July 62 – Simeon b. Clopas was appointed Bishop In Place Of James

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.

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

116 the Eastern, Western, and Coptic Church hierarchies. Many Protestant scholars have rightfully questioned the veracity and significance of these lists of bishops.

The Olivet Discourse and other historical accounts imply that there was no church in Jerusalem after the Neronic persecution decimated it in AD 64-65. Josephus does not mention any Christians being in Jerusalem during the war with Rome (AD 66-70), nor afterwards. Not even the pro-Roman Pharisees under the leadership of Yochanan b. Zakkai and Simon b. Gamaliel were allowed to rebuild their community in Jerusalem after the war. They were sent to Yavneh instead. There is not much chance that any Judaizing Christians would have been allowed back in Jerusalem any time soon after the war, especially if they believed that a physical descendant of David was going to come soon and establish a physical worldwide empire ruling out of Jerusalem. That is exactly what those Ebionites and Nazareans believed. Some Gentile Christians might have been allowed back in Jerusalem after Masada fell in AD 73, but there is no indication that there were any true Christians in existence anywhere in Judea until a couple decades after AD 70. The heretical Judaizing sects of Ebionites and Nazareans fled to Pella and other safe regions outside Judea and Galilee, where they virtually disappeared by the end of the second century. Eusebius refers to them as being the “circumcision” (Judaizer) party, implying that they were the Ebionites and Nazareans who not only denied the virgin birth of Christ and forced circumcision on Gentile converts, but also taught that Christ would return in the flesh and sit on a physical throne in Jerusalem. That latter idea may explain why they set up a fleshly relative of Jesus as bishop over their churches to occupy the throne until Jesus arrived. That certainly does not recommend the practice of setting up a single bishop over any church, but unfortunately it is exactly how Eusebius used that Judaizer practice as a precedent to justify the mono- episcopal system among the Gentile churches. The apostles instead taught and followed the pattern of a plurality of elders (or bishops) in each local church (see Acts 14:23; 1 Cor 4:17).

It also appears that these Judaizers misinterpreted the teaching of Jesus about His Kingdom, and misunderstood the nature of the Kingdom in regard to circumcision and law-keeping. They believed Christ would return to sit on a physical throne in Jerusalem, destroy the Romans, and set up his own world-wide empire. They continued requiring circumcision and law-keeping after AD 70, showing that they were not true Christians, and totally misunderstood what Jesus meant about keeping the jots and tittles only until heaven and earth passed away (in AD 70). Apostle Paul noted in Galatians that the Judaizers (the party of circumcision) were under a curse, and had cut themselves off from Christ by requiring Gentiles to be circumcised. It was “another gospel” and not the true gospel. Such Judaizers were not true Christians. Even the Jewish historians like Graetz describe them as “half Jewish and half-Christian” (i.e., not true Jews or Christians, but an untenable mixture).

This does not recommend their practice of setting up fleshly relatives of Jesus as monarchial bishops over their Judaizing churches. Instead, it discredits the practice, and raises real questions about the motives and integrity of Eusebius in his ecclesiological statements. It could very well be that Eusebius has given us a warped view of things here, and white-washed the Judaizing practice of setting up a single bishop (episcopos) over their church in order to justify that same papal practice among the Gentiles churches, and in Rome particularly.

There is no evidence that the church existed in Jerusalem during the war with Rome, nor afterwards for several years. The first clear testimony we have about there being a Jewish church back in Jerusalem is by Aquila in the second century (circa AD 129) just before the Bar Kochba revolt. Van Houwelingen reviewed the statements of Epiphanius about this:

Epiphanius mentions the return of the Christians to Jerusalem in connection with the visit which Aquila, the author of an authoritative Greek translation of the Bible, brought to Jerusalem in the second century. He met a group of Christians. How did they come to be there? They had returned from Pella to Jerusalem, according to Epiphanius.[fn 22]

Epiphanius mentions that gatherings were held in Jerusalem in the same house where the disciples had been together between Jesus’ ascension and Pentecost; this house was namely not

117 destroyed, just as various other blocks of houses at the hill of Sion and seven synagogues were not.[fn 23]

Eusebius wants to communicate a message. He does not describe in detail what happened on the flight of the Christians to Pella; he does not specify any concrete circumstances surrounding the trip; he says nothing about the difficulties which went along with it; he limits himself exclusively to the schematic pattern of flight-rescue-destruction. No leader of the congregation is named. The only concrete name that Eusebius mentions is the name of a place, the city Pella. But Pella is not mentioned again in the Ecclesiastical History. Eusebius has thus made up this name to give his story the appearance of believability.

Pella (named after the birthplace of Alexander the Great) was a center of Hellenistic culture. Is it probable that people of Jewish descent would seek refuge in such pagan surroundings? Furthermore, Pella, along with other places in the Decapolis, was attacked by furious Jews in A.D. 66 as retribution for the enormous bloodbath which had been perpetrated against the Jews of Caesarea at the outbreak of the uprising. In this case the fleeing Christians would not have been the victims of the Romans, but of the embittered freedom-fighters. And if they came later, then they could not have counted on a friendly reception from the local population. [H. Mulder, De verwoesting van Jeruzalem en haar gevolgen (Amsterdam: Ton Bolland, 1972), pp. 85–86.]

Footnote 22: Epiphanius, Weights and Measures, 14–15. H. Koester, “Origin and Significance,” 9697, dates the visit of Aquila to Jerusalem in the year A.D. 129. See also B. C. Gray, “The Movements of the Jerusalem Church During the First Jewish War,” JEH 24 (1973): 1-7. According to Pixner, the Jewish Christians who returned had built an “apostolic synagogue” on the foundations of this house, including the use of enormous stones which probably came from the destroyed temple complex (B. Pixner, Wege des Messias und Stätten der Urkirche [ed. Rainer Riesner; Giessen:

Brunnen Verlag, 1991], 287–326).

Footnote 23: The Christians whom Aquila met in Jerusalem were called by Epiphanius, “disciples of the disciples of the apostles.” They were, as it were, the grandchildren of the mother-church under James. The previous generation had returned to Jerusalem from Pella.

For more information about Jewish Christianity in Palestine and the flight to Pella, see the following: S. Sowers, “The Circumstances and Recollection of the Pella Flight,” TZ 26 (1970): 305- 20, esp. 309–10; R. A. Pritz, Nazarene Jewish Christianity: From the End of the New Testament Period Until Its Disappearance in the Fourth Century (Jerusalem: Magness Press, 1988), 125–26. See about early Christianity in Transjordan: B. van Elderen, “Early Christianity in Transjordan,” TynBul 45, no. 1 (1994): 97-117. [P. H. R. Van Houwelingen. “Fleeing Forward: The Departure of Christians from Jerusalem to Pella,” Westminster Theological Journal 65:2 (Fall 2003) p. 182.]

If the Jewish Christians did return to Jerusalem from Pella, it would have been a very small fraction of what it had been before the war, and most likely composed of heretical Ebionites and Nazarenes from Pella who denied the Deity of Christ and still required law-keeping. The Romans who occupied Jerusalem after the war would probably not have tolerated any Judaizers in the city (Christians or otherwise). It would have been deadly dangerous for Judaizing Christians to attempt to rebuild their community there in Jerusalem at a time when even the Pharisees were not allowed to do that. The Pharisees had to retreat to Yavneh to have their own safe community. Hegesippus, from whom Eusebius was getting this tradition, supposedly was a Hebrew Christian who came from one of the Palestinian Judaizing sects like the Ebionites and Nazarenes (Euseb. Eccl. Hist. 4.22.18). That diminishes the value of Eusebius somewhat, wherever he was using Judaizing sources. And this is not a big surprise, since there is good evidence that Eusebius leaned toward Arianism

118 (Unitarianism), which the Ebionites and Nazaraeans agreed with.

It also seems from Eusebius that the Alexandrian “Christians” followed a similar mono-episcopal pattern (only one bishop) over their churches, and viewed Christianity through Gnostic/Greek philosophical glasses. Yet, Eusebius had no problem using their aberrant one-bishop leadership pattern as justification for the Roman papal system. This raises serious ecclesiological, Christological, and soteriological questions about Eusebius and some of his sources.

There are two biblical texts which seem to mention Clopas, the father of Simeon b. Clopas. Each of them spell the name a little differently, even though they might be referring to the same person. One has the full spelling of the name (Cleopas), while the other has a shortened nickname (Clopas):

Luke 24:18 One of them, named Cleopas [Gk. KLEOPAS], answered and said to Him, “Are You the only one visiting Jerusalem and unaware of the things which have happened here in these days?” John 19:25 Therefore the soldiers did these things. But standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas [Gk. KLOPA], and Mary Magdalene.

As Lightfoot and others have noted (see below), the accounts of Eusebius and Hegesippus are probably confused and unreliable. It appears that Simeon was made bishop of the Judaizing branch of the Jewish Christians (Ebionites and Nazaraeans), and not the bishop for the whole Judean Church. And that appointment appears to have been made soon after the death of James (AD 62), probably in July 62 right after Ananus II was deposed from the High Priesthood for his lawless killing of James. Furthermore, it seems that Simeon was the one who led the Judaizing faction in Pella after they fled from Judea. Eusebius seems to indicate that the retreat to Pella occurred “before the war” (AD 66), and probably also before the Neronic persecution (AD 64). As some have noted (e.g., Houwelingen), the flight to Pella was not a totally safe one. Josephus mentions the fact that residents of Pella were attacked first by the Zealots [War 2.458 (2.18.1)], and then later by the Romans during the war [War 4.413-450 (4.7.3 – 4.8.1)]. So it would have been safer for them to flee further northeast into the region protected by Agrippa II [War 2.247 (2.12.8)], or to Antioch of Syria.

Below are the actual statements of Hegesippus about Simeon b. Clopas as recorded by Eusebius. Notice the sequence of events mentioned here: (1) James was killed (AD 62), (2) Simeon was appointed as the successor of James (AD 62), (3) The Romans did a search for descendants of David to eliminate them, (4) A persecution broke out in which Simeon was killed (AD 64). All of this could easily have occurred during the two-plus years from the arrest of James (Apr 62) until the Neronic persecution (Fall of 64). It is quite possible that Hegesippus or Eusebius or both were confused about the time when these events occurred:

Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History:

3Euseb. 11:1 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. 3Euseb. 11:2 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 Savior. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph. 3Euseb. 12:1 He also relates that Vespasian after the conquest of Jerusalem gave orders that all that belonged to the lineage of David should be sought out, in order that none of the royal race might be left among the Jews; and in consequence of this a most terrible persecution

again hung over the Jews. 3Euseb. 32:1 It is reported that after the age of Nero and Domitian, under the emperor whose times we are now recording, a persecution was stirred up against us in certain cities in consequence of a popular uprising. In this persecution we have understood that Symeon, the son of Clopas, who, as we have shown, was the second bishop of the church of Jerusalem, suffered martyrdom. 3Euseb. 32:2 Hegesippus, whose words we have already quoted in various places, is a witness to this fact also. Speaking of certain heretics he adds that Symeon was accused by them at this time; and since it was clear that he was a Christian, he was tortured in various ways for many days, and astonished even the judge himself and his attendants in the highest degree, and finally he suffered a death similar to that of our Lord. 3Euseb. 32:3 But there is nothing like hearing the historian himself, who writes as follows: “Certain of these heretics brought accusation against Symeon, the son of Clopas, on the ground that he was a descendant of David and a Christian; and thus he suffered martyrdom, at the age of one hundred and twenty years, while Trajan was emperor and Atticus governor.” 3Euseb. 32:4 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. 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. 3Euseb. 32:5 The same historian says that there were also others, descended from one of the so- called brothers of the Savior, 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: 3Euseb. 32:6 “They 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.” 3Euseb. 32:7 In addition to these things the same man, while recounting the events of that period, records that the Church up to that time had remained a pure and uncorrupted virgin, since, if there were any that attempted to corrupt the sound norm of the preaching of salvation, they lay until then concealed in obscure darkness. 3Euseb. 32:8 But when the sacred college of apostles had suffered death in various forms, and the generation of those that had been deemed worthy to hear the inspired wisdom with their own ears had passed away, then the league of godless error took its rise as a result of the folly of heretical teachers, who, because none of the apostles was still living, attempted henceforth, with a bold face, to proclaim, in opposition to the preaching of the truth, the ‘knowledge which is falsely so-called.’ 3Euseb. 33:1 So great a persecution was at that time opened against us in many places that Plinius Secundus, one of the most noted of governors, being disturbed by the great number of martyrs, communicated with the emperor concerning the multitude of those that were put to death for their faith. At the same time, he informed him in his communication that he had not heard of their doing anything profane or contrary to the laws, — except that they arose at dawn and sang hymns to Christ as a God; but that they renounced adultery and murder and like criminal offenses, and did all things in accordance with the laws. 3Euseb. 33:2 In reply to this Trajan made the following decree: that the race of Christians should not be sought after, but when found should be punished. On account of this the

120 persecution which had threatened to be a most terrible one was to a certain degree checked, but there were still left plenty of pretexts for those who wished to do us harm. Sometimes the people, sometimes the rulers in various places, would lay plots against us, so that, although no great persecutions took place, local persecutions were nevertheless going on in particular provinces, and many of the faithful endured martyrdom in various forms.

4Euseb. 22:4 The same author [Hegesippus] 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. “Therefore, they called the Church a virgin, for it was not yet corrupted by vain discourses. 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. Here is what some of the various Christian dictionaries, encyclopedias and commentaries have to say about Simeon b. Clopas and his father Clopas:

Encyclopedia of Early Christianity (Second Edition) by Everett Ferguson

After AD 70, Jewish Christianity would be located in many of the Galilean and Transjordanian villages and cities. In Galilee, the villages of Kokaba and Nazara are named as Jewish Christian centers; in the Transjordan, Pella, Beroea, Basanitis, Nabatea, Paneas, Moabitis, and Adraoi are given as specific locations. In the fourth century, a group is also found on the island of Cyprus.

At the beginning of the Jewish war against Rome in AD 66, Jewish Christians in Jerusalem and perhaps also in Galilee escaped to Pella in Perea (Euseb. HE 3.5.3), impelled “by a revelation.” This pivotal event, denied as historical by some scholars, situated the Jewish Christians for the most part in the Transjordan for the remainder of their history.

Certain of the Jewish Christian communities revered Peter, who is described in the Pseudo- Clementine literature as one who kept the ritual laws of Judaism. Other communities revered James, the brother of Jesus, martyred in AD 62. Evidently his family relationship to Jesus, as well as his devotion to Torah, were the principal reasons for his veneration. Other members of Jesus’ family succeeded James in the leadership of the Jerusalem Christian community – Simon bar Clopus, a cousin (Euseb. HE 3.11.1) or uncle (Euseb. HE 3.32.6), and Justus, who may have been a relative, who succeeded Simon.

After the fall of Jerusalem in 70, Christians were excluded from participation in synagogues, and sometime later the curse against heretics used in synagogue worship was formulated. This was directed principally toward Jewish Christians. ... Jewish Christianity in this situation probably began to use and adapt the traditions of the Gospel of Matthew ... for worship and catechetical purposes. The patristic accounts, however, seem to indicate that the Matthew used by Jewish Christianity was in the “Hebrew” language. This may have been a retroversion of canonical Matthew, which almost certainly was originally written in Greek. Apparently, Matthew was used instead of other Gospels that may have been available due to its Jewish perspective.

With the beginning of the second century, the heretical and schismatic era of Jewish Christianity began. In the tenth year of Trajan’s reign (107), Simon bar Clopus, perhaps the final relative of Jesus, was martyred, reputedly at the age of 120 (Euseb. HE 3.32.3). No longer would there be eyewitnesses who could correct the traditions circulated about Jesus. In 135, the Bar Kochba rebellion

121 was quelled by the Romans, which marked the end of Jewish Christianity in Jerusalem. For the next 300 years, according to patristic records, Jewish Christianity would exist in the Transjordanian territories and then fade out of historical record....

Some of the heretical Jewish Christian groups became syncretistic in their beliefs, combining traditional Jewish customs and practices with Gnostic beliefs and exotic religious notions. The Elkesaites were one such group; they blended elements of Judaism, Gnosticism, magic, and astrology (Hippolytus, Haer. 9.8-12; 10.25). That these groups should disappear is not surprising, since they did not fit either into post-temple Judaism or into the emerging Catholic church with its concerns for orthodoxy. [From the article: “Jewish Christianity” written by Glenn A. Koch. Found in the Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, edited by Everett Ferguson. Published by Routledge, an imprint of Taylor and Francis Group in New York and London. p. 615]

Author Comment: It is worth noting that some of those Jewish Christians (Elkesaites?) migrated down into Arabia and eventually had some influence on Muhammad. It was their rejection of the virgin birth and Deity of Christ which evidently swayed the founder of Islam to adopt a similar view of Jesus. To this day, evangelists for Islam follow that same anti-Pauline and anti-Deity of Jesus approach.

Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity (Di Berardino, Oden, Elowsky, Hoover)

Under [Symeon’s] episcopate, the community of Jerusalem fled to Pella. His election emphasizes the tendency at that time to give utmost importance to blood ties in the Jewish-Christian community. From the writings of Hegesippus we know that the emperor Vespasian (Euseb. HE 3.12) and also Domitian (Euseb. HE 3.20.1-6) had their men search for the descendants of David. [Article: “Simeon of Jerusalem” written by G. Ladocsi and S. Samulowitz. Found in the Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity, Edited by Berardino, Oden, Elowsky, and Hoover. Published in the USA by IVP Academic and Intervarsity Press in Downers Grove, Illinois]

Dictionary of Early Christian Biography (Henry Wace)

Simeon (1), 2nd bishop of Jerusalem, succeeding James, the Lord’s brother. According to the statement of Hegesippus preserved by Eusebius, Simeon was the son of Clopas “mentioned in Holy Scripture” (John 19:25) [as being] the brother of Joseph, and therefore, legally, the uncle of our Lord, while Simeon himself ... was legally his cousin ... and of the royal line of David (Eus. H. E. iii. 11, 32; iv. 22). The language of Hegesippus (Eus. H. E. iv. 22) evidently distinguishes between the relationship of James and Simeon to our Lord. Dr. Mill, however, follows Burton (H. E. i. 290) in regarding Simeon as a brother of James and also of Jude, though perhaps by another mother (Mill, Pantheistic Principles, pp. 234, 253). Such an interpretation of Hegesippus’s language is very unnatural and at variance with the statement of Epiphanius that Simeon was the cousin (Gk. ANEPHIOS) of James the Just (Epiph. Haer. lxxvii. c. 14, p. 1046; cf. Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 262).

Bishop Lightfoot regards his age as “an exaggeration,” and suggests that his being “a son of Cleopas mentioned in the Evangelical records [Lk 24:18] “requires us to place his death

earlier than the generally received date. According to Hegesippus, Simeon was unanimously chosen to fill the vacant see of Jerusalem on the violent death of James the Just, the date usually assigned for which being 62 or 63 (see Josephus, Ant. xx. 9. 1). Whether the appointment of Simeon immediately succeeded or was not made till the retirement of the Christian Jews to Pella cannot be determined. The former seems rather more probable. His retreat at Pella would save him from the inquisition after descendants of the royal line of David, made by Vespasian, according to Eusebius (H. E. iii. 12), as well as the later inquiry instituted by Domitian (H. E. iii. 19, 20). He must have returned with the Christians to Jerusalem when allowed to do so by the Roman authorities. Of his episcopate we know nothing. He was martyred in the reign of Trajan (Gk. EPI TRAIANOU, Eus. H. E. iii. 32), but the exact date is uncertain. By a misinterpretation of the Chronicon of