Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 01-16-2013, 11:21 PM

We have discussed here that Pilate's surprise at hearing Jesus had died suddenly on the Cross was taken to have 'supernatural significance' by early writers. Origen for one says that crucifixions rarely ended so quickly and that it was a sign of a 'wonder' - specifically that God intervened. But it is equally likely that Marcionites and heretics saw this as a sign that Jesus was not material. I was reading my son the Acts of Peter as a bedtime story (he wants to be like Daddy I guess) when I noticed that Peter dies even faster than his master (or at least - faster than the accounts we have preserved in the canonical gospels).

Peter is put on the cross upside down (at his request) and then a terribly long and ridiculous (but ultimately gnostic) speech follows - my son actually broke out laughing when I reminded him in the middle of reading the speech that Peter was saying all of this upside down to the crowd.

But the part I hadn't noticed before is that as soon as the speech ends, Peter dies. There is no mention of punishment, whips, chains or the like. He's just strapped on the cross, gives his speech and then gives up the ghost (another term I had to explain to my son). It is also worth noting that Jesus tells Peter as he is running away from his date with death that the crucifixion represents a second death for Jesus - 'I am about to be crucified afresh.' All of which seems to imply to me at least that the docetic details of Peter's death were shared by the gospel used by the community which produced it.

I strongly suspect the idea derives from 'Simon Magus' (Peter's real name is Simon) who claimed to be Jesus reincarnate. Peter is usually presented as Simon's opponent but it is worth noting that the Quo Vadis ('where are you going') is also found in the Acts of Paul. It has been argued that the story in the Acts of Paul is secondary to its use in the Actus Vercellenses (= Act of Peter), it is not the case of citation or allusion, but rather the adaptation of a narrative unit in a different context.

Carl Schmidt presented the Greek papyrus of the Hamburg Staats- und Universitdtsbibliothek (PH) in his 1936 edition of the Acts of Paul. Its publication solved a scholarly riddle; Origen (Commentary on John, 20:12) attributed the quo vadis scene to the Acts of Paul, but until PH, the quo vadis scene was known only as a component of the Acts of Peter preserved in the Actus Vercellenses. In the Hamburg papyrus, however, the scene appears in the context of Paul's journey from Corinth to Italy. the scene appears in the context of Paul's journey from Corinth to Italy. Jesus walks upon the water toward Paul, who is still on board. He wakes Paul, for it is night. Paul asks him why he is downcast; the Lord responds, "I am about to be crucified afresh.' "God forbid!" responds Paul. Jesus then commands Paul to go to Rome and admonish the Christians and walks before the ship to show the way. Schmidt recognized that Jesus' statement, "I am about to be crucified afresh," was singularly inappropriate as a foreshadowing of the martyrdom of Paul who was beheaded.

There is a complex relationship between the Acts of Peter (in its various forms) and the Acts of Paul. It is generally acknowledged that there is some lost source that is being adapted by both. I strong suspect that this Roman text portrayed another Simon entirely - Simon Magus - or perhaps better yet, that the orthodox caricature of Simon developed from a heretical Peter.

stephan huller · 01-16-2013, 11:57 PM

Another piece of the puzzle is the consistent identification of 'Simon' dying in Jesus's place on the cross. Was the Acts of Peter even based on a text set in Rome or was Simon originally understood to have been crucified in Jesus's place in Jerusalem? From Epiphanius Panarion chapter 24 on the Basilideans:

Quote:

This is the fraud's specious argument. He too, likewise, believes that Christ was manifest (only) in appearance. He says that since he 'appears,' he is an 'appearance'; but he is not man and has not taken flesh. This second mimologue mounts another dramatic piece for us in his account of the cross of Christ; for he claims that not Jesus, but Simon of Cyrene, has suffered. For when the Lord was marched out of Jerusalem, as the Gospel passage says, one Simon of Cyrene was compelled to bear the cross. From this he finds his trickeries opportunity for composing his dramatic piece and says: Jesus changed Simon into his own form while he was bearing the cross, and changed himself into Simon, and delivered Simon to crucifixion in his place. During Simon's crucifixion Jesus stood opposite him unseen, laughing at the persons who were crucifying Simon. But he himself flew off to the heavenly realms after delivering Simon to crucifixion, and returned to heaven without suffering. It was Simon himself who was crucified, not Jesus. Jesus, Basilides says, passed through all the powers on his flight to heaven, till he was restored to his own Father.

And then in the Second Treatise of the Great Seth:

Quote:

Yes, they saw me; they punished me. It was another, their father, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. It was another upon whom they placed the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over all the wealth of the archons and the offspring of their error, of their empty glory. And I was laughing at their ignorance.

Why should Simon = the Jewish god? Simeon is the only tribe (among the twelve) not unmentioned in Moses' blessing in Deuteronomy 33 and the Song of Deborah (Judges). I think this was noticed by Simon, the 'unknown god.' His connected with Levi in Genesis 49 and deprived of an allotment. The Levites worked the temple. What happened to the Simeonites?

Also Irenaeus on the Valentinians "they say, too, that Simeon ... was a type of the Demiurge, who, on the arrival of the Saviour, learned his own change of place, and gave thanks to Bythus."

There is a Rabbinic explanation of the apparent omission of Simeon from the list of tribes in Deut 33 that says Simeon’s blessing is inside Judah’s, which is actually true if you look at the Hebrew. This explanation then says that Judah is the public face of Simeon and Simeon the hidden face of Judah.

stephan huller · 01-17-2013, 12:19 AM

I wonder if the statement which now appears during the infancy narrative of Luke (which the Marcionites did not have) originally appeared in the crucifixion narrative (= that it moved cf. Irenaeus's frequent statement that the heretical gospels did exactly this i.e. move passages out of their original context):

Quote:

They say that Simeon, who took Christ in his arms, thanked God and said, 'Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace according to thy word,' is a type of the Demiurge. When the Saviour came he learned of his translation and gave thanks to Depth.

If this theory is correct then Peter's denial and the consistent attempt to belittle Peter in the canonical gospels was actually done - not 'because it is true' or actually happened - but because there was a deliberate effort to suppress the knowledge that Jesus was a spirit and the man who died in his place was Simon. This figure became demonized as Simon Magus and recast not only as Simon Peter but also Paul.

stephan huller · 01-17-2013, 12:25 AM

The disciple probably being initiated in Secret Mark is Simon. This squares with Clement's statement elsewhere that Jesus only baptized Peter.

sotto voce · 01-17-2013, 02:45 AM

It's curious how papists, who of course claim that Peter was their first pope, have no canonical record of his martyr's crucifixion. They claim to have given the Christ four crucifixion accounts, but they somehow failed to mention crucifixion of the Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ, even once.

Oh, no it isn't. What's curious is that nobody thinks to ask them for it.

Shafeesthoughts · 01-17-2013, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Another piece of the puzzle is the consistent identification of 'Simon' dying in Jesus's place on the cross. Was the Acts of Peter even based on a text set in Rome or was Simon originally understood to have been crucified in Jesus's place in Jerusalem? From Epiphanius Panarion chapter 24 on the Basilideans:

Quote:

This is the fraud's specious argument. He too, likewise, believes that Christ was manifest (only) in appearance. He says that since he 'appears,' he is an 'appearance'; but he is not man and has not taken flesh. This second mimologue mounts another dramatic piece for us in his account of the cross of Christ; for he claims that not Jesus, but Simon of Cyrene, has suffered. For when the Lord was marched out of Jerusalem, as the Gospel passage says, one Simon of Cyrene was compelled to bear the cross. From this he finds his trickeries opportunity for composing his dramatic piece and says: Jesus changed Simon into his own form while he was bearing the cross, and changed himself into Simon, and delivered Simon to crucifixion in his place. During Simon's crucifixion Jesus stood opposite him unseen, laughing at the persons who were crucifying Simon. But he himself flew off to the heavenly realms after delivering Simon to crucifixion, and returned to heaven without suffering. It was Simon himself who was crucified, not Jesus. Jesus, Basilides says, passed through all the powers on his flight to heaven, till he was restored to his own Father.

And then in the Second Treatise of the Great Seth:

Quote:

Yes, they saw me; they punished me. It was another, their father, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. It was another upon whom they placed the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over all the wealth of the archons and the offspring of their error, of their empty glory. And I was laughing at their ignorance.

Why should Simon = the Jewish god? Simeon is the only tribe (among the twelve) not unmentioned in Moses' blessing in Deuteronomy 33 and the Song of Deborah (Judges). I think this was noticed by Simon, the 'unknown god.' His connected with Levi in Genesis 49 and deprived of an allotment. The Levites worked the temple. What happened to the Simeonites?

Also Irenaeus on the Valentinians "they say, too, that Simeon ... was a type of the Demiurge, who, on the arrival of the Saviour, learned his own change of place, and gave thanks to Bythus."

There is a Rabbinic explanation of the apparent omission of Simeon from the list of tribes in Deut 33 that says Simeon’s blessing is inside Judah’s, which is actually true if you look at the Hebrew. This explanation then says that Judah is the public face of Simeon and Simeon the hidden face of Judah.

I know nothing of Bible Studies.
But want to ask a question:

Did Moses' blessings in Deutremony come before or after the incident of the calf?

Moses (as) left his people in the care of Harun (as) and went for a meeting with God for 30 nights. He extended it by 10.

The man who made the golden calf and started the worship of it, could he not have been from the tribe of Simeon.

If so then it would explain their extinction, because in your books does it not relate that the command of God was that they (the people of Moses) clean themselves from such defilement, the implied meaning being to kill that tribe of theirs that indulged in that profanity. -the tribe of Simeon- possibly?

stephan huller · 01-17-2013, 08:43 AM

The man who made the golden calf was not of the tribe of Simeon. It was Aaron the brother of Moses. It was done at the instigation of the crowds. I might quicker think that Simeon being the brother of Levi, the father of the attendants of the altar is the key. The early Christian sect of the Σιμωνιανούς or Simoniani is the key. The Levites (Λευίτης) are attendants of the altar of the known god of the Jews; the Simonians probably understood themselves to be attendants of the 'secret' god. Something like that. The communism associated with the early Christians (= Carpocratians) was probably justified in the tribe of Simeon not receiving a portion of land. The story of Simon on the cross might well have some deeper significance we are not aware of. It is interesting to speculate though.

stephan huller · 01-17-2013, 09:25 AM

It is also interesting to look at Methodius's interpretation of the same passage in Luke

Quote:

Upon all this that righteous man, waxing bold and yielding to the exhortation of the mother of God, who is the handmaid of God in regard to the things which pertain to men, received into his aged arms Him who in infancy was yet the Ancient of days, and blessed God, and said, Lord, now let Your servant depart in peace, according to Your word: for my eyes have seen Your salvation, which You have prepared before the face of all people; a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of Your people Israel. Luke 2:29-32 I have received from You a joy unmixed with pain. Receive me rejoicing, O Lord, and singing of Your mercy and compassion. You have given unto me this joy of heart. I render unto You with gladness my tribute of thanksgiving. I have known the power of the love of God. Since, for my sake, God of You begotten, in a manner ineffable, and without corruption, has become man. I have known the inexplicable greatness of Your love and care for us, for You have sent forth Your own bowels to come to our deliverance. Now, at length, I understand what I had from Solomon learned: Strong as death is love: for by it shall the sting of death be done away, by it shall the dead see life, by it shall even death learn what death is, being made to cease from that dominion which over us he exercised. By it, also, shall the serpent, the author of our evils, he taken captive and overwhelmed. Song of Songs 8:6 You have made known to us, O Lord, Your salvation, causing to spring up for us the plant of peace, and we shall no longer wander in error. You have made known to us, O Lord, that You have not unto the end overlooked Your servants; neither have You, O beneficent One, forgotten entirely the works of Your hands. For out of Your compassion for our low estate You have shed forth upon us abundantly that goodness of Yours which is inexhaustible, and with Your very nature cognate, having redeemed us by Your only begotten Son, who is unchangeably like to You, and of one substance with You; judging it unworthy of Your majesty and goodness to entrust to a servant the work of saving and benefiting Your servants, or to cause that those who had offended should be reconciled by a minister. But by means of that light, which is of one substance with You, You have given light to those that sat in darkness and in the shadow of death, in order that in Your light they might see the light of knowledge; and it has seemed good to You, by means of our Lord and Creator, to fashion us again unto immortality; and You have graciously given unto us a return to Paradise by means of Him who separated us from the joys of Paradise; and by means of Him who has power to forgive sins You haveMark 2:10 blotted out the handwriting which was against us.Colossians 2:4 Lastly, by means of Him who is a partaker of Your throne and who cannot be separated from Your divine nature, You have given unto us the gift of reconciliation and access unto You with confidence in order that, by the Lord who recognises the sovereign authority of none, by the true and omnipotent God, the subscribed sanction, as it were, of so many and such great blessings might constitute the justifying gifts of grace to be certain and indubitable rights to those who have obtained mercy. And this very thing the prophet before had announced in the words: No ambassador, nor angel, but the Lord Himself saved them; because He loved them, and spared them, and He took them up, and exalted them. And all this was, not of works of righteousness Titus 3:5 which we have done, nor because we loved You—for our first earthly forefather, who was honourably entertained, in the delightful abode of Paradise, despised Your divine and saving commandment, and was judged unworthy of that life-giving place, and mingling his seed with the bastard off-shoots of sin, he rendered it very weak—but You, O Lord, of Your own self, and of Your ineffable love toward the creature of Your hands, hast confirmed Your mercy toward us, and, pitying our estrangement from You, hast moved Yourself at the sight of our degradation John 4:9 to take us into compassion. Hence, for the future, a joyous festival is established for us of the race of Adam, because the first Creator of Adam of His own free-will has become the Second Adam. And the brightness of the Lord our God has come down to sojourn with us, so that we see God face to face, and are saved Therefore, O Lord, I seek of You to be allowed to depart. I have seen Your salvation; let me be delivered from the bent yoke of the letter. I have seen the King Eternal, to whom no other succeeds; let me be set free from this servile and burdensome chain. I have seen Him who is by nature my Lord and Deliverer; may I obtain, then, His decree for my deliverance. Set me free from the yoke of condemnation, and place me under the yoke of justification. Deliver me from the yoke of the curse, and of the letter that kills; 2 Corinthians 3:6 and enrol me in the blessed company of those who, by the grace of this Your true Son, who is of equal glory and power with You, have been received into the adoption of sons.

It is obvious that the overt context is Mary giving birth to the baby Jesus reflecting the place the statement cited from the lips of Simeon is now placed in Luke. But as we go down the material it is equally clear that the material is strangely associated with the crucifixion and the 'redemption' rite known through other heretical sources. Indeed the logic is baffling - why would Simeon holding the baby Jesus be freed from the Law by means of the crucifixion? Even the most liberal allegories seem stretched here.

Methodius's writings are very interesting because (a) Methodius himself is so mysterious (we know almost nothing about who he is, when he wrote, where he wrote from - even Eusebius fails to mention him despite his influence) and (b) his citations of the New Testament seem to retain many variants found in Clement and other of the earliest writers. I can't help think this passage was adapted from something older and more heretical .

stephan huller · 01-17-2013, 09:46 AM

Or again in his Oration on the Psalms:

Quote:

Once, indeed, the aged Simeon met the Saviour and received in his arms, as an infant, the Creator of the world, and proclaimed Him to be Lord and God; but now, in the place of foolish elders, children meet the Saviour, even as Simeon did, and instead of their arms, strew under Him the branches of trees, and bless the Lord God seated upon a colt, as upon the cherubim, Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord; and together with these let us also exclaim, Blessed is He that cometh, God the King of Glory, who, for our sakes, became poor, yet, in His own proper estate, being ignorant of poverty, that with His bounty He might make us rich. Blessed is He who once came in humility, and who will hereafter come again in glory: at the first, lowly, and seated upon an ass’s colt, and by infants extolled in order that it might be fulfilled which was written: Thy goings have been seen, O God; even the goings of my God, my King, in the sanctuary; but at the second time seated on the clouds, in terrible majesty, by angels and powers attended. O the mellifluous tongue of the children! O the sincere doctrine of those who are well pleasing to God! David in prophecy hid the spirit under the letter; children, opening their treasures, brought forth riches upon their tongues, and, in language full of grace, invited clearly all men to enjoy them.

Therefore let us with them draw forth the unfading riches. In our bosoms insatiate, and in treasure-houses which cannot be filled, let us lay up the divine gifts. Let us exclaim without ceasing, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord! Very God, in the name of the Very God, the Omnipotent from the Omnipotent, the Son in the name of the Father. The true King from the true King, whose kingdom, even as His who begat Him, is with eternity, coeval and pre-existent to it. For this is common to both; nor does the Scripture attribute this honour to the Son, as if it came from another source, nor as if it had a beginning, or could be added to or diminished—away with the thought!—but as that which is His of right by nature, and by a true and proper possession.

... (long digression where the author/editor returns to the original point before his additions) But let us, beloved, return in our discourse to that point whence we digressed, exclaiming,

Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord: that good and kind Shepherd, voluntarily to lay down His life for His sheep. That just as hunters take by a sheep the wolves that devour sheep, even so the Chief Shepherd, offering Himself as man to the spiritual wolves and those who destroy the soul, may make His prey of the destroyers by means of that Adam who was once preyed on by them.

Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord: God against the devil; not manifestly in His might, which cannot be looked on, but in the weakness of the flesh, to bind the strong man that is against us. Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord: the King against the tyrant; not with omnipotent power and wisdom, but with that which is accounted the foolishness of the cross, which hath reft his spoils from the serpent who is wise in wickedness.

Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord: the True One against the liar; the Saviour against the destroyer; the Prince of Peace against him who stirs up wars; the Lover of mankind against the hater of mankind. Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord: the Lord to have mercy upon the creature of His hands.

Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord: the Lord to save man who had wandered in error; to put away error; to give light to those who are in darkness; to abolish the imposture of idols; in its place to bring in the saving knowledge of God; to sanctify the world; to drive away the abomination and misery of the worship of false gods.

Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord: the one for the many; to deliver the poor out of the hands of them that are too strong for him, yea, the poor and needy from him that spoileth him.

Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord, to pour wine and oil upon him who had fallen amongst thieves, and had been passed by.

Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord: to save us by Himself, as says the prophet; no ambassador, nor angel, but the Lord Himself saved us.

Therefore we also bless Thee, O Lord; Thou with the Father and the Holy Spirit art blessed before the worlds and for ever. Before the world, indeed, and until now being devoid of body, but now and for ever henceforth possessed of that divine humanity which cannot be changed, and from which Thou art never divided.

Let us look also at what follows. What says the most divine evangelist? When the Lord had entered into the temple, the blind and the lame came to Him; and He healed them (Matt 21:14). And when the chief priests and Pharisees saw the wonderful things that He did (Matt 21:15), and the children crying, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord, (ibid) they brooked not this honour that was paid Him, and therefore they came to Him, and thus spake, Hearest Thou not what these say? As if they said, Art Thou not grieved at hearing from these innocents things which befit God, and God alone? Has not God of old made it manifest by the prophet, “My glory will I not give unto another;” (Isa 42.8) and how dost Thou, being a man, make Thyself God? (John 10. 33 ) But what to this answers the long-suffering One, He who is abundant in mercy, (Joel 2.13) and slow to wrath? (James 1.18) He bears with these frenzied ones; with an apology He keeps their wrath in check; in His turn He calls the Scriptures to their remembrance; He brings forward testimony to what is done, and shrinks not from inquiry.

Wherefore He says, Have ye never heard Me saying by the prophet, Then shall ye know that I am He that doth speak? (Isa 52.6) nor again, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast Thou perfected praise because of Thine enemies, that Thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger? Which without doubt are ye, who give heed unto the law, and read the prophets, while yet ye despise Me who, both by the law and the prophets, have been beforehand proclaimed. Ye think, indeed, under a pretence of piety, to avenge the glory of God, not understanding that he that despiseth Me despiseth My Father also. (John 15.23) I came forth from God, and am come into the world, (ibid 16.28) and My glory is the glory of My Father also. Even thus these foolish ones, being convinced by our Saviour-God, ceased to answer Him again, the truth stopping their mouths; but adopting a new and foolish device, they took counsel against Him.

But let us sing, Great is our Lord, and great is His power;3167 and of His understanding there is no number. For all this was done that the Lamb and Son of God, that taketh away the sins of the world, might, of His own will, and for us, come to His saving Passion, and might be recognised, as it were, in the market and place of selling; and that those who bought Him might for thirty pieces of silver covenant for Him who, with His life-giving blood, was to redeem the world; and that Christ, our passover, might be sacrificed for us, in order that those who were sprinkled with His precious blood, and sealed on their lips, as the posts of the door, might escape from the darts of the destroyer; and that Christ having thus suffered in the flesh, and having risen again the third day, might, with equal honour and glory with the Father and the Holy Ghost, be by all created things equally adored; for to Him every knee shall bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, sending up glory to Him, for ever and ever. Amen.

The gospel that is being cited here seems Diatessaronic. At the very least many of these details cannot be inferred from Matthew. Matthew for instance does not immediately go off and have the Jews take counsel against him. The debate over the 'authority of John' continues thereafter and more.

Sheshbazzar · 01-17-2013, 11:41 AM

Quote:

I was reading my son the Acts of Peter as a bedtime story

poor kid.

01-16-2013, 11:21 PM	#1
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	It Wasn't Just Jesus's Death on the Cross Which 'Happened in a Heartbeat' We have discussed here that Pilate's surprise at hearing Jesus had died suddenly on the Cross was taken to have 'supernatural significance' by early writers. Origen for one says that crucifixions rarely ended so quickly and that it was a sign of a 'wonder' - specifically that God intervened. But it is equally likely that Marcionites and heretics saw this as a sign that Jesus was not material. I was reading my son the Acts of Peter as a bedtime story (he wants to be like Daddy I guess) when I noticed that Peter dies even faster than his master (or at least - faster than the accounts we have preserved in the canonical gospels). Peter is put on the cross upside down (at his request) and then a terribly long and ridiculous (but ultimately gnostic) speech follows - my son actually broke out laughing when I reminded him in the middle of reading the speech that Peter was saying all of this upside down to the crowd. But the part I hadn't noticed before is that as soon as the speech ends, Peter dies. There is no mention of punishment, whips, chains or the like. He's just strapped on the cross, gives his speech and then gives up the ghost (another term I had to explain to my son). It is also worth noting that Jesus tells Peter as he is running away from his date with death that the crucifixion represents a second death for Jesus - 'I am about to be crucified afresh.' All of which seems to imply to me at least that the docetic details of Peter's death were shared by the gospel used by the community which produced it. I strongly suspect the idea derives from 'Simon Magus' (Peter's real name is Simon) who claimed to be Jesus reincarnate. Peter is usually presented as Simon's opponent but it is worth noting that the Quo Vadis ('where are you going') is also found in the Acts of Paul. It has been argued that the story in the Acts of Paul is secondary to its use in the Actus Vercellenses (= Act of Peter), it is not the case of citation or allusion, but rather the adaptation of a narrative unit in a different context. Carl Schmidt presented the Greek papyrus of the Hamburg Staats- und Universitdtsbibliothek (PH) in his 1936 edition of the Acts of Paul. Its publication solved a scholarly riddle; Origen (Commentary on John, 20:12) attributed the quo vadis scene to the Acts of Paul, but until PH, the quo vadis scene was known only as a component of the Acts of Peter preserved in the Actus Vercellenses. In the Hamburg papyrus, however, the scene appears in the context of Paul's journey from Corinth to Italy. the scene appears in the context of Paul's journey from Corinth to Italy. Jesus walks upon the water toward Paul, who is still on board. He wakes Paul, for it is night. Paul asks him why he is downcast; the Lord responds, "I am about to be crucified afresh.' "God forbid!" responds Paul. Jesus then commands Paul to go to Rome and admonish the Christians and walks before the ship to show the way. Schmidt recognized that Jesus' statement, "I am about to be crucified afresh," was singularly inappropriate as a foreshadowing of the martyrdom of Paul who was beheaded. There is a complex relationship between the Acts of Peter (in its various forms) and the Acts of Paul. It is generally acknowledged that there is some lost source that is being adapted by both. I strong suspect that this Roman text portrayed another Simon entirely - Simon Magus - or perhaps better yet, that the orthodox caricature of Simon developed from a heretical Peter.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-17-2013, 12:25 AM	#4
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The disciple probably being initiated in Secret Mark is Simon. This squares with Clement's statement elsewhere that Jesus only baptized Peter.

01-17-2013, 02:45 AM	#5
sotto voce Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: UK Posts: 3,057	It's curious how papists, who of course claim that Peter was their first pope, have no canonical record of his martyr's crucifixion. They claim to have given the Christ four crucifixion accounts, but they somehow failed to mention crucifixion of the Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ, even once. Oh, no it isn't. What's curious is that nobody thinks to ask them for it.

01-17-2013, 08:43 AM	#7
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The man who made the golden calf was not of the tribe of Simeon. It was Aaron the brother of Moses. It was done at the instigation of the crowds. I might quicker think that Simeon being the brother of Levi, the father of the attendants of the altar is the key. The early Christian sect of the Σιμωνιανούς or Simoniani is the key. The Levites (Λευίτης) are attendants of the altar of the known god of the Jews; the Simonians probably understood themselves to be attendants of the 'secret' god. Something like that. The communism associated with the early Christians (= Carpocratians) was probably justified in the tribe of Simeon not receiving a portion of land. The story of Simon on the cross might well have some deeper significance we are not aware of. It is interesting to speculate though.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.