CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION
For my investigation of the three
fascinating figures–Simon Magus, Marcion, and Paul, I mainly examined the
church fathers’ testimonies, and the Pseudo-Clementines, and the various
apocryphal Acts, and various modern scholars’ studies. To verify and discern whether their reports
are reliable and truthful, I tried comparative studies with historical
criticism and textual criticism. Some witnesses are more reliable than others,
but most reports served for their own purposes. Although some testimonies are
very much unreliable, e.g., those of fictitious Epiphanius, they were also used
for the investigation purpose with restriction and discernment.
Simon was described as various figures
by various writers such as “Luke of Acts,” the church fathers, the
Pseudo-Clementines, and the authors of the books of apocryphal Acts, and
Josephus. Although some scholars, thus,
claim that there was not one Simon but more than two Simons who had lived in
the first two centuries, I think that all different writers describe the same
Simon who was from Gitta, a city of Samaria.
Simon was a mere magician who could perform some magic arts and wonders. As his power of magic was somewhat great,
people in Samaria would perhaps call him the power of God. But, he was not the supreme God nor Christ.
Later, he joined a Samaritan sect, but perhaps neither a sect of Dositheus nor
a sect of John the Baptist. He became
the leader of the religious sect, and his name became famous. Yet, he was not a full-fledged Gnostic yet.
During his lifetime, his activities were limited in Samaria and Judea. It is almost certain that Simon never came to
Rome. After his death, his name became
more associated with Gnosis or Gnosticism.
In the beginning of the second century some followers of Simon arrived
at Rome to spread Gnosticized Simonianism there. Or, another Simonianism (i.e., Western
Simonianism), which was quite different from or independent of Samaritan
Simonianism (i.e., Eastern Simonianism) in its doctrinal system, was formed in
Rome to worship Simon, who was mythologized there, as Zeus with his companion
Helen as Athena or Korê.
However, Simonianism never flourished,
unlike Marcionism and Valentinianism, as its doctrinal and theological system
was not quite clear and attractive.
There are some similarities between Simonianism and Marcionism, and
between Simonianism and Valentinianism.
I think that it is not becasue Marcionism and Valentinianism were
influenced by Simonianism but because Simonianism adopted some noticeable
doctrines and teachings from Marcionism, Valentinianism, and some other Gnostic
sects. Thus, overall, the theological
system of Simonianism is very complicated, confusing, and sometimes logically
inconsistent. The Apophasis Megal_
which is often attributed to Simon is certainly not composed by Simon himself
but produced by a second century Simonian who probably got an idea from the Valentinian
theological system.
Simonianism in the second century did
not earn its fame as a Gnostic system due to its mediocrity and lack of
prominent leaders. Yet, Simonianism
became famous due to its alleged founder’s name, Simon. His name became notorious as Irenaeus and other
church leaders connect all Gnostic sects with him. Besides, Jewish Chrisitians or Ebionites used
the name Simon to attack law-less and circumcison-free Paul, as Paul and Simon
had amazingly several significant things in common.
Marcion, an ardent student of Paul,
found his ground for dualism including ditheism and docetism in Pauline
epistles and the Gospel of Luke with which he formed his canon. His canon consists of two parts-“Gospel” and
“Apostolikon.” Marcion did not come to Rome. But, Marcionism came to Rome around 140 C.E.
and was condemned as “heresy” a few years later by the Roman church. It was Marcionism that flourished in Rome
under Anicetus (158-169 according to Eusebius; 155-166 according to Harnack)
according to Irenaeus, or under Eleutherus (177-191 according to Eusebius;
174-189 according to Harnack) according to Tertullian. As Justin Martyr correctly testified around
150 C.E., Marcion’s teaching was spread to every nation. So, Marcion did not have to come to Rome for
recognition from Polycarp in 155 or from any church leaders. Since he did not
come to Rome, he was not taught by Cerdo about two different Gods--one is good
and the other just. Heresiologists’ attempt to make Marcion a disciple of Cerdo
was to minimize his role in early Christianity and defame the originality of
his theological system. Marcion probably heard of Empedocles’ two principles of
the universe--Friendship and Discord. But, Empedocles was not the decisive
factor that caused him to establish the doctrine of ditheism. I think that Marcion got his ditheism from
Pauline epistles and the Gospel of Luke, although he seemed to go too far. He
probably believed ditheism rather than monotheism by some help from Empedocles
and Syrian Gnosticism. With ditheism
Marcion probably felt that he could interpret Pauline dualistic views much
clearer.
Marcion traveled about following the
footsteps of Paul and reached Antioch of Syria.
And he could encounter Saturninus or his disciples there. Marcion and
Saturninus would exchange their theological views, although they developed
later their doctrines in their own ways.
Thus, they shared their common theological doctrines--docetism,
asceticism including prohibition of marriage, procreation and animal food, and
the doctrine of salvation. Like Marcion,
Saturninus also claims that there is unknown God. However, unlike Marcion, he asserts that the
universe and men were created by the seven Angels, and that the heavenly Power
sent a spark of life to man so that he could erect. Whereas Marcion was influenced by (Syrian)
Gnosticism to some extent, the later Marcionites (as we see obviously in the
cases of Apelles and the 5th century Marcionites in Eznik’s report)
were much more influenced by Gnosticism.
At the same time, various Gnostic sects in the second century and
thereafter were influenced by Marcionite Paulinism.
Since Paul started his mission for the
Gentiles, he had to encounter with Jewish Christian opponents. The opponents’ attack on Paul had not gone
away even after Paul’s death. Anti-Paulinism continued in the second
century. The KerygmataPt
were a product of anti-Paulinism in the middle of the second century. The attack on Paul until the middle or toward
the end of the second century was done directly and openly. When Paul was proclaimed as an apostle of the
“orthodox” Catholic church, Jewish Christians or Ebionites could not assault
Paul directly using his name. However,
they found a new way to continue to attack Paul under the name of Simon who
became the target of attack, as the father of all “heretics” by the Catholic
church. Thus, the Pseudo-Clementine
literature was developed to attack Paul as well as Simon by some Ebionite
Christians and by some other Catholic Christians. Although only the name of Simon is there and
various source documents with different theological emphases are intermingled
complicatedly, a cautious reader may discern whether that Simon in various
passages is meant to be really Simon or that Simon is meant to be Paul. The name Simon is used neither to solely
attack Simon nor to solely attack Paul.
That is, Simon is not always Paul in disguise. In the
Pseudo-Clementines, the Ebionite Peter attacks the “law-less and
circumcision-free” Paul in the name of Simon, and the Catholic Peter attacks
the “Gnostic” Simon.
The various books of apocryphal Acts were
produced to defend and protect Paul against anti-Paulinism shown by the early
Ebionite (Pseudo-Clementine) writings in the middle of the second century, such
as the KerygmataPt and PraxeisPt. These apocryphal Acts separate intentionally
Paul from Simon as far as possible. Simon in these books of apocryphal Acts was
nothing but a magician and a deceiver, and was defeated by Peter (and Paul)
miserably.
No comments:
Post a Comment