Simon Magus Invented the Four Gospel tradition?

[Stephan Huller]

I know Neil I will get you the info tonight

[TedM]

Typical stupidity from you. The text speaks of a fourfold gospel likened to the corners of the world which Voorbus links to Irenaeus and you claim that's going too far. I don't bother to engage you in the other forums but now you're encroaching in my space. For those with interest I found Nau's 1907 translation here:

https://archive.org/details/patrologiaorient23pariuoft

It's a link, but I question how unusual it would be to link 4 gospels of the good news that is supposed to be preached to all corners of the earth with the actual corners of the earth? Seems to me that it is likely that this would be a reason for ANYONE to settle on 4 gospels among many.

Of course one could make similar arguments for other numbers, but if there are many gospels floating around, what would be a good number to settle on? IMO 1,3, or 4 would be the most likely choices. 1 would be chosen under the reasoning that there can be ONLY 1 right gospel. 2 is IMO too diametric--asking for too much in the way of comparison. 3 would relate to the trinity. 4 -- we see a decent reason here. Each one added after that adds complexity and is more than most people would want to keep track of.

[Stephan Huller]

Really? I am left speechless

[Stephan Huller]

Here is the primary information. We'll start with that first:

And the discourses of the man were thought so worthy of study even by the ancients, that Irenæus quotes his words: for instance, in the fourth book of his work Against Heresies, where he writes as follows: And Justin well says in his work against Marcion (τῷ πρὸς Μαρκίωνα συντάγματί), that he would not have believed the Lord himself if he had preached another God besides the Creator; and again in the fifth book of the same work he says: And Justin well said that before the coming of the Lord, Satan never dared to blaspheme God, because he did not yet know his condemnation. [Irenaeus Against Heresies 4.6.1; Eusebius Church History 4.18.9]

But Justin was especially prominent in those days. In the guise of a philosopher he preached the divine word, and contended for the faith in his writings. He wrote also a work against Marcion, in which he states that the latter was alive at the time he wrote. He speaks as follows: And there is a certain Marcion of Pontus, who is even now still teaching his followers to think that there is some other God greater than the Creator. And by the aid of the demons he has persuaded many of every race of men to utter blasphemy, and to deny that the maker of this universe is the father of Christ, and to confess that some other, greater than he, was the creator. And all who followed them are, as we have said, called Christians, just as the name of philosophy is given to philosophers, although they may have no doctrines in common. To this he adds: And we have also written a work against all the heresies that have existed, which we will give you if you wish to read it («ἔστιν δὲ ἡμῖν καὶ σύνταγμα κατὰ πασῶν τῶν γεγενημένων αἱρέσεων, ᾧ εἰ βούλεσθε ἐντυχεῖν, δώσομεν). [Eusebius Church History 4.11.10]

And also a definition of syntagma from Liddell

σύνταγμα
A. that which is put together in order:
1. body of troops drawn up in order, τὸ ς. τῶν συμμάχων their contingent, X. HG3.4.2, cf. 5.2.20; ς. ἱππέων corps of cavalry, Plb.9.3.9; τὸ ς. τῶν πεζῶν, = Lat. cohors, Id.11.23.1: metaph., τὸ ς. τῶν οἰμωξομένων the whole army of them, Luc.Tim.58. b. double τάξις or battalion, Ascl.Tact.2.8.
2. the constitution of a state, ς. πολιτείας a form of constitution, Isoc.7.28, 12.151; τὸ Λακωνικὸν κατάστημα καὶ ς. Plb. 6.50.2; ς. τῆς πολιτείας τρία three classes or orders of men in the state, D.S.1.74.

Interesting also is the fact that Celsus at the end of Origen's treatment of the Alethes Logos he notes that Celsus offers the Christians a syntagma of his own:

You must know, however, that Celsus had promised another treatise (ἄλλο σύνταγμα) as a sequel to this one, in which he engaged to supply practical rules of living to those (Christians) who felt disposed to embrace his opinions.

Photius makes reference to Hippolytus developing a syntagma of his own

the tractate entitled Against the Thirty-two Heresies (τὸ σύνταγμα κατὰ αἱρέσεων λβʹ) of Hippolytus, the pupil of Irenaeus. It begins with the Dositheans, and goes down to the heresies of Noetus and the Noetians. These he says were refuted (ἐλέγχοις) by Irenaeus in his addresses (ὁμιλοῦντος), of which the present work is a synopsis." [Photius Biblio. 121]

but as far as I can tell Irenaeus never made a syntagma of any sort only 'lecture' (= ὁμιλέω). This terminology has also interested me. It is used a lot of Socrates because it literally means 'to be in the company of' cf Xenocrates:

Sharing this knowledge and the principles I have indicated, is it to be supposed that these two men wanted to adopt the simple life of Socrates, and with this object in view sought his society? Did they not rather think that by associating with him (τῆς ὁμιλίας αὐτοῦ) they would attain the utmost proficiency in speech and action?

There is a point in the Marcionite attack against Adamantius when Megetheus accuses them of being 'those of Socrates.' I think this fits somewhere in here.

[Charles Wilson]

SH-
1. Welcome back.
Would you consider opening a New Thread and Posting the material you had on your Site concerning the "Ogdoad"? It was very nice and pointed to some interesting things. Thank you.

2. I offer, for considiration, the following. I believe that the use of the Term "Magician" may refer to Roman Emperors who "Fool the People". "Elymas" in Acts is probably Nero. Verse 10, below, calls Elymas "son of the devil" and that was certainly Nero. Though adopted by Claudius, Nero's father was a Beast. There was definitely something wrong with him. PhilosopherJay finds the blinding of Elymas unnecessary and mean. If what I have below is proper, the "Blinding of Elymas" is more benign, just another marker that Acts is a Roman Device.

Acts 13: 8 - 11 (RSV):

[8] But El'ymas the magician (for that is the meaning of his name) withstood them, seeking to turn away the proconsul from the faith.
[9] But Saul, who is also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him
[10] and said, "You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord?
[11] And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you shall be blind and unable to see the sun for a time." Immediately mist and darkness fell upon him and he went about seeking people to lead him by the hand.

Suetonius, 12 Caesars, "Nero":

"For as he was making the round of the temples and had sat down in the shrine of Vesta, first the fringe of his garment caught when he attempted to get up, and then such darkness overspread his eyes that he could see nothing."

This leads us to the "Simon Magus". If the identification of "Magician" <=> "Corrupt Emperor" is correct, then we need to find a clue as to which Emperor this is:

Acts 8: 17 - 20 (RSV):

[17] Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.
[18] Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money,
[19] saying, "Give me also this power, that any one on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit."
[20] But Peter said to him, "Your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money!

Our clue is "Silver" as in, "Sesterces':

Suetonius,12 Caesars, "Vitellius":

"In the eighth month of his reign the armies of the Moesian provinces and Pannonia revolted from him, and also in the provinces beyond the seas those of Judaea and Syria, the former swearing allegiance to Vespasian in his absence and the latter in his presence...Later, when his enemies were pressing him hard by land and sea, he opposed to them in one quarter his brother with a fleet manned by raw recruits and a band of gladiators, and in another the forces and leaders who had fought at Betriacum. And after he was everywhere either worsted or betrayed, he made a bargain with Flavius Sabinus, the brother of Vespasian, that he should have his own life and a hundred million sesterces."

'N yes, I realize that Simon is asking for his own life and 100,000,000 sesterces - 'Walkin' around money". Vitellius is hated more than any other figure against the Flavians. There is more to this Story and idea but I wanted to Post an alternative here. The use of "Magician" in Acts may be a reference to the Emperors who were able to fool the people.
[[Edit: It was Nero who kept Domitian, aka The Holy Spirit, hostage to insure Vespasian's "Loyalty". Some very High Stakes Intrigue goin' on...]]

Thanx, Stephan.

CW

[Stephan Huller]

Since so few people in the world actually like me or are happy to see me I feel bad criticizing your post. But why exactly is this the most likely answer?

[TedM]

Really? I am left speechless

Who are you replying to and why?

[Charles Wilson]

Since so few people in the world actually like me or are happy to see me I feel bad criticizing your post. But why exactly is this the most likely answer?

ANOTHER request for a thread from you: Your discussion on the argument for division of the Single Work into four:
"Blah-blah-blah, sunny day, etc., etc., AND NOW we see the gloriosity of the fourfold division because the Four Winds and so on..."

You were onto something. If we could find the date for authorship, we could date the time when SOMEONE (Probably Commodus, in your Work) sent down the order to divide the unified work into four.
Acts is the Source of Power for the Church since it details the placement of Control into the hands of the New Religious Orthodoxy. The Roman Creation provides a short term advantage for the Emperors who use it but they die off soon enough and the New Religious Orthodoxy, not surprisingly, wakes up and realizes that they have massive Power that they didn't have to fight for. Please see: Flavius Constantinus Heraclius. We're still fighting that one.

So Acts contains references to Emperors, I believe, and they are portrayed as magicians. Domitian has the pen and he rewrites vast swaths of material. There is the "Baptism of John" which is inferior to the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit". Etc..

Now the question in the thread is whether Simon Magus Invented the Four Gospel Tradition. You have invested a great deal of time in exploring the Diatessaron. Marcion. What level of Symbolism do you find that identifies Simon Magus? I just want to eliminate certain options here. If features in Acts can be identified, then it should be a Superhighway to the conclusion.

I want to add one more thing about the fourfold division. Atwill spends a great deal of time looking at the "Puzzle of the Empty Tomb". He reaches a very interesting conclusion: If you "Follow the Sun" in all four Stories, you find that the sun traces out four Stories that do not impinge on each. There is no contradiction in any of the details. The Story starts just before light, at daybreak, as the sun comes up, etc. The interactions of the characters could be depicted on any Mistaken Identity Sit-Com you care to mention.

So one reason for the Fourfold Division is that the Resurrection Story can be divided into four pieces and no one will be the wiser because they will manufacture their own Unification of the Stories.

Welcome back.

CW

[Stephan Huller]

None of these subsequent posts have any relevance to the discussion. The question is - why does Marutha's source connect the four gospels with Simon Magus? Please keep the discussion on track. The source is clearly written in Hebrew or Jewish Aramaic (or by someone who is familiar with the name Shimon deriving its origin from 'shema' and its derived meaning = obedient). Since the fourfold gospel is no earlier than Irenaeus that source would have to likely be (a) someone who lived in the East (b) someone who used a Diatessaron or a single gospel and (c) someone who was familiar with Hebrew.

[Stephan Huller]

Next step for Neil. Syntagma I think means 'constitution' when applied to a literary text most naturally. It is odd that all these 'constitutions' were being created in the mid second to early third centuries, isn't it? I mean, Justin, Celsus, Hippolytus all working out a 'constitution' of what is acceptable in Christianity through negative definitions of the various heresies 'arranged' in a row. From the Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature:

Both Eusebius and Jerome ascribe a treatise Against All Heresies to Hippolytus, and Photius refers to a Syntagma of Hippolytus against thirty-two heresies, beginning with the Dositheans and ending with Noetus and the Noetians. Among the extant works ascribed to Hippolytus is a 'Homily of Hippolytus, Archbishop of Rome and Martyr against the Heresy of a certain Noetus'. These works against heresies have been the centre of the storm in studies of Hippolytus. The first point of dispute was the relationship between the Syntagma, known only from its mention by Photius, and the preserved treatise Against Noetus. The latter begins with an exposition and refutation of the heresy of Noetus, and concludes with a 'demonstration of the truth'. In the seventeenth century it was proposed that the Against Noetus was a fragment from the end of the Syntagma. Since then the debate has been over whether the Against Noetus was an independent work, perhaps a homily as its title claims, or represents the end of the lost Syntagma.20 In 1865 R. A. Lipsius added some new information to the question of the Syntagma when he argued that Epiphanius, Philastrius, and Ps.-Tertullian had all drawn on the Syntagma, and that the little treatise of Ps.-Tertullian, Against All Heresies, preserves the list and order of the thirty-two heresies of the Syntagma, and is, in effect, a brief summary of the latter. He also considered Against Noetus to be a fragment from the end of the Syntagma. Lipsius' arguments concerning Ps.-Tertullian and the Syntagma have generally prevailed to the present. No agreement has been reached, however, on the relationship between the Syntagma, known only from its mention by Photius, and the preserved treatise. (p. 146)

So we start with what is generally considered to be certain - namely that Ps.-Tertullian likely derives from the syntagma mentioned by Photius in relation to Hippolytus. The next post we will go back one step further and note that scholars have also determined that some relationship also necessarily exists between this syntagma and its descendants and Book One of Irenaeus's Against Heresies. The relationship is ultimately quite complicated but many have argued that the section that starts with Simon (I think chapter 22 from memory) down through to the Cainites is likely derived from Justin's Syntagma.