Robert, One rascal declared freedom from the Law, other rascals declared themselves defenders of the Law while drinking shrimp cocktails. It’s like today’s peace-loving Trump, who was the first president to introduce an American military contingent to Poland. I know you’re always looking for the best in people, but that makes it hard to analyze. At the level of winners, these qualities simply get in the way.
Yes, I would agree that Simon Magus (the Magician) was likely a pseudonym for powerful personages within early Christianity (including Paul) that the Jewish Christians were unable to name outright and that over the course of centuries the various biographies concerning Simon Magus came to encompass all the various theological beliefs that took root in early Christianity that the Jewish Christians considered heretical.
The parts of Simon’s biography that most resemble Paul include:
“And he admonished those that believed on him … not to tremble at the threats of the Law, but, as being free, to do whatever they would. For it was not by good works, but by grace they would gain salvation.” (Haereticarum Fabularum Compendium, i. i.)
“for men were saved by his grace, and not by righteous works” (Contra Hæreses, I. xxiii. 1-4)
“For there were certain men come to Corinth, Simon and Cleobius, saying: There is no resurrection of the flesh, but that of the spirit only [in glory as a celestial body]” (Acts of Paul 7:1.7)
Traces of a Samaritan Christianity though does exist within Simon’s biography and I would probably argue that the surviving biographies of ‘Simon’ are a merger of the teachings of both ‘Simon Magus’ and ‘Cleobius’ insomuch as the theologies of these separate sects may have merged to form proto-orthodox. One of the two names was probably used in place of Paul originally and the other may have been used to describe Apollos as both men were teaching by prophecy.
Simon Magus is, like others, a literary hero in writings of the late 1st century CE or later. Reconstructing historical events from the literary discussion that took place after the appearance of Pauline Corpus requires taking into account the fact that they all wrote as ghost writers, anonymously or under false attribution. In addition, this literature was written several decades after the described events. So there was no discussion with Paul because he had already been dead for 40 years.
Well, there was a discussion, but no Paul, no Judaic Christians. There was a polemical discussion moved into the past so as not to weaken the dynamics of the development of the Christian movement with quarrels. Discussion invisible to masses of believers, conducted only within the framework of the structure between theologians.
Marcion as a disciple of Simon Magus, a disciple of a disciple of Simon Magus, a man who knew the apostle John, shows that no one cared about the historical account, only the historical policy, which is to evoke emotions and not to recreate the past.
Was Paul really writing about the circumcision party at least 40-80 years before anyone responded?
A literal analysis of a text that serves a completely different purpose than a historical account is a terrible idea.
Here we are defending the Law by eating non-kosher shrimp cocktails prepared for us by our wives. We are not only defenders of the Law but also its best interpreters.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)