesippus is a witness to this fact also"? And given the above, it seems strange that he doesn't.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
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 not convinced that the list of Jerusalem bishops Eusebius mentions in EH 4.5.3-4 comes from Hegesippus, Eusebius says in 4.5.1:
But virtually the same list appears in Epiphanius with slightly different names and the date of the last entry (the tenth year of Antoninus) exactly coincides with the year of the chronology of 'Josephus' in Clement Stromata 1. C.H Turner's study The Early Episcopal Lists where he notes:
The existence of a chronographer of the tenth year of Antoninus Pius (AD 147-148) has been assumed in explanation of the curious coincidence that both Clement of Alexandria (once) and Epiphanius (once) employ this year as a term in chronological calculations. The latter interrupts his series of bishops of Jerusalem, after the twentieth bishop Julianus, with the note 'all these down to the tenth year of A. Pius,' Haer. lxvi 1. The former tells us that ' Josephus reckons from Moses to David to the second year of Vespasian 1179 years, and from that to the tenth of Antoninus seventy-two years,' Strom, i 21 147; and as the mention of this this last date cannot come either from Josephus, who wrote half a century before it, or from Clement himself, who wrote half a century after it, it is a reasonable supposition that it is borrowed from some other intermediate writer, who will also have been the source of Epiphanius. This lost writer is conjectured by Schlatter l, following von Gutschmid, to be identical with the Judas mentioned above ; but something more than mere conjecture is wanted before we can accuse Eusebius of mistaking the tenth year of of Severus for the tenth of A. Pius. With better judgement, Harnack suggests Cassianus was the author, we have seen that Eusebius knew nothing of him ; if Judas, we must conclude that Eusebius knew next to nothing of a book which ex hypothesi he dated fifty years too late.[Journal of Theological Studies 1900 p. 193 - 194]
So Turner notices that Clement's allusion to a 'tenth year of Antoninus' in Josephus is paralleled by a reference in Eusebius and Epiphanius to a list of bishops of Jerusalem that ends in the 'tenth year of Antoninus.' Turner deals with a number of possibilities here and in a follow up essay, that Cassianus is the likeliest candidate as Eusebius's and Epiphanius's original source.

Of course the other possibility - the possibility I wrote at length about in a previous post at the forum - that Turner doesn't even consider is that Clement and Origen were using a text attributed to a 'Josephus the Jew' who was identified to have lived in the Antonine and later referenced by Eusebius as 'Hegesippus the Jew.'

Eusebius's other information about Hegesippus makes him a perfect candidate for the information about the list of bishops in Jerusalem. Eusebius earlier reports that Hegesippus's tells us about the bishops of Jerusalem at the time of Trajan as we read:
Some of these heretics, forsooth, laid an information against Symeon the son of Clopas, as being of the family of David, and a Christian. And on these charges he suffered martyrdom when he was 120 years old, in the reign of Trajan Caesar, when Atticus was consular legate in Syria. And it so happened, says the same writer, that, while inquiry was then being made for those belonging to the royal tribe of the Jews, the accusers themselves were convicted of belonging to it. With show of reason could it be said that Symeon was one of those who actually saw and heard the Lord, on the ground of his great age, and also because the Scripture of the Gospels makes mention of Mary the daughter of Clopas, who, as our narrative has shown already, was his father.

The same historian [Hegesippus] mentions others also, of the family of one of the reputed brothers of the Saviour, named Judas, as having survived until this same reign, after the testimony they bore for the faith of Christ in the time of Domitian, as already recorded.

He writes as follows: They came, then, and took the presidency of every church, as witnesses for Christ, and as being of the kindred of the Lord. And, after profound peace had been established in every church, they remained down to the reign of Trojan Caesar: that is, until the time when he who was sprung from an uncle of the Lord, the aforementioned Symeon son of Clopas, was informed against by the various heresies, and subjected to an accusation like the rest, and for the same cause, before the legate Atticus; and, while suffering outrage during many days, he bore testimony for Christ: so that all, including the legate himself, were astonished above measure that a man 120 years old should have been able to endure such torments. He was finally condemned to be crucified.

... Up to that period the Church had remained like a virgin pure and uncorrupted: for, if there were any persons who were disposed to tamper with the wholesome rule of the preaching of salvation, they still lurked in some dark place of concealment or other. But, when the sacred band of apostles had in various ways closed their lives, and that generation of men to whom it had been vouchsafed to listen to the Godlike Wisdom with their own ears had passed away, then did the confederacy of godless error take its rise through the treachery of false teachers, who, seeing that none of the apostles any longer survived, at length attempted with bare and uplifted head to oppose the preaching of the truth by preaching "knowledge falsely so called."[Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 3:32]
And in the passage cited by Eusebius Hegesippus makes absolutely clear that (a) he is very interested in assembling lists of espiscopal lines and (b) is Eusebius's main source of information about the bishops of Jerusalem:
"And the church of the Corinthians continued in the orthodox faith up to the time when Primus was bishop in Corinth. I had some intercourse with these brethren on my voyage to Rome, when I spent several days with the Corinthians, during which we were mutually refreshed by the orthodox faith.

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....

And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as had the Lord also and on the same account, again Symeon the son of Clopas, descended from the Lord's uncle, is made bishop, his election being promoted by all as being a kinsman of the Lord.

Therefore was the Church called a virgin, for she was not as yet corrupted by worthless teaching. Thebulis it was who, displeased because he was not made bishop, first began to corrupt her by stealth. He too was connected with the seven sects which existed among the people, like Simon, from whom come the Simoniani; and Cleobius, from whom come the Cleobiani; and Doritheus, from whom come the Dorithiani; and Gorthaeus, from whom come the Gortheani; Masbothaeus, from whom come the Masbothaei. From these men also come the Menandrianists, and the Marcianists, and the Carpocratians, and the Valentinians, and the Basilidians, and the Saturnilians. Each of these leaders in his own private and distinct capacity brought in his own private opinion. From these have come false Christs, false prophets, false apostles-men who have split up the one Church into parts through their corrupting doctrines, uttered in disparagement of God and of His Christ....

There were, moreover, various opinions in the matter of circumcision among the children of Israel, held by those who were opposed to the tribe of Judah and to Christ: such as the Essenes, the Galileans, the Hemerobaptists, the Masbothaei, the Samaritans, the Sadducees, the Pharisees."[Eusebius 4:22]
Clearly then we have seen that Hegesippus takes a strong interest in emphasizing the continuity of episcopal lines dating back to apostolic witnesses. His reference to Thebulis as one who tried to corrupt the 'true episcopal line' which went through a 120 year old Simeon the son of Clopas reinforces that he must be the source for Eusebius's information about the bishops of Jerusalem.

Reuterdahl (De Fontibus Hist. eccles. Euseb., p. 55) conjectures that these “writings” were found in the church of Jerusalem itself, and compares a passage in the Dem. Evang. III. 5: “The first bishops that presided there [i.e. at Jerusalem] are said to have been Jews, and their names are preserved by the inhabitants of the country.” Many have argued that if Hegesippus or any other known author had been the source of his information, Eusebius would probably have mentioned his name. But this is not necessarily true or even the best explanation.

If we actually look at what Eusebius does tell us about the succession of bishops it is clear that he did have the same list as Epiphanius (i.e. the one which ended with Judas in the tenth year of Antoninus Pius) and that is because they used the same source - i.e. Hegesippus. So we read in Book Four Chapter Five:
The (complete) chronology of the bishops of Jerusalem I have nowhere found preserved in writing; for tradition says that they were all short lived. But I have learned this much from writings, 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. For their whole church consisted then of believing Hebrews who continued from the days of the apostles until the siege which took place at this time; in which siege the Jews, having again rebelled against the Romans, were conquered after severe battles.

But since the bishops of the circumcision ceased at this time, it is proper to give here a list of their names from the beginning. The first, then, was James, the so-called brother of the Lord; the second, Symeon, the third, Justus , the fourth, Zacchæus; the fifth, Tobias; the sixth, Benjamin; the seventh, John; the eighth, Matthias; the ninth, Philip; the tenth, Seneca; the eleventh, Justus; the twelfth, Levi; the thirteenth, Ephres; the fourteenth, Joseph; and finally, the fifteenth, Judas. These are the bishops of Jerusalem that lived between the age of the apostles and the time referred to, all of them belonging to the circumcision.[Eusebius Church History 4.5.1 - 4]
Epiphanius cites the exact same list with only minor variations but retains what must have been knowledge of the original context of the list - i.e. Hegesippus's statement that he was writing in the tenth year of Antoninus. Epiphanius's citation of the same list reads:
"I subjoin their successive episcopates one by one, beginning with the episcopate of James — < I mean the successive > bishops who were appointed in Jerusalem during each emperor's reign until the time of Aurelian and Probus, when this Mani, a Persian, became known, and produced this outlandish teaching. The list follows: 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 8. Matthias 9. Philip 10. Seneca 11. Justus, bringing us to Hadrian. 12. Levi 13. Vaphres 14. Jose 15. Judah, bringing us to the tenth year of Antoninus. The above were the circumcised bishops of Jerusalem. The following were gentiles ..."[Panarion, V. 19.9 - 20.15]
There can be absolutely no doubt that Epiphanius and Eusebius are using the same list. Williams simply notes that "the following list appears to be derived from a series of references in Eusebius' Chronicle."(p. 239) But how do we explain the 'tenth year of Antoninus' reference? Moreover Eusebius's testimony is rather puzzling. In the form that Epiphanius cites it, it clearly seems to be part of a written chronology. There some minor variations in the list most of which can well be accounted for by assuming that Hegesippus wrote in Aramaic. Justus is called Judas by Epiphanius. Zacchæus is called Zacharias by Epiphanius. Eusebius's ᾽Εφρῆς. is identified as ᾽Ου€φρις by Epiphanius The Armenian version of the Chron. calls him Ephrem; Jerome’s version, Ephres. Syncellus calls him ᾽Εφραΐμ, which is the Hebrew form of the name. ᾽Ιωσήφ of Eusebius is called ᾽Ιωσίς by Epiphanius, and Joses by Jerome.

Now how do we explain Eusebius's denial that he "[t]he chronology of the bishops of Jerusalem I have nowhere found preserved in writing; for tradition says that they were all short lived"? I don't know. But clearly there are problems on both sides. For instance he says here that "they (the bishops) were all short lived. But clearly he cites Hegesippus to say that Simeon succeeded James but lived until the reign of Trajan. That doesn't make sense either. Clearly there seems to be some sort of an internal contradiction which is difficult to resolve for either of us.
“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 »

You asked about the extension of Hegesippus. That's relatively easy to explain. Hegesippus is clearly set in the reign of Anicetus. The author comes from Corinth and then says that he is going to assemble a Roman episcopal list. The list only goes down to Anicetus but is later extended to Eleutherius. This is what I call the second edition of Hegesippus. I think Ben agrees with this basic understanding. In fact this second edition might well explain why the Jerusalem list no longer appears in Eusebius's edition. Note that the time markers have also disappeared. Perhaps - and I say perhaps because I have only just thought of this - there was an obvious internal contradiction in the book once the Roman list was extended to Eleutherius. The Jerusalem bishops still only went to 147 CE and so had to be removed. Apparently Roman primacy was more important. Still this doesn't explain where Eusebius got the list and why he doesn't know (or denies) it came from a written source.
“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
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 »

Secret Alias wrote: Fri Jul 20, 2018 5:14 pm You asked about the extension of Hegesippus. That's relatively easy to explain. Hegesippus is clearly set in the reign of Anicetus. The author comes from Corinth and then says that he is going to assemble a Roman episcopal list. The list only goes down to Anicetus but is later extended to Eleutherius. This is what I call the second edition of Hegesippus. I think Ben agrees with this basic understanding.
I agree that Hegesippus goes down to Anicetus. But I have always hesitated to ascribe a second edition to him (or to an imitator of his). I have generally just considered that Eusebius got his extended list from Irenaeus and other sources.
In fact this second edition might well explain why the Jerusalem list no longer appears in Eusebius's edition. Note that the time markers have also disappeared. Perhaps - and I say perhaps because I have only just thought of this - there was an obvious internal contradiction in the book once the Roman list was extended to Eleutherius. The Jerusalem bishops still only went to 147 CE and so had to be removed. Apparently Roman primacy was more important. Still this doesn't explain where Eusebius got the list and why he doesn't know (or denies) it came from a written source.
I find you confusing to read on this particular matter. First, was there ever a list of Jerusalem bishops which ended at 147? Just because Epiphanius interrupts his list there does not mean that the list ended there; he also interrupts the list at Gaius a few items later. I think the argument needs to be fleshed out more, at the very least. Second, Eusebius never denies that the list came from a written source, so far as I am aware. He denies that it included a chronology (of the number of years each bishop reigned, presumably). Unless you have in mind some statement that I have overlooked.
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 »

Just so we have the lists before our eyes:

Eusebius, History of the Church 4.5.1-4: 1 The chronology of the bishops of Jerusalem I have nowhere found preserved in writing; for tradition says that they were all short lived. 2 But I have learned this much from writings, 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. For their whole church consisted then of believing Hebrews who continued from the days of the apostles until the siege which took place at this time; in which siege the Jews, having again rebelled against the Romans, were conquered after severe battles. 3 But since the bishops of the circumcision ceased at this time, it is proper to give here a list of their names from the beginning. The first, then, was James, the so-called brother of the Lord; the second, Symeon; the third, Justus; the fourth, Zacchaeus; the fifth, Tobias; the sixth, Benjamin; the seventh, John; the eighth, Matthias; the ninth, Philip; the tenth, Seneca; the eleventh, Justus; the twelfth, Levi; the thirteenth, Ephres; the fourteenth, Joseph; and finally, the fifteenth, Judas. 4 These are the bishops of Jerusalem that lived between the age of the apostles and the time referred to, all of them belonging to the circumcision.

Eusebius, History of the Church 4.6.4: 4 And thus, when the city had been emptied of the Jewish nation and had suffered the total destruction of its ancient inhabitants, it was colonized by a different race, and the Roman city which subsequently arose changed its name and was called Aelia, in honor of the emperor Aelius Adrian. And as the church there was now composed of Gentiles, the first one to assume the government of it after the bishops of the circumcision was Marcus.

Eusebius, History of the Church 5.12.1-2: 1 At this time Narcissus was the bishop of the church at Jerusalem, and he is celebrated by many to this day. He was the fifteenth in succession from the siege of the Jews under Hadrian. We have shown that from that time first the church in Jerusalem was composed of Gentiles, after those of the circumcision, and that Marcus was the first Gentile bishop that presided over them. 2 After him the succession in the episcopate was: first Cassianus; after him Publius; then Maximus; following them Julian; then Gaius; after him Symmachus and another Gaius, and again another Julian; after these Capito and Valens and Dolichianus; and after all of them Narcissus, the thirtieth in regular succession from the apostles.

Epiphanius, Panarion 61.19.7-20.2:

19.7 And it will be found that the fraud is falsely accusing Christ of failure to keep his word. For the apostles’ generation is gone — I mean the generation from Peter until Paul, and until John who even lived until the time of Trajan. And James is gone, the first to exercise the episcopate in Jerusalem. (James was called the Lord’s brother but he was Joseph’s son, born, like the rest of his brothers, of Joseph’s real wife. 8 Because the Lord Jesus Christ, who was born in the flesh of the ever-virgin Mary, was brought up with them, <they> were in the position of brothers to him, and he was called their brother.) And all the saints who shared James’ throne are gone, and Symeon, the son of James’ uncle, with them —Symeon, the son of Cleopas the brother of Joseph. 9 I subjoin their successive episcopates one by one, beginning with the episcopate of James — <I mean the successive> bishops who were appointed in Jerusalem during each emperor’s reign until the time of Aurelian and Probus, when this Mani, a Persian, became known, and produced this outlandish teaching. The list follows:

20.1 James, who was martyred in Jerusalem by beating with a cudgel. [He lived] until the time of Nero.
Symeon, was crucified under Trajan.
Judah.
Zachariah.
Tobiah.
Benjamin.
John, bringing us to the ninth [or] tenth year of Trajan.
Matthias.
Philip.
Seneca.
Justus, bringing us to Hadrian.
Levi.
Vaphres.
Jose.
Judah, bringing us to the eleventh year of Antonius.

2 The above were the circumcised bishops of Jerusalem. The following were gentiles:

Mark.
Cassian.
Puplius.
Maximus.
Julian. These all exercised their office up until the tenth year of Antoninus Pius.
Gaian.
Symmachus.
Gaius, bringing us to the time of Verus, in the eighth year of his reign.
Julian.
Capito.
Maximus, bringing us to the sixteenth year of Verus.
Antoninus.
Valens.
Dolichian, bringing us to Commodus.
Narcissus.
Dius, bringing us to Severus.
Germanio.
Gordius, bringing us to Antoninus.
Narcissus, the same person, bringing us to Alexander the son of Mamaea — not Alexander of Macedon, but a different one.
Alexander, bringing us to the same Alexander.
Mazabanus, bringing us to Gallus and Volusian.
Hymenaeus, bringing us to Aurelian.

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 »

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....
This translation is different from the one I'm more familiar with:

4.22.3:
And when I had come to Rome I remained there until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus.
I wonder which one better reflects what the Greek says.
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: Fri Jul 20, 2018 6:23 pm
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....
This translation is different from the one I'm more familiar with:

4.22.3:
And when I had come to Rome I remained there until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus.
I wonder which one better reflects what the Greek says.
The Greek has something like "made a succession." But conjectural emendations have been suggested which would match the translation you are more accustomed to.
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 »

There can be absolutely no doubt that Epiphanius and Eusebius are using the same list.
I've looked into the question of whether Epiphanius knew Hegesippus (beyond the portions that Eusebius cites) and I'm not convinced that he did, since everything Epiphanius cites from Hegesippus is in Eusebius. Also, regarding the Jerusalem bishop list, if they are using the same list, it looks like they have different understandings of it. Eusebius says the list goes up to the Bar Kokhba war, but Epiphanius says it goes up to the tenth or eleventh year of Antoninus Pius (c. 150 CE).

Eusebius:
But I have learned this much from writings, that until the siege of the Jews, which took place under Adrian, there were fifteen bishops in succession there ... For their whole church consisted then of believing Hebrews who continued from the days of the apostles until the siege which took place at this time; in which siege the Jews, having again rebelled against the Romans, were conquered after severe battles. But since the bishops of the circumcision ceased at this time, it is proper to give here a list of their names from the beginning. The first, then, was James, the so-called brother of the Lord; the second, Symeon; the third, Justus; the fourth, Zacchaeus; the fifth, Tobias; the sixth, Benjamin; the seventh, John; the eighth, Matthias; the ninth, Philip; the tenth, Seneca; the eleventh, Justus; the twelfth, Levi; the thirteenth, Ephres; the fourteenth, Joseph; and finally, the fifteenth, Judas.
Epiphanius:
James, who was martyred in Jerusalem by beating with a cudgel. [He lived] until the time of Nero.
Symeon, was crucified under Trajan.
Judah.
Zachariah.
Tobiah.
Benjamin.
John, bringing us to the ninth [or] tenth year of Trajan.
Matthias.
Philip.
Seneca.
Justus, bringing us to Hadrian.
Levi.
Vaphres.
Jose.
Judah, bringing us to the eleventh year of Antonius.


So if they were using the same source (and let's say it was Hegesippus), then how did they come to such different conclusions regarding when the list ended? So I am guessing that since Eusebius says, "But I have learned this much from writings, that until the siege of the Jews, which took place under Adrian, there were fifteen bishops in succession there," that Eusebius and Epiphanius used different "writings."

If their lists had come from Hegesippus, I suspect he would have been clear about the chronology, like he is regarding James and Symeon.
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: Fri Jul 20, 2018 7:31 pmAlso, regarding the Jerusalem bishop list, if they are using the same list, it looks like they have different understandings of it. Eusebius says the list goes up to the Bar Kokhba war, but Epiphanius says it goes up to the tenth or eleventh year of Antoninus Pius (c. 150 CE).
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. His list ends with Narcissus, who he says occupies the thirtieth spot from the apostles. Epiphanius' list does not end until Hymenaeus, who is thirty-seventh on the list. Number 30 is Narcissus, in agreement with Eusebius. Epiphanius and Eusebius agree with one another that the fifteenth (and last) Jewish bishop was Judah/Judas while the first gentile bishop was Marcus. They also agree in calling those Jewish bishops circumcised.
Eusebius:
But I have learned this much from writings, that until the siege of the Jews, which took place under Adrian, there were fifteen bishops in succession there ... For their whole church consisted then of believing Hebrews who continued from the days of the apostles until the siege which took place at this time; in which siege the Jews, having again rebelled against the Romans, were conquered after severe battles. But since the bishops of the circumcision ceased at this time, it is proper to give here a list of their names from the beginning. The first, then, was James, the so-called brother of the Lord; the second, Symeon; the third, Justus; the fourth, Zacchaeus; the fifth, Tobias; the sixth, Benjamin; the seventh, John; the eighth, Matthias; the ninth, Philip; the tenth, Seneca; the eleventh, Justus; the twelfth, Levi; the thirteenth, Ephres; the fourteenth, Joseph; and finally, the fifteenth, Judas.
He continues this list later in his History:

Eusebius, History of the Church 5.12.1-2: 1 At this time Narcissus was the bishop of the church at Jerusalem, and he is celebrated by many to this day. He was the fifteenth in succession from the siege of the Jews under Hadrian. We have shown that from that time first the church in Jerusalem was composed of Gentiles, after those of the circumcision, and that Marcus was the first Gentile bishop that presided over them. 2 After him the succession in the episcopate was: first Cassianus; after him Publius; then Maximus; following them Julian; then Gaius; after him Symmachus and another Gaius, and again another Julian; after these Capito and Valens and Dolichianus; and after all of them Narcissus, the thirtieth in regular succession from the apostles.

Epiphanius:
James, who was martyred in Jerusalem by beating with a cudgel. [He lived] until the time of Nero.
Symeon, was crucified under Trajan.
Judah.
Zachariah.
Tobiah.
Benjamin.
John, bringing us to the ninth [or] tenth year of Trajan.
Matthias.
Philip.
Seneca.
Justus, bringing us to Hadrian.
Levi.
Vaphres.
Jose.
Judah, bringing us to the eleventh year of Antonius.
That is not where the list ends:

Epiphanius, Panarion 61.20.2:

2 The above were the circumcised bishops of Jerusalem. The following were gentiles:

Mark.
Cassian.
Puplius.
Maximus.
Julian. These all exercised their office up until the tenth year of Antoninus Pius.
Gaian.
Symmachus.
Gaius, bringing us to the time of Verus, in the eighth year of his reign.
Julian.
Capito.
Maximus, bringing us to the sixteenth year of Verus.
Antoninus.
Valens.
Dolichian, bringing us to Commodus.
Narcissus.
Dius, bringing us to Severus.
Germanio.
Gordius, bringing us to Antoninus.
Narcissus, the same person, bringing us to Alexander the son of Mamaea — not Alexander of Macedon, but a different one.
Alexander, bringing us to the same Alexander.
Mazabanus, bringing us to Gallus and Volusian.
Hymenaeus, bringing us to Aurelian.

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 »

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.
Right, 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.

I'm assuming Epiphanius is referring to Antoninus Pius, anyway, since he mentions other emperors in his list of Jewish bishops.
James, who was martyred in Jerusalem by beating with a cudgel. [He lived] until the time of Nero.
Symeon, was crucified under Trajan.
Judah.
Zachariah.
Tobiah.
Benjamin.
John, bringing us to the ninth [or] tenth year of Trajan.
Matthias.
Philip.
Seneca.
Justus, bringing us to Hadrian.
Levi.
Vaphres.
Jose.
Judah, bringing us to the eleventh year of Antonius.
I don't know if "Antonius" is the same as Antoninus Pius, but the latter is the emperor that followed Hadrian. I thought perhaps it could refer to Hadrian's lover Antinous, but that doesn't seem right, given the references to other emperors and "the eleventh year of" Antonius. Or am I missing something here?
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Post Reply