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.
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 »

2.The fact that both Hegesippus and Irenaeus seem preoccupied with the succession of apostolic bishops, especially as a counter measure against heretical teachings.
My only issue with this is that, from Irenaeus' point of view at least, Hegesippus himself could have been seen as a heretic given Irenaeus views on Jewish Christians.

AH 1.26.2:
2. Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God.


The gospel of the Hebrews (which was used by Jewish Christians and is said to have resembled Matthew) is the only named gospel Hegesippus is said to have used, and while he doesn't repudiate Paul, he also never mentions him. And recall what he says according to Gobar in Photius' Bibliotheca regarding something Paul says:
"The good things prepared for the just the eye has not seen, the ears have not heard, and they are not found in the heart of man." However Hegesippus, one of the ancients, a contemporary of the apostles, in the fifth book of his Commentaries [in I do not know what context], says that these are empty words and that those who say them are liars ...
And Eusebius gives me the impression that Hegesippus was "Judaic" in his "style of life" in EH 4.22.7:
7. And he wrote of many other matters, which we have in part already mentioned, introducing the accounts in their appropriate places. And from the Syriac Gospel according to the Hebrews he quotes some passages in the Hebrew tongue, showing that he was a convert from the Hebrews, and he mentions other matters as taken from the unwritten tradition of the Jews.
Sure, Jerome also used the gospel of the Hebrews and "quotes some passages in the Hebrew tongue" as you once pointed out, but given Hegesippus' interest in the family of Jesus and his lack of any reference to Paul (and given that we know of course that Jerome wasn't a Jewish Christian), I have the impression that Hegesippus was a Jewish Christian, and so did Eusebius (who saw more of Hegesippus' work than he cites).

AH 3.21.1:
The Ebionites, following these, assert that He was begotten by Joseph; thus destroying, as far as in them lies, such a marvellous dispensation of God, and setting aside the testimony of the prophets which proceeded from God.
This would go against Hegesippus, since he says that Clopas (via Joseph) was Jesus' cousin.

EH 3.11.2 and 4.22.4:
2. 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.
4. The same author also describes the beginnings of the heresies which arose in his time, in the following words: And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the Lord's uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord.
So I'm having a hard time thinking that Irenaeus would have used a "heretic" like Hegesippus.
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 »

You and I view Hegesippus very, very differently. But we already knew that.
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 »

You and I view Hegesippus very, very differently. But we already knew that.
Do you think Hegsippus at least had some views that Irenaeus would have deemed heretical?

Irenaeus: "They use the Gospel according to Matthew only"' and "assert that He was begotten by Joseph".

Eusebius/Hegesippus: "And from the Syriac Gospel according to the Hebrews he quotes some passages in the Hebrew tongue"; "He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph"; "Symeon, the son of the Lord's uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord."
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: Sat Jul 21, 2018 8:37 pm
You and I view Hegesippus very, very differently. But we already knew that.
Do you think Hegesippus at least had some views that Irenaeus would have deemed heretical?
I doubt it. At least nothing that could be pinned on him definitively. Eusebius and Epiphanius seem to have had no trouble with Hegesippus.
Irenaeus: "They use the Gospel according to Matthew only"' and "assert that He was begotten by Joseph".

Eusebius/Hegesippus: "And from the Syriac Gospel according to the Hebrews he quotes some passages in the Hebrew tongue"; "He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph"; "Symeon, the son of the Lord's uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord."
Using only Matthew is not the same thing as using the gospel according to the Hebrews; Eusebius does not indicate that this gospel was the only one which Hegesippus used. And counting Symeon as a cousin of Jesus is not the same thing as denying that Jesus was born of a virgin; the term "cousin" can refer to a relationship by adoption.
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 »

If Hegesippus used only the gospel of the Hebrews, like an Ebionite, why does this fact concern only Irenaeus and not Eusebius? Eusebius shares Irenaeus' opinion on this, after all:

Eusebius, History of the Church 3.27.4: 4 These men, moreover, thought that it was necessary to reject all the epistles of the apostle, whom they called an apostate from the law; and they used only the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews and made small account of the rest.

Same goes for the virgin birth, which Eusebius also regards as essential, and for whom the Ebionites are likewise to be blamed for rejecting:

Eusebius, History of the Church 3.27.2: 2 For they considered him a plain and common man, who was justified only because of his superior virtue, and who was the fruit of the intercourse of a man with Mary. In their opinion the observance of the ceremonial law was altogether necessary, on the ground that they could not be saved by faith in Christ alone and by a corresponding life.

If Hegesippus set off heretical alarm bells on these points, why did Irenaeus hear them while Eusebius did not?
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 »

Another possibility to consider that just came to me on my birthday. I might have the explanation for why- Symeon being followed by Judas on the list but Judas being already dead by the time Domitian and Trajan war against the 'association of Judas.' As well as a number of other anomalies in earliest Christianity. It all comes down to whether we've mistakenly read 'Jew' a number of times when 'Judas' was actually meant - i.e. the closest living relative of Jesus who happened to share the same name as the Patriarch.

I know this sounds crazy but at the bottom Hegesippus describes a community as 'those of Juda(s)' who it would be natural to read as 'Jews' at first glance - except for the immediate context of what he is speaking about - viz. the modern descendants of David. Let's start at the beginning:
Eusebius says (Ecclesiastical History, 4.22.6) "The same writer (Hegesippus) also records the ancient heresies which arose among the Jews, in the following words: “There were, moreover, various opinions in the circumcision, among the children of Israel. The following were those that were opposed to the tribe of Judah and the Christ: Essenes, Galileans, Hemerobaptists, Masbothæans, Samaritans, Sadducees, Pharisees.”

ἔτι δ’ ὁ αὐτὸς καὶ τὰς πάλαι γεγενημένας παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις αἱρέσεις ἱστορεῖ λέγων· »ἦσαν δὲ γνῶμαι διάφοροι ἐν τῇ περιτομῇ ἐν υἱοῖς Ἰσραηλιτῶν κατὰ τῆς φυλῆς Ἰούδα καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ αὗται· Ἐσσαῖοι Γαλιλαῖοι Ἡμεροβαπτισταὶ Μασβώθεοι Σαμαρεῖται Σαδδουκαῖοι Φαρισαῖοι».
φυλῆς Ἰούδα - φυλῆς is an interesting terminology. It is strange to use it in the second century CE about contemporary people. Dicaearch.Hist.9 notes that it is properly defined as "a union formed in an organized community (whether πόλις or ἔθνος)." Yes it could be a rather formal way of speaking of 'Jews' in general - even the Jews who were alive before the bar Khochba revolt. But let's not forget the immediate context. This comes in a section where Hegesippus is referencing descendants of David who happen also to be descendants of Judas the brother of Jesus. Could the implication be that Hegesippus is not talking about Judas the Patriarch but Judas the brother of Jesus? Let's consider this.

Before someone says that we know nothing about a tradition associated with Judas, they forget that 'Thomas' is not the real name of any disciple. The disciple who was most intimately associated with eastern Christianity was Judas Thomas, Judas 'the twin' perhaps because he was somehow the twin brother of Jesus. Now the Jerusalem Judas is never said to be the twin brother only the brother of the Savior. Fine. Nevertheless Judas figures prominently in the Acts of Thomas and the Edessan chronicle. Let's move on.

In chapter 3.19.1 Eusebius speaks of "the descendants of Judah" as a unit:
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 (τῶν ἀπογόνων Ἰούδα) ... on the ground that they were of the lineage of David and were related to Christ himself (ἀπὸ γένους τυγχανόντων ∆αυὶδ καὶ ὡς αὐτοῦ συγγένειαν τοῦ Χριστοῦ). Hegesippus relates these facts in the following words ...
Similarly Eusebius cites a strange thing apparently from Hegesippus too a few chapters later:
But when Symeon also had died in the manner described, a certain Jew by the name of Justus succeeded to the episcopal throne in Jerusalem (τῆς ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις ἐπισκοπῆς τὸν θρόνον Ἰουδαῖός τις ὄνομα Ἰοῦστος). He was one of the many thousands of the circumcision who at that time believed in Christ.
Isn't it at all curious that he speaks of them as being at once 'Christian' but here he is simply 'a Jew.' I don't believe that Hegesippus would have used the terminology 'Jew' to mean one of the (ancient) Patriarch Judah. Instead I think that he was one of the Judas and the 'descendants of David.' To this end I suspect that in an age where 'Judaism' had effectively disappeared (see all the rabbinic period between the two Jewish Wars) Hegesippus might have used the term Ἰουδαῖός to designate a descendant of Judas the brother of Jesus Ιουδαίοι many descendants with the plural gentivie Ιουδαίων.

In an age where Judaism had disappeared and everyone forgot what to do when Passover fell on a Sabbath, a legendary 'royal family' associated with Judas the brother of Jesus emerged. Eusebius says in chapter 32 verse 4:
φησὶν δὲ ὁ αὐτὸς ὡς ἄρα καὶ τοὺς κατηγόρους αὐτοῦ, ζητου μένων τότε τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς βασιλικῆς Ἰουδαίων φυλῆς, ὡς ἂν ἐξ αὐτῶν ὄντας ἁλῶναι συνέβη
Interestingly the English translation of Eusebius reads :
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.
But what is really here reads:
And it so happened, says the same writer, that, while inquiry was then being made for those belonging to the royal tribe of the Judas, the accusers themselves were convicted of belonging to it.
How do we know that the 'royal tribe of Judas' refers to the descendants of Judas the brother of Jesus? Look at the very next lines:
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 (those of Judas the brother of Jesus) 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.
This isn't as crazy as it sounds. Judaism disappeared in the period and these 'descendants of Judas' came and filled the void (at least in the literature of Hegesippus).
“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 »

So just to explain my birthday revelation.

1. Eusebius - after using Hegesippus give the details of James the Just - starts speaking of Symeon the cousin of Jesus being an important member of the Jerusalem Church (3.11). He frames Symeon in terms of belonging to a family with a genealogy which goes back to David (3.12). This was the grounds for their punishment at the hand of Vespasian. Hegesippus is the source of all this information. Clearly this story presupposes a late gospel which contained a genealogy connecting Jesus to Joseph and Joseph's family back to David. Luke's story about Symeon the son of Clopas is also related.
2. At this point in Eusebius's use of Hegesippus no specific mention of 'Jews' or the Jewishness of the Jerusalem Church is made. At 3.19 we see Hegesippus retain an interest in 'the descendants of David' with another Emperor Domitian wanting to 'slay' this community but the community is now identified as "descendants of Jude" with Eusebius adding that Judas was " said to have been a brother of the Saviour according to the flesh." I would argue that many if not all of the subsequent identifications of those of 'Judas' (wrongly translated into English as 'Jew') should really be understood to mean 'those of Judas' i.e. the brother of Jesus. Here for instances the 'heretics' who led the accusation against 'descendants of Judas' are the same heretics who later are spoken of in relation to 'Judas' (but wrongly translated or interpreted as meaning Judah the Patriarch: "The following were those that were opposed to the φυλῆς of Judas and the Christ: Essenes, Galileans, Hemerobaptists, Masbothæans, Samaritans, Sadducees, Pharisees." (4.22) Similarly Eusebius's reference to the line of bishops in Jerusalem sitting on 'the throne of Judas' (θρόνον Ἰουδαῖός) (3.34) and immediately after that speaks of those of the royal φυλῆς of Judas ἀπὸ τῆς βασιλικῆς Ἰουδαίων φυλῆς. Of course one has to choose whether or not the patriarch Judah is meant in each of these instances or Judas the brother of Jesus. I think Judas the brother of Jesus makes more sense for all of them rather than translating (as scholars do) some as Judas the brother of Jesus and some as Judah the Patriarch.
3. The way I see it the 'those of Judas' tradition might actually have some historical truth to it. After all Judas and especially Judas the twin (brother) of Jesus is a significant figure in earliest eastern Christianity. I needn't cite the sources again but one might even argue that Hegesippus might be responsible for giving us more information about early Jerusalem Christianity than we realize. Turner's observation that there is an agreement between Clement's Josephus the chronicler and Hegesippus with respect to their chronologies both ending in the 'tenth year of Antoninus.' It is worth noting that a third list in Hegesippus also ended in the 'tenth year of Antoninus' - that of the rival Gentile Church headed by Mark. I've already mentioned that in the same way those of Judas were identified in the genitive as Ἰουδαίων - for instance the Ἰουδαίων φυλῆς - those of Mark, might according to a barbaric Hegesippus's grasp of Greek (i.e. using a parallel formation to that of Judas) might also have referenced those of Mark as Μαρκίων.
4. If there was a historical struggle between 'those of Judas' and 'those of Mark' in the earliest period of the Church and Mark was the evangelist and Judas was 'Judas Thomas' of the Acts of the same name, it might explain why Mark demonizes 'Judas' as the one who betrayed Jesus. Similarly all the anti-Marcionite literature developed against the founder of the other community.
5. But the important thing is that Hegesippus after introducing 'James' and 'Symeon' the first two bishops of Jerusalem has as the third 'Judas' who becomes a father figure - a progenitor (= maphrian) as it were - of all the subsequent bishops on the list at least up to the persecutions of Trajan. The community is from that point onward very much a 'Judaean' Church - i.e. 'of Judas.' Nowhere does Hegesippus say that all the descendants of Judas were wiped out by Trajan's efforts only that the bishops weren't 'of Judas' or exclusively 'of Judas' after the holocaust. Indeed we see no allusions whatsoever to 'descendants' of Jesus's family come from any other relatives. All the descendants of David, all the descendants of 'Jesus's family' are 'Judaean.' This might be indicative of a possible misunderstanding which emerged over time with respect to whom 'those of Mark' (i.e. the Μαρκίοι) were possibly opposed. They weren't 'Jewish Christians' at all but Christians associated with Judas the brother of Jesus.
Ιούδας
nominative Ιουδαίος Ιουδαίοι
genitive Ιουδαίου Ιουδαίων •
accusative Ιουδαίο Ιουδαίους
vocative Ιουδαίε Ιουδαίοι

and perhaps if the barbaric Hegesippus simply reconstructed the forms based on what followed from Judas he ended up with:

Μᾶρκος
nominative Μαρκίος Μαρκίοι
genitive Μαρκίου Μαρκίων
accusative Μαρκίο Μαρκίους
vocative Μαρκίε Μαρκίοι
7. given the consistent reporting of the rabbinic literature there were no Jews 'above ground' in the years 72 CE to shortly before the bar Kochba revolt. Could the myth of 'those of Judas' have emerged to fill the void?
“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 »

And one more thing the section which mentions the δεσπόσυνοι = “those who belong to a master." It comes from Africanus:

A few of the careful, however, having obtained private records of their own, either by remembering the names or by getting them in some other way from the registers, pride themselves on preserving the memory of their noble extraction. Among these are those already mentioned, called Desposyni (δεσπόσυνοι), on account of their connection with the family of the Saviour. Coming from Nazara and Cochaba, villages of Judea, into other parts of the world, they drew the aforesaid genealogy from memory and from the book of daily records as faithfully as possible. (1.7.14)

But how many communities referred to Jesus as the despotes? How normal was that? I know the epistle of Jude does and there is a - possibly indirect - connection with Hegesippus there. But how common was despotes as a title for Jesus?
“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: Sun Jul 22, 2018 12:51 pm And one more thing the section which mentions the δεσπόσυνοι = “those who belong to a master." It comes from Africanus:

A few of the careful, however, having obtained private records of their own, either by remembering the names or by getting them in some other way from the registers, pride themselves on preserving the memory of their noble extraction. Among these are those already mentioned, called Desposyni (δεσπόσυνοι), on account of their connection with the family of the Saviour. Coming from Nazara and Cochaba, villages of Judea, into other parts of the world, they drew the aforesaid genealogy from memory and from the book of daily records as faithfully as possible. (1.7.14)
I always wonder whether the translators have realized what text is being described when the "book of days" (the actual phrase used; "records" is an editorial decision) is mentioned. The book of days = 1 & 2 Chronicles (דברי הימים).

And how suspicious is this account of the genealogies of the Desposyni? My eyebrows always rise a bit when I read this passage. The Desposyni justified their descent from the family of the Lord by recourse to the genealogies in the books of Chronicles (fair enough) and also from memory or from unnamed, no longer extant registries after Herod had supposedly burned the official records (as per the paragraph immediately previous to this one in Africanus).
But how many communities referred to Jesus as the despotes? How normal was that? I know the epistle of Jude does and there is a - possibly indirect - connection with Hegesippus there. But how common was despotes as a title for Jesus?
Not extremely common, it would seem. It is easy to find the term applied to God the Father, but not so easy to find it unambiguously applied to Jesus the Son.
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 »

Yes it is interesting. Here is a summary of the scholarship on the subject - https://www.academia.edu/5362559/Jesus_ ... _Africanus
“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
Post Reply