Mary of Clopas = Mary, the sister of Jesus?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mary of Clopas = Mary, the sister of Jesus?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

davidlau17 wrote: Fri May 31, 2019 7:20 amSome have further interpreted the order of these names as indicating the ages of each of Jesus' brothers. I don't think we can determine age order with any degree of certainty. They might have been placed in an alphabetic order, or simply listed at random.
They are listed alphabetically in English, but not in Greek: Ἰακώβου καὶ Ἰωσῆτος καὶ Ἰούδα καὶ Σίμωνος.
Since I'm skeptical of miracles, particularly when they occur in dreams, I'll refrain from replacing Joseph with "the Holy Spirit". I'll stick with Joseph* for now.
Okay, yeah. :lol: Probably for the best.
I would only add:
[*] At least some Christians may have felt threatened, in quests for sanctimonious power, by the assumption that only desposyni could be heirs to the episcopal throne.
I meant that point to be covered in my #2, but yes, you certainly worded it more effectively and more pointedly. My #2 would be the official rationale for what really owes itself to your way of wording it.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Mary of Clopas = Mary, the sister of Jesus?

Post by John2 »

It's possible they had all passed away, and assuming you're correct, the war would seem to be a plausible explanation. But there is reason to doubt that Simeon's election actually occured after the war. While Eusebius in EH does say this, he might have interpreted Hegesippus' words too literally. The date of the martyrdom of James, given by Josephus, is 62 CE. Eusebius later in his Chronicles places James’ martyrdom in the 7th year of Nero (61 CE), and Jerome places it at 62 CE. This would create (at least) an eight year interval in which there was no Bishop.



Well, even if Eusebius read too much into Hegesippus about the timing of Simeon's succession, it would at least be understandable if there had been an interval between bishops of Jerusalem after the death of James c. 62 CE considering that Josephus says that at that time "the affairs of the Jews ... grew worse and worse continually" (Ant. 20.8.5) and Jerusalem was "as if it had no government over it" (Ant. 20.8.8) and "our city was greatly disordered, and ... all things grew worse and worse among us" (Ant. 20.9.4).


When I said "he clearly loathed the notion..." I meant Eusebius, not Hegessipus.



That's more understandable. And regarding what you wrote about the dating of Hegesippus (which, even if we allow for him to have lived up to the time of Eleuterus, I think it is apt to say that any early to mid-second century CE Christian "lived immediately after the apostles," particularly given that Simeon is said to have lived up to the time of Trajan), I'm on board with Ben and Peter that his work should be dated before the time of Eleuterus.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1595
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Mary, Mary, Mary. Quite Contrary

Post by JoeWallack »

Remember John John

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu May 30, 2019 11:11 am The relationships between Clopas/Cleopas, Sim(e)on, the various Maries, James and Joses, and the "brothers of the Lord" are exceedingly tangled and confusing, yes. I have been trying to sort them all out for quite a long time now. So far my insights are essentially limited to the wide variety of possible motives the ancient tradents might have had for avoiding / playing down, emphasizing / playing up, or altering the structure of these relationships:
...
At least some Christians seem to have felt that Mary's perpetual virginity needed to be upheld.
JW:
John 19:25
These things therefore the soldiers did. But there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother`s sister, Mary the [wife] of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
It's a sweeper! The original Gospel narrative says that Mary was Jesus' mother and I believe that no subsequent Gospel says otherwise. Interestingly, "John" (author) never names Jesus' mother. I have faith though that it wasn't because "John" found (so to speak) all 3 Marys here including two sisters, as ridiculous as I do. I suspect it was because he didn't like the veneration Mary was getting from the virgin births/infancy narratives and decided to exorcise the name to lessen the attention (same reason to exorcise the Infancy Narrative).

Bonus material for Solo = what name does "Mark" use to go the other way?


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism
davidlau17
Posts: 141
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 9:45 am

Re: Mary of Clopas = Mary, the sister of Jesus?

Post by davidlau17 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri May 31, 2019 5:38 am
davidlau17 wrote: Thu May 30, 2019 11:59 pmAccording to the site Early Christian Writings, he wrote from 165-175, though they give no citation for this.
I have discussed the proper date of Hegesippus on this forum, in dialogue with a blog post by Peter Kirby.
So I read your discussion and Peter Kirby's blog post. Clearly much thought has been put into affixing dates for Hegesippus' works; but I must admit, I am hesitant to agree with the conclusions presented.

My main contentions regard the reading of Hegesippus’ passage (as translated by Philip Schaff):
“To whom they erected cenotaphs and temples, as is done to the present day. Among whom is also Antinoüs, a slave of the Emperor Adrian, in whose honor are celebrated also the Antinoian games, which were instituted in our day. For he [Adrian] also founded a city named after Antinoüs, and appointed prophets.” 
G.A. Williamson’s (1965) translation of Historia Ecclesiae reads slightly differently:
"In their honor they erected cenotaphs and temples, as they still do. One of these was Antinous, a slave of Hadrian Caesar’s, in memory of whom the Antinoian Games are held. He was my own contemporary. Hadrian even built a city after him, and appointed prophets."
The slight differences in these translations result also in slightly different implications. Schaff’s translation proclaims that the Antinoian games were instituted in Hegesippus’ “day”. This was read by Peter Kirby to imply that the Hegesippus’ works could be dated between 138 and 148 CE. However, G.A. Williamson’s translation carries with it no such implication. Here, Hegesippus simply states that games are held in the memory of Antinous, and adds that: “He [Antinous? Hadrian?] was my own contemporary.” If we are to read this as meaning Antinous was his contemporary, it simply indicates that he was alive at the time Antinous died (c. 130 CE). We cannot infer from this statement if he actually wrote anything during that time period.

The Antinoian games are often associated with the survival of the Antinous cult after Hadrian; they were concentrated in various Eastern providences of the Empire. These celebrations began taking place during the reign of Hadrian, but existed all the way into the mid-fourth century. Thus, we can infer very little in regard to dating from this passage alone.

In both translations, Hegesippus states that from the reign of Hadrian to his own day, the Romans were erecting statues dedicated to Antinous. He does not, however, specify if this time (“our own day”, “the present day”) ever actually coincided with the era of Hadrian.

While the majority of statues dedicated to Antinous were produced in the 130s, we know that the cult’s following did not die with him, nor did the construction of their monuments. Not only did the cult continuing erecting such idolatry throughout the latter half of the second century, but inscriptions of this youthful ‘god’ can be found on Bithynian coins minted during the reigns of Commodus and Caracalla.

Image

In fact, artifacts dedicated to Antinous were used by the cult’s followers all the way into the fourth century. Portraits and sculptures of the deified Antinous remained popular until Theodosius prohibited Pagan images in 391 AD. Antinous may well have been one of the last pagan ‘gods’ to be abandoned in the Roman Empire. Christian writers continued to attack Antinous and his followers well into the Byzantine Era (i.e. Athanasius 4th century criticisms in Contra Gentes; Prudentius’ 5th century criticisms in Contra Symmachum).

Thus, we cannot say if Hegesippus meant his own era to be synonymous with Hadrian’s era. I would even suggest his wording suggests the opposite. He appears to be contrasting the reign of Hadrian to his own time; the past-tense “To whom they erected cenotaphs and temples” is immediately juxtaposed with present-tense (“as is done to the present day” or “as they still do”). He also presents Antonius as being “the slave” of Emperor Hadrian. Little evidence suggests that Antinous was ever a slave, and the inscription on the Pincian Obelisk certainly implies he was a free person. Oddly enough, Celsus was the only other 2nd century author to present Antonius as being Hadrian’s slave (to my knowledge, anyway).

Eusebius includes another passage from Hegesippus, indicating a more precise placement for dating (the one regarding Bishop Anicetus’ successors: Soter and Eleutherius). This is an area I believe Peter Kirby and Ben were a bit too quick to dismiss. Hegesippus was unable to know about future bishops. It is possible that Eusebius simply listed off the two Roman bishops who succeeded Anicetus, and decided (for some reason) to present this as being stated by Hegesippus himself. In order to accept this premise, however, one must present a compelling rationale for Eusebius’ forgery.

Surely Eusebius would realize the inclusion of their names indicates one of his earliest church authorities, one that he cites extensively, to have authored at a later decade. Thus, I fail to see any motivation for such a forgery. In fact, if Eusebius did have a motive here, would it not be the opposite one? The earlier the authorship, the more legitimate Hegesippus’ testimony appears to be.

To conclude, I do not think we can dismiss the notion that Hegesippus authored (at least one of) his books during Eleutherius’ papacy. His being witness to the construction of Antonian statues implies that he wrote sometime after the 130s, with 200 CE as an approximate terminus; but it indicates no precise date for us. Hegesippus’ mention of the two bishops appointed after Anicetus affixes the most precise range of dating, from 174 to 189 CE.

With that said, I do agree that it is possible (or even likely) that his earlier books were authored before this. Hegesippus himself states that he first entered Rome while Anicetus was bishop (157 CE). Additionally, as you and John2 have noted, Eusebius claims that Hegesippus’ life immediately followed the Apostolic era.

When all is considered, the dating proposed on Early Christian Texts (c. 165-175 CE) seems to be a fair one, albeit, a bit too constricted for my taste. I might suggest a slightly larger spread, ranging from approximately 155 to 189 CE.
Last edited by davidlau17 on Sun Jun 02, 2019 11:36 am, edited 2 times in total.
I always felt that a scientist owes the world only one thing, and that is the truth as he sees it. - Hans Eysenck
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mary of Clopas = Mary, the sister of Jesus?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

davidlau17 wrote: Sun Jun 02, 2019 10:42 amThus, we cannot say if Hegesippus meant his own era to be synonymous with Hadrian’s era. I would even suggest his wording suggests the opposite. He appears to be contrasting the reign of Hadrian to his own time; the past-tense “To whom they erected cenotaphs and temples” is immediately juxtaposed with present-tense (“as is done to the present day” or “as they still do”).
You seem to be presenting this information as if it disagreed with Peter's date for Hegesippus, when in fact it is consonant with it. Neither Peter nor I think that Hegesippus wrote during Hadrian's reign. We both think that he wrote after Hadrian.
Eusebius includes another passage from Hegesippus, indicating a more precise placement for dating (the one regarding Bishop Anicetus’s successors: Soter and Eleutherius). This is an area I believe Peter Kirby and Ben were a bit too quick to dismiss.
What does "too quick to dismiss" mean in this sentence? If you are referring to History of the Church 4.22.3, both Peter and I took pains to explain precisely this passage. Neither of us dismissed it. Our shared position is that "His deacon was Eleutherus," and the rest, was not meant to be part of the quotation. Eusebius was not falsifying anything, either; he was filling out the rest of the sequence as found in the more famous episcopal list presented by Irenaeus.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
davidlau17
Posts: 141
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 9:45 am

Re: Mary of Clopas = Mary, the sister of Jesus?

Post by davidlau17 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Jun 02, 2019 11:10 am
Eusebius includes another passage from Hegesippus, indicating a more precise placement for dating (the one regarding Bishop Anicetus’s successors: Soter and Eleutherius). This is an area I believe Peter Kirby and Ben were a bit too quick to dismiss.
What does "too quick to dismiss" mean in this sentence? If you are referring to History of the Church 4.22.3, both Peter and I took pains to explain precisely this passage. Neither of us dismissed it. Our shared position is that "His deacon was Eleutherus," and the rest, was not meant to be part of the quotation. Eusebius was not falsifying anything, either; he was filling out the rest of the sequence as found in the more famous episcopal list presented by Irenaeus.
I meant you're too quick to dimiss it as a mistake on Eusebius' part; that he misrembered the passage as belonging to Hegesippus rather than Irenaeus. The problem with this is that it assumes Eusebius was working from memory (in this particular instance, anyway), rather carelessly, without the texts in front of him. In the instances in which he cites Josephus, he almost certainly couldn't have been working from memory alone - they are far too precise, some extending for multiple pages.

Alternatively, he could have simply inserted the last two names from Irenaeus' list at the end of Hegesippus' passage, in an effort to complete it. This presents the problem I presented in my post above.
I always felt that a scientist owes the world only one thing, and that is the truth as he sees it. - Hans Eysenck
davidlau17
Posts: 141
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 9:45 am

Re: Mary of Clopas = Mary, the sister of Jesus?

Post by davidlau17 »

Additionally, if we do assume that Eusebius incorrectly quotes Hegesippus due to lapses in memory, how are we to be certain that this wasn't also a product of faulty memory?
"...till the son of the Lord's uncle, the aforesaid Simon, son of Clopas was similarly informed against..."
(EH, 3.26)
I always felt that a scientist owes the world only one thing, and that is the truth as he sees it. - Hans Eysenck
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mary of Clopas = Mary, the sister of Jesus?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

davidlau17 wrote: Sun Jun 02, 2019 11:31 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Jun 02, 2019 11:10 am
Eusebius includes another passage from Hegesippus, indicating a more precise placement for dating (the one regarding Bishop Anicetus’s successors: Soter and Eleutherius). This is an area I believe Peter Kirby and Ben were a bit too quick to dismiss.
What does "too quick to dismiss" mean in this sentence? If you are referring to History of the Church 4.22.3, both Peter and I took pains to explain precisely this passage. Neither of us dismissed it. Our shared position is that "His deacon was Eleutherus," and the rest, was not meant to be part of the quotation. Eusebius was not falsifying anything, either; he was filling out the rest of the sequence as found in the more famous episcopal list presented by Irenaeus.
I meant you're too quick to dimiss it as a mistake on Eusebius' part; that he misrembered the passage as belonging to Hegesippus rather than Irenaeus. The problem with this is that it assumes Eusebius was working from memory (in this particular instance, anyway), rather carelessly, without the texts in front of him. In the instances in which he cites Josephus, he almost certainly couldn't have been working from memory alone - they are far too precise, some extending for multiple pages.

Alternatively, he could have simply inserted the last two names from Irenaeus' list at the end of Hegesippus' passage, in an effort to complete it. This presents the problem I presented in my post above.
I would not press the faulty memory bit. I would simply argue that Eusebius was influenced by Irenaeus after having quoted Hegesippus. The succession list went: Hegesippus > Irenaeus > Eusebius. Eusebius, after quoting Hegesippus, simply kept the list going, based in Irenaeus. Whether this was from a trick of his memory is less important than that the grammatical break in the list suggests that an original one was updated (by Irenaeus).
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mary of Clopas = Mary, the sister of Jesus?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

This is the part where Eusebius' memory failed him, I argue in that other thread:

Eusebius, History of the Church 4.11.7: 7 And in Rome Pius died in the fifteenth year of his episcopate, and Anicetus assumed the leadership of the Christians there. Hegesippus records that he himself was in Rome at this time, and that he remained there until the episcopate of Eleutherus.

Sorry, it took me a while to realize which passage you were reacting to and which passage was lying dormant in the backdrop. This one I will own. The other passage is simply a matter of there not being proper quotation marks in ancient Greek:

Eusebius, History of the Church 4.22.2-3:

2 His words are as follows: "And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. 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.

ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
davidlau17
Posts: 141
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 9:45 am

Re: Mary of Clopas = Mary, the sister of Jesus?

Post by davidlau17 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Jun 02, 2019 12:55 pm This is the part where Eusebius' memory failed him, I argue in that other thread:

Eusebius, History of the Church 4.11.7: 7 And in Rome Pius died in the fifteenth year of his episcopate, and Anicetus assumed the leadership of the Christians there. Hegesippus records that he himself was in Rome at this time, and that he remained there until the episcopate of Eleutherus.

Sorry, it took me a while to realize which passage you were reacting to and which passage was lying dormant in the backdrop. This one I will own.

Oh, I see. Yeah, I thought you were referring to 4.22.2-3. If it were only 4.11.7 in which Eusebius linked Hegesippus to Eleutherus, I would be pretty quick to agree with you that he was simply mistaken. I put far more stock into instances in which Eusebius quotes from the text directly.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Jun 02, 2019 12:55 pm The other passage is simply a matter of there not being proper quotation marks in ancient Greek:
Eusebius, History of the Church 4.22.2-3:

2 His words are as follows: "And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. 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.

Sorry, I overlooked that point. So your argument is essentially that:
a) Ireneaus added two succeeding bishops to an earlier list - that earlier list (which ended at Anicetus) was possibly written by Hegesippus himself.

b) Eusebius assumed Ireneaus' list meant that Hegesippus was actively writing until the time of Eleutherus, the last of these bishops. Hegesippus had just mentioned that the very same bishop (Eleutherus) was deacon under Anicetus, giving Eusebius more reason for reading into this.

c) Eusebius named Soter and Eleutherus as the successors to Anicetus, though he was just paraphrasing Hegesippus here. Unfortunately, he did this directly after the passage that he had directly quoted Hegesippus.

d) Translators misinterpreted this as indicating that Hegesippus himself had written point c. In fact, it was Eusebius' own addition. This can be explained by there being no proper quotation marks in ancient Greek.

Feel free to correct me if I misunderstood anything. The only points that I think could be strengthened a bit are the ones I labeled as (c) and (d). I realize you're correct about there being no proper quotation marks in ancient Greek... but I don't know. The argument hinges on there being two innocent misunderstandings - the first by Eusebius, the second by modern translators. It's possible.
I always felt that a scientist owes the world only one thing, and that is the truth as he sees it. - Hans Eysenck
Post Reply