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
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 »

Here's another thing. Even if the list does not come from Hegesippus you'd think that if there was information about the individual bishops in Hegesippus Eusebius would put the one together with the other and add details about the individual bishops on the list from the other source (Hegesippus). The underlying conclusion is clearly then that Hegesippus does not provide a lot of information about the bishops of Jerusalem. Also one more thing as I sit here sipping on my morning coffee. It is worth noting that - curiously again - Hegesippus does mention the lineage of David (i.e. the bishop list at least cursorily):
After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph. He also relates that Vespasian after the conquest of Jerusalem gave orders that all that belonged to the lineage of David should be sought out, in order that none of the royal race might be left among the Jews; and in consequence of this a most terrible persecution again hung over the Jews.
and again a little later in Book 3:
But when this same Domitian had commanded that the descendants of David should be slain, an ancient tradition says that some of the heretics brought accusation against the descendants of Jude (said to have been a brother of the Saviour according to the flesh), on the ground that they were of the lineage of David and were related to Christ himself. Hegesippus relates these facts in the following words. Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord's brother according to the flesh. Information was given that they belonged to the family of David, and they were brought to the Emperor Domitian by the Evocatus. For Domitian feared the coming of Christ as Herod also had feared it. And he asked them if they were descendants of David, and they confessed that they were. Then he asked them how much property they had, or how much money they owned. And both of them answered that they had only nine thousand denarii, half of which belonged to each of them. And this property did not consist of silver, but of a piece of land which contained only thirty-nine acres, and from which they raised their taxes and supported themselves by their own labor. Then they showed their hands, exhibiting the hardness of their bodies and the callousness produced upon their hands by continuous toil as evidence of their own labor. And when they were asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works. Upon hearing this, Domitian did not pass judgment against them, but, despising them as of no account, he let them go, and by a decree put a stop to the persecution of the Church. But when they were released they ruled the churches because they were witnesses and were also relatives of the Lord. And peace being established, they lived until the time of Trajan. These things are related by Hegesippus.
and again:
It is reported that after the age of Nero and Domitian, under the emperor whose times we are now recording, a persecution was stirred up against us in certain cities in consequence of a popular uprising. In this persecution we have understood that Symeon, the son of Clopas, who, as we have shown, was the second bishop of the church of Jerusalem, suffered martyrdom. Hegesippus, whose words we have already quoted in various places, is a witness to this fact also. Speaking of certain heretics he adds that Symeon was accused by them at this time; and since it was clear that he was a Christian, he was tortured in various ways for many days, and astonished even the judge himself and his attendants in the highest degree, and finally he suffered a death similar to that of our Lord. But there is nothing like hearing the historian himself, who writes as follows: Certain of these heretics brought accusation against Symeon, the son of Clopas, on the ground that he was a descendant of David and a Christian; and thus he suffered martyrdom, at the age of one hundred and twenty years, while Trajan was emperor and Atticus governor. And the same writer says that his accusers also, when search was made for the descendants of David, were arrested as belonging to that family. And it might be reasonably assumed that Symeon was one of those that saw and heard the Lord, judging from the length of his life, and from the fact that the Gospel makes mention of Mary, the wife of Clopas, who was the father of Symeon, as has been already shown. The same historian says that there were also others, descended from one of the so-called brothers of the Saviour, whose name was Judas, who, after they had borne testimony before Domitian, as has been already recorded, in behalf of faith in Christ, lived until the same reign. He writes as follows: They came, therefore, and took the lead of every church as witnesses and as relatives of the Lord. And profound peace being established in every church, they remained until the reign of the Emperor Trajan, and until the above-mentioned Symeon, son of Clopas, an uncle of the Lord, was informed against by the heretics, and was himself in like manner accused for the same cause before the governor Atticus. And after being tortured for many days he suffered martyrdom, and all, including even the proconsul, marveled that, at the age of one hundred and twenty years, he could endure so much. And orders were given that he should be crucified. In addition to these things the same man, while recounting the events of that period, records that the Church up to that time had remained a pure and uncorrupted virgin, since, if there were any that attempted to corrupt the sound norm of the preaching of salvation, they lay until then concealed in obscure darkness. But when the sacred college of apostles had suffered death in various forms, and the generation of those that had been deemed worthy to hear the inspired wisdom with their own ears had passed away, then the league of godless error took its rise as a result of the folly of heretical teachers, who, because none of the apostles was still living, attempted henceforth, with a bold face, to proclaim, in opposition to the preaching of the truth, the 'knowledge which is falsely so-called.'
In other words, Hegesippus seems to have a discernible structure. The descendants of Jesus all lived until the age of Trajan. In this reference it is implied that even though both Vespasian and Domitian had "sought out" the line of David intending to kill them, and members of the lineage 'bore testimony before them' - it was only in the age of Trajan that the line was wiped out.

Here is one difficulty with that. It would appear that Julius Africanus makes mention of meeting members of the lineage of Jesus. Africanus also used Hegesippus. Surely he would have had to provide an explanation for his statement if Hegesippus was taken to mean - 'all the descendants of Jesus were killed by Trajan.' Also when I look at Eusebius's citations above there can't have been much more written about the line of David. It wasn't like pages and pages were written about what happened to the Church of Jerusalem and Eusebius cites only a fraction of what was written. This was pretty much it.

So basically this is what Hegesippus said about the Jerusalem Church:

1. the descendants of Jesus came together after the death of James and unanimously elected Symeon the son of Clopas bishop, Clopas being the brother of Jesus's father Joseph
2. Vespasian launched an effort to wipe out the family of David after 70 CE and this persecution was imagined to affect 'the Jews' as such - "a most terrible persecution again hung over the Jews."
3. Domitian launched a fresh effort to wipe out the lineage after heretics (perhaps specifically Jewish individuals). The effort was directed against descendants of Jesus's brother Jud(as). Hegesippus saw this as an extension of Herod's fear about the coming of Christ. In the end Domitian changed his mind and let them go. The ultimate persecution was said to have taken place under Trajan.
4. Trajan crucified Symeon under Atticus c. 99–102 CE. The persecution under Trajan was prompted by 'heretics' owing to their status as descendants of David and the fact they were Christians. I strongly suspect that these 'heretics' were Jews and the text was written from the perspective that the descendants of David were rightly the rulers of the Jewish people. Hegesippus distinguishes between two classes of heresies - (a) 'ancient' heresies that led to the familiar division of Pharisees, Sadducees etc. and (b) the heresies which occurred after the events of the gospel - viz. "Thebuthis, because he was not made bishop, began to corrupt it. He also was sprung from the seven sects among the people, like Simon, from whom came the Simonians, and Cleobius, from whom came the Cleobians, and Dositheus, from whom came the Dositheans, and Gorthæus, from whom came the Goratheni, and Masbotheus, from whom came the Masbothæans."

I don't see any evidence that Hegesippus there were no more descendants of Jesus after Trajan. Just that there was a persecution which led to the crucifixion of Symeon and death to the descendants of Jude (both of which seem to have been introduced earlier in the narrative).
“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: Sat Jul 21, 2018 8:05 am
two long bishoprics (James and Simeon).
But that is the crazy part. Eusebius says I believe (I just woke up) the bishops (i.e. all the bishops) had short reigns.
He even attributes this to tradition. But I, like Bauckham, wonder whether the short reigns were simply his interpretation of the tradition. The bare list (as you call it) was the tradition, and that the bishops (well, 13 of them) had short reigns was Eusebius' inference from that list: a necessary inference, if he was to maintain that it was a list of bishops similar to how other bishop lists worked.
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.
Yes, I agree with this. He tried to make sense of a weird list. I think we differ here only insofar as you seem more certain that the list derives from Hegesippus than I am. I admit: it is certainly possible. I am just not sure I have enough evidence to take the step. As John pointed out somewhere, Eusebius is usually happy to attribute stuff to Hegesippus; his failure to attribute this list to him is at least suspicious, IMO.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
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 »

Here's a question for you, Ben. Does Eusebius attribute the Roman succession list to Hegesippus? No. Curious parallel. Perhaps both succession lists were attachments, addendums - I forget what Epiphanius calls his text on the Marcionite textual alterations. But an attached work to the main body which may or may not have been written by the original author.
“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 »

his interpretation of the tradition
Yes. But here's another thing. Bob/John suggests that if it was a succession list it went James (long period) Symeon (until Trajan/100 CE), and then a series of short lived bishops. That is perhaps Eusebius's interpretation of the data. But this doesn't work with Epiphanius I don't think.
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.
It is worth noting that 'Judah' is the same name as Eusebius says the descendants of David/Christ came from:
The same historian says that there were also others, descended from one of the so-called brothers of the Saviour, whose name was Judas, who, after they had borne testimony before Domitian, as has been already recorded, in behalf of faith in Christ, lived until the same reign.
It doesn't sound as if 'Judas' was still alive at the time of Domitian. If it were true you'd figure that the author would have mentioned him (i.e. in the same way Symeon is mentioned because it would be noteworthy for Jesus's brother to be still alive at such a late date). Indeed the citation from Hegesippus seems plainly to assume Judas was no longer alive in the age of Domitian:
But when this same Domitian had commanded that the descendants of David should be slain, an ancient tradition says that some of the heretics brought accusation against the descendants of Jude (said to have been a brother of the Saviour according to the flesh), on the ground that they were of the lineage of David and were related to Christ himself. Hegesippus relates these facts in the following words. Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord's brother according to the flesh. Information was given that they belonged to the family of David, and they were brought to the Emperor Domitian by the Evocatus.
To this end, I submit (a) either there are two Judahs or (b) Symeon held the bishop's throne and made room for Judah before the age of Trajan. It is worth noting that a brother of Jesus would presumably have more 'right' to sit on the throne than an cousin.
“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
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 »

Sullivan writes regarding the wording Hegesippus uses in his remark about Roman bishops in From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church:
He [Hegesippus] relates that while there [in Rome] he "made a diadoche as far as Anicetus." This sentence was regarded for a long time as hopelessly textually corrupt. To speak of a "succession" not merely existing but being "made" seemed intolerably harsh. Nevertheless, if one rightly reconstructs the historical and dogmatic significance of the concept, then this further extension of its meaning does not seem at all difficult to understand. Hegesippus wants to say not merely that he is asserting that there is a genuine continuity of teaching behind the bishops who hold office in his time, but that he has also proved it by compiling a complete list of the actual series of "transmitting" and "receiving" bishops. This demonstration of the succession or diadoche is now, therefore, itself termed a diadoche, and in this way the word acquires in this passage something like its later normal sense of "list of bishops." That while at Rome, Hegesippus did in fact do something of this kind, or cause it to be done, seems probable in the light of other indications .... How Hegesippus went to work in detail on his task we can no longer say. There are no grounds for suggesting that the list is "faked." The names which he compiled will have been communicated to him by the clergy of the Roman church, and will naturally not have been simply invented for the purpose. They may, for the most part, have belonged to actual people who had at one time played a part in the life of the congregation, and of whom something was still known or thought to be known. That the writer of 1 Clement should be among them is natural enough. The order of the names on the list may, however, derive purely from Hegesippus himself, and the whole compilation is no more reliable than the memory of the Roman church at the time on the subject of the preceding hundred years or more, a memory which was unchecked then and which we certainly have no means of checking now.

https://books.google.com/books?id=rn4PI ... ps&f=false
But this is precisely what makes me think Hegesippus did not make a similar list of Jewish Jerusalem Church bishops, since Eusebius clearly cites Hegesippus regarding these Roman bishops, yet neither he nor Epiphanius nor anyone else I'm aware of mentions Hegesippus in connection to the list of Jewish bishops of the Jerusalem Church. And as we've noted, Eusebius says that there were multiple writings that contained it (sans a chronology) in EH 4.5.2:
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 I find it very strange that Eusebius does not mention Hegesippus here given how frequently he cites him elsewhere, including the less notable reference to Clopas being Joseph's brother ("For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph").

And I don't know if we can say for sure that the Jewish part of the Jerusalem Church bishop list was compiled earlier than the Gentile part (as Bauckham suggests in Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church). I need to look into that question more.

.
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 »

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.
“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 »

This happens to be my birthday so I am writing this with all sorts of crazy people around me. But I think I discovered something about the list potentially that hasn't been noticed before. Rather than hurry out a badly written post I will ... take time to produce a badly written post.
“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
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 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 MrMacSon »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Jul 21, 2018 7:13 am
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
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.
I think there is a reasonable likelihood that Eusebius was seeking to embellish what is/was and would be said about the church's early 'history'.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 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 John T »

Eusebius is not saying that his list of circumcised bishops came solely from Hegesippus.

"So much, however, have I learned from writers*,... Book 4 Chapter 5 (2).

In other words, Eusebius complied his list from more than one source, not exclusive writings from Hegesippus.

To paraphrase, Eusebius says that after a thorough search, try as he might, he could not pin point the exact year each Bishop took over and the length of his reign.

Finally, what continues to be (deliberately?) overlooked by those on this forum is that the list is limited to those who were not only Hebrew but knew Christ and his unadulterated gospel.

"...Hebrews from the first and received the knowledge of Christ pure and unadulterated..." Book 4 Chapter 5 (2)

Which brings us back to what James Tabor suggests; a major requirement of the bishops that succeeded James the Just is that they had to be related to Jesus.

Meaning, the question of the O.P. has been answered but the answer seems to be rejected by Secret Alias perhaps because it lends credibility to the integrity of Eusebius who listed Marcion among the early heretics. A heretic that Secret Alias has spent a lifetime trying to rehabilitate.


*bold, italics, and underlined, emphasis is mine.

John T
Last edited by John T on Sat Jul 21, 2018 4:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
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 »

MrMacSon wrote: Sat Jul 21, 2018 3:24 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Jul 21, 2018 7:13 am
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
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.
I think there is a reasonable likelihood that Eusebius was seeking to embellish what is/was and would be said about the church's early 'history'.
And how does stating that there are 15 names but only listing 13 of those names accomplish this?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply