4Euseb. 22:5 But Thebuthis [a rival of Symeon], because he was not made bishop, began to corrupt it. He also was sprung from the seven sects among the people, like Simon [Magus], from whom came the Simonians, and Cleobius, from whom came the Cleobians, and Dositheus, from whom came the Dositheans, and Gorthaeus, from whom came the Goratheni, and Masbotheus, from whom came the Masbothaeans. From them sprang the Menandrianists, and Marcionists, and Carpocratians, and Valentinians, and Basilidians, and Saturnilians. Each introduced privately and separately his own peculiar opinion.
115
July 62 – Simeon b. Clopas was appointed Bishop In Place Of James
Of the Judaizing branch of the Jerusalem church in place of James (the Lord’s brother) who was killed by Ananus II [Euseb. Eccl. Hist. 3.11.2; 3.22.1; 3.32.1-6]. Eusebius (4th century) depends on Hegesippus (2nd century) for this story. Since Eusebius has a tendency to inflate ecclesiastical power structures in order to justify Rome’s papal system, this story is suspect on that account alone. There may be a kernel of truth in it, but there are several things that need more clarification. Was James actually the head bishop of the whole Jerusalem church, or merely the Judaizing faction within the Jerusalem church? Was he one of the elders/bishops in the whole Jerusalem church? What about Peter and John? Did James have authority above Peter, or vice versa, or neither? Tradition says that Simeon’s appointment as bishop did not occur until sometime after AD 70. However, it is not likely that they would have waited that long, eleven years or more from AD 62 until AD 73, to replace James. These are just a few of the questions that are raised by this story. Here are a few more: Who was this Simeon son of Clopas? Why were the family relatives of Jesus held in such high esteem, and put into such positions of rulership? Was that appropriate, and was it following the teaching of Jesus and His apostles? Where did Jesus or the apostles (or Scripture) ever teach such an ecclesiastical arrangement with close family relatives of Jesus installed as monarchial bishops of the church? This type of leadership arrangement was very much like a caliphate (as noted in the article on Simon in the Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity, by Angelo Di Berardino, gen. ed.). Was this an innovation of the Judaizing faction (Ebionite and Nazarean sects) in Jerusalem after the death of James, their champion? Was this their attempt to gain control over the whole church in order to exclude the Gentiles? It is clear from some of the later church fathers (e.g., Epiphanius) that some of the Ebionites and Nazareans envisioned the coming Eternal Kingdom as an earthly worldwide reign of Jesus Himself or his fleshly relatives sitting on a literal throne in a rebuilt Jerusalem, like King David had done before (i.e., a dynasty or caliphate). Was this setting a precedent for the pope in Rome? Was the story misplaced in a wrong historical setting and misconstrued by Hegesippus or Eusebius? Did the Eastern and Western church fathers both use this story as support for their episcopalian form of church government? These are only a few of the questions that cast a cloud of suspicion over this story. Eusebius says that Simeon was the “cousin” of Jesus, since Joseph and Clopas were brothers [Euseb. Eccl. Hist. 3.11.2]. However, that does not make him a blood relative of Jesus, since Joseph was not the true genetic father of Jesus. Connecting Joseph and his family to the leadership of the church was questionable, especially if it implied that Jesus was not virgin-born and that Joseph was his real father, which is exactly what some of the Ebionites and Nazareans taught. Epiphanius and others have shown that some of the Judaizing sects (e.g., Ebionites and Nazareans) denied the virgin birth and considered Joseph the real father of Jesus. Their rejection of the virgin birth means that they also rejected the Deity of Christ. Eusebius gives a list of supposedly fifteen “bishops of the circumcision” in Jerusalem until the time of Hadrian [Euseb. Eccl. Hist. 4.5.3]. His account assumes an unbroken succession of bishops in Jerusalem throughout the whole period from AD 62 to the war of Hadrian in AD 132 (seventy years). That story is more than a little suspect for several reasons, as well as self-serving for both
