Why the Pillars didn't have followers after their death

[Giuseppe]

Often I listen someone claim that the community founded by the Pillars in Jerusalem did disappear with the same destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.
If the Romans didn't attack Jerusalem - the argument goes - the followers of the Pillars could survive even after the 70 CE.

I disagree with this view. I think that the followers of the Pillars were estinguished shortly after the death of Peter, James, John. Even before the 70 CE. The Romans were innocent of the blood of the followers of the Pillars, because the latter were already all dead before the 70 CE.

In fact, the Pillars had played all their cards on the material coming of the Messiah Jesus within their generation. Differently, Paul had modified partially his original apocalypticism by translating already in concrete terms the spiritual victory of Jesus: starting the conversion of the gentiles. A sign that "something" of spiritually "apocalyptic" was already happening "really", and hailed as such.

The implication is that the pauline Mark confirmed simply the failure of the Pillars, without no kind of opposition by their late followers. Matthew therefore was not the gospel of the last survived followers of the Pillars.

[rakovsky]

John was a pillar, and tradition, eg ireneus, says John lasted to trajans time, eg 98 ad.

[DCHindley]

As long as James is one of the pillars, then what about members of Jesus' family (cousins, uncles, etc.) who remained around until the time of Trajan?

Per Africanus, after Herod supposedly attempted to burn the records that tracked births and conversions, members of Jesus' family were "coming from Nazara and Cochaba, Judean villages,* to other parts of the country ..." to replace them with their own versions of Jesus' history. Well, first of all, Herod died around the time Jesus was supposed to have been born so how would they have already had Jesus' genealogy prepared when he did not make his mark until 30 years later.

For Lena and Franz, this sounds vaguely like the burning of the state archives by, I'm not sure exactly, Simon bar Giora or the Zealots. Supposedly this was to allow his supporters to be freed of debts but I suppose also birth records were included, the burning of archives being the "great equalizer" of Simon's radical social platform.

DCH

*κωμῶν Ἰουδαϊκῶν which could, I think, mean villages of "Judeans" (Jews) located anywhere in traditionally Judean populated areas, including those located outside of Judea proper.

[rakovsky]

As long as James is one of the pillars, then what about members of Jesus' family (cousins, uncles, etc.) who remained around until the time of Trajan?

Per Africanus, after Herod supposedly attempted to burn the records that tracked births and conversions, members of Jesus' family were "coming from Nazara and Cochaba, Judean villages,* to other parts of the country ..." to replace them with their own versions of Jesus' history. Well, first of all, Herod died around the time Jesus was supposed to have been born so how would they have already had Jesus' genealogy prepared when he did not make his mark until 30 years later.
.

I think those are two different Herods, just as Rome had numerous Caesars.

[Bernard Muller]

John was a pillar, and tradition, eg ireneus, says John lasted to trajans time, eg 98 ad.

But there is plenty of evidence (as in Papias' surviving writings) that John was a different John other than the pillar, a former fisherman.
That John, who died during Trajan's times, and a former temple priest, was most likely the author of Revelation.
He was also made the beloved disciple in gJohn and the main source (even the author) of most on gJohn.

I can agree with most of what Giuseppe wrote in the OP, but with major exceptions.

Even if most, if not all, the pillars died before 70 CE, I do not think that was publicized (or even believed) in the Christian world because of the expectation they still would be there alive when the kingdom comes. That was the situation well into the 70's: in gMark, Jesus gives instruction to four of his disciples on what to do when the Romans invade Judea (Mk 13:14,23).
And in the original gJohn (written around 75-80 CE), Jesus is said to come back (only) in order to fetch his disciples (Jn 14:3).

The Church of Jerusalem likely did not survive after 70 CE (one good reason: Jerusalem had been destroyed) but some groups of followers might have, in such place like Pella.
From those, the Ebionites sect started, at first as not Christian (just latter followers of dead man "perfect" Jesus, as they believed he was) but eventually adopting progressively Christian tenets along decades & centuries, to finally disappear.
The Ebionite texts would be the Didache (without the Christian additions) and the later gospel of Thomas (pimped up with mythicism).

However the Church of Jerusalem legacy was not strong and Christianity did not develop from them. For one good reason: the pillars never became Christians, their Jesus was just a dead prophet who prophesied the kingdom of God to come soon on earth for the benefit of the poor Jews.

Of course most of all that is fully explained on my website and is the product of a long research, not a statement of opinions.

Cordially, Bernard

[rakovsky]

Saint Simeon of Jerusalem, son of Clopas, was a Jewish Christian leader and according to most Christian traditions the second Bishop of Jerusalem (62 or 70–107).

According to Eusebius...

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.

According to Hegesippus, Simeon prevailed against Thebutis, whom the church fathers deemed a Judaizing heresiarch,[6] and led most of the Christians to Pella before the outbreak of the Jewish War in 66 and the destruction of Herod's Temple in 70.

About the year 107 or 117 he was crucified under Trajan by the proconsul Tiberius Claudius Atticus Herodes in Jerusalem or the vicinity.[Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, III, xxxii]

Simeon is sometimes identified with Simon, the "brother of the Lord", who is mentioned in passing in the Bible (Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3) (although Aramaic had no term for "cousin"[8]) and pointing to Hegesippus referring to him as the "second cousin" as bishop of Jerusalem.
He has also been identified with the Apostle Simon the Zealot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simeon_of_Jerusalem

The four brothers of Jesus are named in the Gospels (Mt. 13:55; Mk. 6:3). We can be sure that James was the eldest of the four, and Joses the next in age, but since Matthew and Mark differ in the order in which they list Simon and Judas, we cannot be sure which was the youngest.
the second-century writer Hegesippus,[4] who calls James and Jude 'brothers of the Lord', calls Simeon the son of Clopas the 'cousin of the Lord', evidently distinguishing the two relationships.
...the Greek name Simon was very commonly used as the equivalent of the Hebrew Simeon, and either name could be used for the same individual. It is very plausible to suppose that Joseph's brother Clopas also used the Greek name Cleopas. Luke names him because he was a sufficiently significant person in the early church for some of Luke's readers to have heard of him.

https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_ ... ckham.html

Different named individuals in the writings would have personal biographies that are only mentioned in passing in the Bible.


The underlined part reminds me how it would be neat for me as a student of the early Christian history to have a time machine and see what all the references back in the first century's writings were to.

The second 'bishop' of Jerusalem, after James, was Simeon or Simon (both the Hebrew and the Greek versions of his name are found), the son of Clopas.[15] Probably this was not a matter of strict dynastic succession, as though he was considered next in line to succeed. After all, James could never have been considered 'successor' to his brother Jesus. But a kind of dynastic feeling, which was natural for people of the time, who were used to associating authority with a family rather than a mere individual, must have had some weight in the appointment of Simeon. The model which perhaps best explains the role of Jesus' relatives in the leadership of the Palestinian church is not that of dynastic succession, but that of the association of a ruler's family with him in government. Just as it was normal practice in the ancient Near East for members of the royal family to hold high offices in government, so Palestinian Jewish Christians felt it appropriate that Jesus' brothers, cousins and other relatives should hold positions of authority in his church. Indeed, the term desposynoi ('those who belong to the Sovereign') could well have the sense, more or less, of 'members of the royal family'.

Simeon the son of Clopas was leader of the Jerusalem church - and doubtless the most important figure in Jewish Christianity - for at least 40 years, until his martyrdom...

the great reverence with which he was remembered in Jewish Christian tradition can be seen in Hegesippus's hagiographical account of his death.[16] The historically reliable information in the account is that Simeon was arrested on a charge of political subversion, because he was of a Davidic family and supported the alleged Davidic king Jesus, and was put to death by crucifixion. This fits well into the period between the two great Jewish revolts, when the Roman authorities in Palestine were highly sensitive to the dangers of Jewish political nationalism.

https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_ ... ckham.html

Bauckham goes on to say more about the Jerusalem Church's history at that point in the article above.

[Giuseppe]

...a messiah, crucified or otherwise, was not a messiah in the eyes of Jewish tradition if after his death the world continued to survive.
(Paula Fredriksen)

This is why there were not followers of the Pillars in Jerusalem after their death. It would be a contradiction, to remain Jew AND to believe in a Messiah who didn't destroy the world.

Therefore the apocalypticism in Mark hides a symbolic motive, probably: the Pillars were blind because they didn't see the Kingdom of God already at work (with the Paul's mission to gentiles allegorized by the Jesus of Mark).

Therefore Matthew was not a Jewish-Christian gospel insofar "Jewish-Christian" means "followers of the Pillars".

[Giuseppe]

If Jesus was the Messiah, then he had to rule the world.
If the world started to be ruled by Jesus, then Jesus was the Messiah.
Paul started to convert the Pagan world successfully, differently from the Pillars.
Therefore the pauline apocalypticism promised to be more ardent and strong than the messianic hope of the Pillars (unable of opening a way among the Pagans).

[Giuseppe]

And when Josephus (or who for him) started the voice that the Messiah had to be a man "coming from Judea", then the paulines started to think about the euhemerization of the angel Jesus on the earth...

[DCHindley]

As usual, I write long responses and then they disappear into the aether.

G, I think you have Euhemerization on the brain, a rare and unfortunate condition that gives one tunnel vision.

The table below gives 15 possible scenarios where there would be an anointed one (messiah). How many require a sweeping eschatological change of affairs. Maybe a couple. Why do you continue to act like the only option anyone could ever have had was eschatological messianic expectations?

Who	What	Duration
Human claimant initiates new kingdom	God not expected to intervene to destroy enemies, so king claimant succeeds by virtue of strength, cunning and good fortune.	However long it lasts.
Human claimant initiates new kingdom	God expected to reward human initiative by directly intervening to destroy enemies and establish the kingdom.	A long, but defined, period of time to allow people to enjoy it a bit, unmolested.
Human claimant initiates new kingdom	God expected to participate alongside of forces of the king claimant to establish the kingdom.	A long, but defined, period of time, but may be eternal.
God initiates new kingdom	As soon as the angels start to destroy enemies, humans expected to assist them, and do what God instructs after kingdom established.	This one I'd say would likely be eternal, but may have a defined limit.
God initiates new kingdom	Humans not expected to directly participate in destroying enemies, but let God and his angels do all the work.	This one I'd say would likely be eternal

So, to get an eschatological messianic age, there should be a general resurrection so all the righteous could participate, but Sadducees didn't follow that way of thinking. All their anointed Kings were human kings. Aristobulus II and his son Antigonus II were allied to Sadducees and they were everyday human Kings/HPs. Tens of thousands fought for them. Others fought for Hyrcanus II and later Herod the Great. There does not seem to be even a hint that these factions for kingship ever expected God to intervene or that God would help them inaugurate a new world order where Judean kings ruled in place of the Romans.

The Intertestamental books tells us that some did expect an eschatological kingdom of God headed by a superior anointed king, to last sometimes a few hundred years, or a thousand, or even eternally. But was this even close to the norm? We know of these books because they were preserved by Christians who felt they "predicted" a messiah of the eschatological kind, which is what Jesus Christ came to be perceived as. But the Romans responded to Jesus as a human royal claimant, not some eschatological threat.

DCH