(5 votes, average: 4.80 out of 5)
Loading...IN MY BIBLE INTRODUCTION I INTRODUCE STUDENTS TO NON-CANONICAL LEGENDARY ACCOUNTS ABOUT THE APOSTLES, INCLUDING THIS LITTLE GEM ABOUT PETER.
Among the pseudepigrapha connected with the apostle Peter, none is more interesting than the apocryphal Acts of Peter, a document that details Peter’s various confrontations with the heretical magician Simon Magus (cf. Acts 8:14-24). The narrative shows how Peter outperforms the magician by invoking the power of God. Consider the following entertaining account, in which Peter proves the divine authorization of his message by raising a dead tuna fish back to life.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN NOW!!
I feel like ordering another plate of ahi.
I have a question regarding Simon Magus. How does he comes to be introduced into the Christian tradition as the arch-heretic par excellence? As I recall, in the canonical acts he is basically a sort of troublemaking magician, but not a particularly noteworthy person. Are the later writings which mention Simon Magus (i.e. Acts of Peter, the heresiologists who trace the descent of heresy to Simon Magus) dependent on Acts of the Apostles? Or is there an independent stream of tradition about him? It seems like he takes on a life of his own in Christian thought on heresy which far outstrips his role in the canonical Acts of the Apostles.
It’s a great question: I think I’d like to add it to my ever-growing list of ones to address on the blog itself, if that’s OK. Basic answer: he’s the first false teacher the apostles confront and traditions about him did indeed take on a life of their own.
Isn’t Simon Magus supposed to represent Paul?
In a couple of passages in the Pseudo-Clementine writings he appears to.
What I liked in the places where you describe the showdown between Peter and Simon Magus is that Simon’s actions are about death (e.g. wispering to the slave, which kills him), but Peter’s actions are all about life.
What if it was in the Canon? Ask your students, to imagine, as best they can, that the ‘story’ about Peter and the Tuna is true. It must be, it’s in the Bible. You know what I am getting at.
Prof. Ehrman, why do you think that Simon Magus became the father of all heresies? I know that Eusebius of Caesarea and Irenaeus of Lyons saw him as such. Acts 8:14-24 implies that he didn’t turn from his ways, but it is not explicitly said. How does the Acts of Peter slot in with the heresiologists of the early church?
I’ll be addressing that question on my blog at some point – it’s a good one! (Basic answer: he was the first false teacher they confronted)
Do you ever get the impression that some of these texts were intended to be funny?
Yeah, I’ve often wondered about it.
Very good point Robertus. I never, ever, thought about it that way. It now makes me wonder!
I always thought Simon got a bad rap. He came from a magic background (where spiritual things are brought about by a magician, at a price), and he asked the apostles how to do miracles like they did – apparently in good faith, the way I take it – and Peter just goes off on him. Previous verses show that he believed and followed the disciples/apostles, but they do not indicate that his belief was false (unlike in the story of Ananias & Sapphira, where the thoughts of their hearts were exposed). So Peter goes off in a tirade that questions even the ability of God/Jesus to forgive, even if Simon repents! This is the most un-Christlike behavior of all in an apostle, and yet it’s often taught to laypeople to show Peter’s “righteousness” and Simon’s “sin”. I feel sorry for the guy – can you imagine if your spiritual “hero” said that for asking a simple question based on your background, you may burn in hell forever? Wow.
“I feel sorry for the guy – can you imagine if your spiritual “hero” said that for asking a simple question based on your background, you may burn in hell forever? Wow.”
Yeah, the passive-aggressive, abusive tone of the NT is one of the things that killed my faith. Anytime anyone questions or wants evidence for the (pretty insane, when you think about it) claims of the gospels or the apostles, they’re chastised or stricken blind or some other nonsense. In Acts and in a lot of the Epistles, Paul’s pretty much a deluded religious bully, who gets upset that people don’t totally buy the idea of bodily resurrections and God needing blood to forgive people’s sins.
“You don’t believe my claims that my favorite prophet that I never met was resurrected from the dead? A HEX UPON YOU!”
Just by calling him a “magus” we may be buying into a proto-orthodox slur. Simon likely claimed to be ‘megas” (= great; “A man named Simon… claiming to be somebody GREAT” – Acts 8:9). And, more precisely, the Power of God that is called ‘Great’. His enemies would have been the ones to insist: “Magus, not Megas.” And when they reworked a collection of Simonian writings they got the ultimate revenge: they turned the Great One (Megas) into the Small One (Paul).
Hi Bart,
Have you ever consider the social role these stories had in early Christian world? Were they a factor in spreading Christianity. I know you talk about that in the Triumph of Christianity, but I was wondering is there a study about apocryphal acts focussing on the social role these stories had? Were these stories read among believers and also in front of potential believers (pagans) or were they just some sort of upper class literature (speaking in anology: were they similiar to your book Forged or to your book Forgery and Counteforgery which is a book for scholars)? I’ve read Cameron’s book Christianity and the rhetoric of the empire. She talks there a little about that, so I was hoping you can help me. Thank’s a lot!
As always, articles or books can be in English, German or French.
Kind regards!
It is almost always assumed that these books were written by Christians for Christians to teach Christians Christian topics. We have no evidence of their use for other purposes (e.g., evangelism). Unfortunately, any social history of them would have to be highly speculative since we don’t have records of how they were being used.
In John 21 we find a miracle where the risen Christ helps the apostles to catch fish by telling them where to throw their nets. Is this evidence that John was aware of the gospel accounts of the calling of Peter in which we see a similar miracle? Also John says in the same chapter that Peter will be crucified. I wish he had told us where he was crucified. Tradition says that he became a martyr in Rome. Is there any historical evidence of that being the place?
Chapter 21 is widely recognized as a later addition to the Gospel; it’s completely plausible that the author either knew of teh other Gospel accounts or, at least that stories of miraculous catching of fish were just standard fare among story tellers dealing with Jesus and his fisherman discples. No, John gives us no hint about where Peter was crucified. The first reference to his death is in 1 Clement (ca. 95 CE) which does not say it was a crucifixion and does not indicate where it happened; 1 Clement was itself written in Rome and that may have been part of the reason later Xns said that’s where Peter was killed. The first account of the (upside down) crucifixion is in the Acts of Peter from the end of the 2nd century.