Eusebius on the brothers and cousins of Jesus

[BrianH]

A different take on the old brothers of Jesus discussion. We have beat to death what the Bible does or does not say concerning this. I would be curious to hear what others think about these passages from his history of the church. The book can be found on the New Advent site. I hope we can stick to the text and avoid the same old arguments. I would like to have a historical discussion about what he wrote about tradition and of course scripture. I have underlined some of the more interesting points.

Chapter 11. Symeon rules the Church of Jerusalem after James.

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.

1. 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.

Chapter 19. Domitian commands the Descendants of David to be slain.
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 (said to have been a brother of the Saviour according to the flesh), on the ground that they were of the lineage of David and were related to Christ himself. Hegesippus relates these facts in the following words.

Chapter 20. The Relatives of our Saviour.

1. Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord’s brother according to the flesh.
2. Information was given that they belonged to the family of David, and they were brought to the Emperor Domitian by the Evocatus. For Domitian feared the coming of Christ as Herod also had feared it. And he asked them if they were descendants of David, and they confessed that they were. Then he asked them how much property they had, or how much money they owned. And both of them answered that they had only nine thousand denarii, half of which belonged to each of them.
3. And this property did not consist of silver, but of a piece of land which contained only thirty-nine acres, and from which they raised their taxes and supported themselves by their own labor.
4. Then they showed their hands, exhibiting the hardness of their bodies and the callousness produced upon their hands by continuous toil as evidence of their own labor.
5. And when they were asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works.
6. Upon hearing this, Domitian did not pass judgment against them, but, despising them as of no account, he let them go, and by a decree put a stop to the persecution of the Church.
7. But when they were released they ruled the churches because they were witnesses and were also relatives of the Lord. And peace being established, they lived until the time of Trajan. These things are related by Hegesippus

Chapter 22. Ignatius, the Second Bishop of Antioch.
At this time Ignatius was known as the second bishop of Antioch, Evodius having been the first. Symeon likewise was at that time the second ruler of the church of Jerusalem, the brother of our Saviour having been the first.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.

 

[puzzleannie]

please provide the name of the actual work cited and link you forgot to give it

 

[BrianH]

newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm

 

[puzzleannie]

that is quite a link to the entire early fathers, any chance you could get more specific?

 

[BrianH]

that is quite a link to the entire early fathers, any chance you could get more specific?

The link is to one book by Eusebius. Not the entire church fathers. His History of the Christian Church.
The sections from the book are Eusebius and then he quotes Hegesippus.
I believe I included enough of the context to have the discussion. Anyone who has read the book, or the abridged version, understands this is how most of it reads.
I will try to be more specific if needed but I believe I have.

 

[BrianH]

For casual readers
Eusebius is the first major Christian historian. His book is where we get a great deal of information about Christian history.
We have discussed, dissected, and argued the correct interpretation of brothers from the Bible.

So instead of doing that again, I thought we would look at what the early Christian writers said in context about the brothers of Jesus and also the cousins of Jesus.

 

[chenry]

Brian,

St. Jerome, born around 340 A.D., spent some time disputing Helvidius on this very topic. He wrote a great Apologetic piece, Against Helvidius.

This is, after Eusebius, however not too long after, and I would still consider it part of the Early Christian writings.

 

[BrianH]

Brian,

St. Jerome, born around 340 A.D., spent some time disputing Helvidius on this very topic. He wrote a great Apologetic piece, Against Helvidius.

This is, after Eusebius, however not too long after, and I would still consider it part of the Early Christian writings.

Yes, I have read that as well.
I am wanting to discuss Eusebius and the distinctions he makes. In particular Hegesippus, who lived and wrote 200 years earlier possibly.
Jerome would be a different thread I believe. No one has addressed this work as of yet so it does not feel…exhausted

 

[TotallyConfused]

Eusebius’s history and writings are very confusing, especially when we try to validate it for authenticity.

There are varying accounts of Eusebius and his accuracy as an historian, depending on who you are reading on the subject.

Even researchers and Authors that are totally unbiased about him, says that he was not a very good historian, known to embellish things, change things and even advocating using falsehoods to get people to believe what he wanted them to believe

I have found studying Eusebius’ works and their validity very confusing….
What got me worried is that he authored the Codex Vaticanus…a Bible version, essentially, that Constantine requested he Author, interpreted by Eusebius from the original Greek documents. There are some serious allegations that he changed many, many texts when he complied the Codex…the Codex that Jerome later translated….including the addition of the resurrection and ascension of Jesus that was not present in the original Mark (Scholars agree on this)…the Gospel that Matthew and Luke were copied from and elaborated on.

After reading some of the things that researchers and historians wrote concerning his character and the accuracy of his works, I have no idea how to interpret the works of Eusebius…all I know is that it’s concerning to me to have someone with that amount of doubt cast on him, be labeled as a Church Father and to be credited with writing the Codex Vaticanus, and interpreting many of the documents that we now find in Scripture. *gulp!

Here’s an excerpt from Wikipedia on Eusebius:

Doctrine

From a dogmatic point of view, Eusebius stands entirely upon the shoulders of Origen. Like Origen, he started from the fundamental thought of the absolute sovereignty (monarchia) of God. God is the cause of all beings. But he is not merely a cause; in him everything good is included, from him all life originates, and he is the source of all virtue. God sent Christ into the world that it may partake of the blessings included in the essence of God. Christ is God and is a ray of the eternal light; but the figure of the ray is so limited by Eusebius that he expressly emphasizes the self-existence of Jesus.
.
.

Limitations

Notwithstanding the great influence of his works on others, Eusebius was not himself a great historian. His treatment of heresy, for example, is limited, and he knew very little about the Western church. The panegyrical tone of the Life of Constantine has grated on modern sensibilities. Nor was he always critical about the material that he reproduces; he includes in the “Ecclesiastical History” letters supplied to him by a Syriac source purporting to be written back and forth between King Abgar and Jesus.

These and other issues have invited controversy.
• Edward Gibbon (early 19th century historian) dismissed his testimony on the number of martyrs and impugned his honesty by referring to a passage in the abbreviated version of the Martyrs of Palestine attached to the Ecclesiastical History, book 8, chapter 2, in which Eusebius introduces his description of the martyrs of the Great Persecution under Diocletian with: “Wherefore we have decided to relate nothing concerning them except the things in which we can vindicate the Divine judgment. …] We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity.” In the longer text of the Martyrs of Palestine, chapter 12, Eusebius states: “I think it best to pass by all the other events which occurred in the meantime: such as …] the lust of power on the part of many, the disorderly and unlawful ordinations, and the schisms among the confessors themselves; also the novelties which were zealously devised against the remnants of the Church by the new and factious members, who added innovation after innovation and forced them in unsparingly among the calamities of the persecution, heaping misfortune upon misfortune. I judge it more suitable to shun and avoid the account of these things, as I said at the beginning.”.

• When his own honesty was challenged by his contemporaries, Gibbon appealed to the chapter heading – not the text – in Eusebius’ Praeparatio evangelica (xii, 31), which says how fictions (pseudos) — which Gibbon rendered ‘falsehoods’ — may be a “medicine”, which may be “lawful and fitting” to use.

• Jacob Burckhardt (19th century cultural historian) dismissed Eusebus as “the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity”.

• Questions were long raised by scholars about whether all the documents in the Life of Constantine were authentic.

• Other critics of Eusebius’ work cite the panegyrical tone of the Vita, plus the omission of internal Christian conflicts in the Canones, as reasons to interpret his writing with caution.
But other views have tended to prevail.

• With reference to Gibbon’s comments, Joseph Barber Lightfoot (late 19th century theologian and former Bishop of Durham) pointed out that Eusebius’ statements indicate his honesty in stating what he was not going to discuss, and also his limitations as a historian in not including such material. He also discusses the question of accuracy. “The manner in which Eusebius deals with his very numerous quotations elsewhere, where we can test his honesty, is a sufficient vindication against this unjust charge.” Lightfoot also notes that Eusebius cannot always be relied on: “A far more serious drawback to his value as a historian is the loose and uncritical spirit in which he sometimes deals with his materials. This shews itself in diverse ways. He is not always to be trusted in his discrimination of genuine and spurious documents.”

 

[BrianH]

I do not find them confusing, I will resist the pun…
Yes, he has been criticized as a historian although in these particular examples these are rather straight forward lineages of which the book is filled with.
I wonder if any Catholics think he should be discounted as a historian in all regards? If so, we lose a great deal of knowledge concerning the succession of bishops and so forth.
It would also mean my search into finding out what the early Christians said about this particular issue comes to a standstill.

 

[TotallyConfused]

I do not find them confusing, I will resist the pun…
Yes, he has been criticized as a historian although in these particular examples these are rather straight forward lineages of which the book is filled with.
I wonder if any Catholics think he should be discounted as a historian in all regards? If so, we lose a great deal of knowledge concerning the succession of bishops and so forth.
It would also mean my search into finding out what the early Christians said about this particular issue comes to a standstill.

Hey there.

Thanks for resisting the pun.

I agree with you he’s a funny figure inthat regard…it’s like your’ e dammned if you do, dammned if you don’t with him…

When you read his biography on sites like New Advent and seriously Pro-Catholic sites, they have all good things to say about him, and they don’t even mention the things that cast doubt on him, so I would assume that they do hold him in high regard and that his writings are important to them.

But then, like you said, an interesting point remains…what about Jesus’ siblings?

Hmmmm…

 

[Eucharisted]

You know what? I don’t care what non-Catholics think of our saints or think of our Faith. The scholars can complain, moan, scream, and accuse all they want - I don’t care about them, either. The children of the world only praise themselves, and they do to the Church what was done to Jesus. But like Saint Paul said, we live by the paradox of the Cross: in suffering, strength; in death, life; in persecution, blossoming; in attack, reassurance; in defeat, victory.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Something that is not part of our current culture needs to be understood when considering this question. In tribal societies, the children of your own brothers and sisters are as important to you, and you are just as responsible for them, as your own children. This was a way of life in the time of Jesus. (Whether or not this has some bearing on the fact that the language Jesus used did not distinguish between siblings and cousins is something I don’t know, but the tribal mentality was definitely a factor.)

Western society no longer practices this sort of “tribal” custom, but a significant part of the planet still does to this day. I have come into contact with this sort of thinking within my own family. We need to remember that we cannot look at 1st Century life with purely 21st Century eyes or we may not view things accurately.

This is why we often need to have biblical passages explained and put in context. The literal view, using 21st century understanding of words, can result in an inaccurate understanding of the original meaning.

 

[Detales]

In chapter 17, book 2 of his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius refers to a sect of Essenes who were healers, called the “Thereaputae.” He says “These ancient Thereaputae were Christians and their writings are our Gospels and epistles.” He was refering to the old pre-Christian drama books of the Essenes. This appears to back up the contention that Jesus was a historicized individual who was attributed with the quality of Divine Incarnation, (hypostatic union in our terms) which attribute was in the mystery religions the whole point of a spiritual life.

Perhaps our modern faith has suffered from an abstraction designed to make a sacred transformation palatable to the public by safely restriciting it to a remote savior? It makes me wonder what Paul really might have meant by working out our own salvation in fear and trembling. Like many systems, the mystery religions at least had the attribute of putting responsibility squarely on each one, and the complete acceptance of that responsibility by the initiate.

 

[TotallyConfused]

You know what? I don’t care what non-Catholics think of our saints or think of our Faith. The scholars can complain, moan, scream, and accuse all they want - I don’t care about them, either. The children of the world only praise themselves, and they do to the Church what was done to Jesus. But like Saint Paul said, we live by the paradox of the Cross: in suffering, strength; in death, life; in persecution, blossoming; in attack, reassurance; in defeat, victory.

Wow…quite the reply there…did I strike a nerve?

I though tit was an innocent enough question that we were approaching frmo a historical factual point of view.

 

[Eucharisted]

Wow…quite the reply there…did I strike a nerve?

I though tit was an innocent enough question that we were approaching frmo a historical factual point of view.

You didn’t hit a nerve, that’s just my reply for the whole thread.

Sorry if I came off angry

 

[TotallyConfused]

You didn’t hit a nerve, that’s just my reply for the whole thread.

Sorry if I came off angry

Ah, no worries!

 

[Detales]

Hi E,

You may not have been angry, though that would be natural if you felt offended. But this is, after all a forum section about non-Catholic religions, and there will be stuff on here that might get someone’s dander up, even if it is just out there to be looked at. Your paragraph certainly, on the other hand, did not come off as cool scholarly interest. It could actually be construed as the kind of pious defensiveness that won’t readily look at history, psychology, epistomology, and other disciplines necessary to think rationally about things. Why give someone who might irritate you the satisfaction?

God bave us a brain, and it won’t in my estimate be a mark against if it is used to look at presentations from other perspectives. God is certainly is not touched by them.

 

[Hisalone]

You know what? I don’t care what non-Catholics think of our saints or think of our Faith. The scholars can complain, moan, scream, and accuse all they want - I don’t care about them, either. The children of the world only praise themselves, and they do to the Church what was done to Jesus. But like Saint Paul said, we live by the paradox of the Cross: in suffering, strength; in death, life; in persecution, blossoming; in attack, reassurance; in defeat, victory.

And you are going to belive in false doctrines and dogmas no matter what is proven against them.

 

[BrianH]

I wish people would fight somewhere else. I do not start a lot of threads and I am seriously trying to have a reasonable discussion on this. Totally Confused brought up the larger issue of the reliability of Eusebius and it is an issue.
But back to the text itself.
Catholics and Protestants cannot seem to agree on what the Bible says about brothers. Anyone who has been around here KNOWS where that thread it going to go. We have had the samed discussion 25 times I bet in the time I have been here.
So THIS discussion, I dont recall it.
Here is an early historian, actually two early historians, who have written on this topic.
Eusebius distinguishes between people he calls brothers and people he calls cousins. Based upon TRADITION. He never says they are the children of Mary, but Eusebius does not say who Jude and James are the children of. He avoids it in fact it appears to me. To me that is important. I infer something about it but perhaps I am reading too much into it.
He does clearly say who the cousin was the son of.
I have my personal views but I want to see some people take a crack at it.
One other thing, Eusebius I do not believe it is bound by Aramaic. Those Aramaic discussions do not seem to effect what he knows. He knows the Symeon is the cousin and who his Dad is and says as much.