Re: How Could Symeon be James the Just's Successor on the Episcopal Throne of Jerusalem if He was Crucified Under Trajan
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2018 4:49 pm
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 only thing throwing me off (somewhat) is what Eusebius says in 4.5.2 (in contrast to 4.5.1):
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:
Here is a comment Stephan has made that I think illustrates all of this:
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: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.
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.1. The chronology of the bishops of Jerusalem I have nowhere found preserved in writing; for tradition says that they were all short lived.
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.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.
The only thing throwing me off (somewhat) is what Eusebius says in 4.5.2 (in contrast to 4.5.1):
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.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 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:
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.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 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 ...
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.And he wrote of many other matters, which we have in part already mentioned, introducing the accounts in their appropriate places ...