Simon Magus Invented the Four Gospel tradition?

[Stephan Huller]

My only interest (and this doesn't seem to get a lot of attention from scholars) is that the syntagma genre if you will is a unique feature of pre-Nicene Christianity and part of the ecumenical 'ironing out of orthodoxy' out of a negative definition for the religion. In other words, the Catholic Church if you will defined itself principally and initially by what it was NOT or what its members COULDN'T BELIEVE. This is a startling thought. Imagine the constitution of a community which is wholly negatively defined. Curious.

[Stephan Huller]

Here is Sakari Hakkinen's summary of one of the arguments used to argue that Irenaeus used the Syntagma of Justin.

About the sources of Irenaeus' comment on Ebionites in Adv.haer I,26,2: I'll try to define the problem shortly. Irenaeus has known the Syntagma of Justin Martyr and he uses that work in his own heresiology (book I, section 23-31 of Adv. haer.I). That is commonly accepted. The original work of Justin could not, however, have mentioned Ebionites, because a) its arrangement differs from Justin's catalogue of heresies (Hilgenfeld 1884, 49, 57: "extra successionem haereticorum".) and b) Justin did not think such Jewish-Christians as heretics, who denied the virgin birth, believed Jesus only as a mere human and obeyed the Jewish law including circumcision (Dial. c. Trypho 47-48). The comments in Adv. haer. on Carpocrates, Cerinth, Ebinotes and Nicolaites are not, however, added by Irenaeus, except part of the section concerning Carpocrates. These comments are different from those Irenaeus has clearly added himself, e.g. on Valentin, Cainites, parts of Marcion, and Tatian (which could in no way belong to the original Syntagma!). However, we do not know any other heresiology but Justin's Syntagma from that time and Irenaeus does not mention his (other) sources. The only possibility seems to me that Irenaeus had a revised version of Justin's Syntagma. This "Syntagma II" was named Justin's Syntagma and it mentioned Carpocrates, Cerinth, Ebionites and Nicolaites as heretics among others. So, Syntagma II must have been written between 150-175 (after Syntagma I and before Adv. haer.). This theory was already introduced by Lipsius in 1865 (p. 176).

Why was it rewritten and by whom? An interesting theory about another lost Syntagma, that almost certainly mentioned Ebionites was given already in 1694, probably by John Deacon (thanks to Glen Menzies, who gave me that info). According to Deacon Hippolyte's lost Syntagma and Pseudo-Tertullian Adv. omn. haer. were written, because Justin was accused by unitarists of having derived his doctrines, especially the trinitarian one, from greek mythology and not the holy apostles. The apologists of (already past) Justin (the trinitarists) answered the accusations by adding to Justin's Syntagma heresies from clearly Jewish origin: at least Cerinth and Ebionites. Both of them were condemned especially for their christologies. Deacon introduces this theory when dealing with Hippolyte's Syntagma, but doesn't it fit even better to Justin's Syntagma II? I believe so. The addition was made by Justin's disciples/followers, who wanted to tell that already Justin thought that kind of Christians were heretics, who taught that Christ was born naturally and that he became Christ in his baptism and became some kind of a higher being but not God. This heresy originated not greek mythology, but Judaism. This theory gives a good explanation why and when Ebionites came heretical.

This was "my" theory. Another question follows naturally: how was this Syntagma II related to Hippolyte's lost Syntagma or could they be one and the same work, at first known as Justin's Syntagma, later as Hippolyte's? That might make sense! I don't know if that is possible.
I'm going to introduce the former theory in my diss. Any comments?

Sakari

Sakari Hakkinen
University of Helsinki
Department of Biblical Studies

[Stephan Huller]

Another possibility of course (which Hakkinen does not consider) is that Irenaeus created a syntagma and ascribed it to Justin thus eliminating the need to distinguish between Syntagma I and II. It is also worth noting that Book One of Irenaeus Adv Haer is the basic 'building block' for all the subsequent syntagmas. So let's start with this.

The division of the work is unusual as the section usually associated with Justin's Syntagma (chapters 23 - 31) have been inserted within what appears to be an extended anti-Valentinian polemic. In other words this is a separate 'literary unit' which has been strangely 'plopped down' into another Valentinian 'literary unit.' In fact I'd argue that the Cainite material really makes more sense as a continuation of the arguments about the Marcosians at the end of chapter 21. So we have on the surface:

anti-Valentinian treatise - introduction - chapter 21
strange 'recapitulation against the heresies' chapter 22
Syntagma (of Justin?) chapter 23 - 30
continuation of anti-Valentinian treatise - chapter 31

But there is more to consider. The anti-Valentinian treatise also consists of two distinct 'units' - i.e.

Against the Valentinians intro - chapter 12, last paragraph of chapter 31
Against the Marcosians chapter 13 - 21

That the anti-Valentinian treatise and the anti-Marcosian treatises both end with a discussion of 'related sects' becomes very confusing. Epiphanius for instance takes the discussion of the Marcosian 'redemption' baptism as a wholly separate discussion of the followers of Heracleon. Heracleon and Colarbasus seem to naturally be read as Marcosian sectarians while Ptolemy and the rest in chapter 12 seem to be Valentinian sectarians but because Against the Valentinians (which survives as a separate Latin treatise in Tertullian) and Against the Marcosians (mentioned by Epiphanius as another 'stand alone treatise') are placed back to back it became natural to associate the Marcosians as a subsect of the Valentinians.

[Stephan Huller]

So where does this all come down to? The main difference between the syntagma reflected in chapters 21 - 31 of Adv Haer and the syntagma of Hippolytus is the understanding of 'who was the head of the heresies.' In the case of Adv Haer it is Simon Magus but in the syntagma of Hippolytus it is the well known Samaritan Dositheus. Given that Justin and his syntagma lurk in the background somewhere it is extremely tempting to suggest that Justin (as a Samaritan) would have naturally placed Dositheus as the chief heretics and that this was changed for some reason in Irenaeus's list. It is difficult for me to believe that Hippolytus in the third century with no apparent link whatsoever to Samaritans would have changed Simon to Dositheus. So Hippolytus in some sense preserves a better sense of the original syntagma. (while Simon is identified as a Samaritan he is unknown to the Samaritans beyond being mentioned in Christian records).

If we take that as our starting point (i.e. that the Dositheans were 'real' and the Simonians 'fake' or at least with no discernable historical record within the Samaritan community) Acts emphasis with respect to the significance of Simon Magus in the early Church is problematic. Even the Pseudo-Clementines assumes that Simon was a descendant of the Dositheans (thus upholding the basic order of the syntagma of Hippolytus). I think it is likely that someone changed 'Dositheus' in the original syntagma to 'Simon' to make it accord with Acts and to avoid the implication that Christianity developed from Samaritanism.

[Stephan Huller]

And there are close parallels between 'Simon' and 'Dositheus' - namely their presentation of themselves as 'second Moses' figures. But I think the real problem emerges is you compile a list of 'the heresies' and the list is headed by 'Dositheus' a well known Samaritan heretical group (which likely dated back before the time of Jesus) rather than 'Simon' a freak show individual who started a movement. Who was the opposite of the Simonian community according to tradition? The 'church of Antioch' which Epiphanius identifies by the name the 'Eeshim.' But if the syntagma of Justin identified the first heresy as a Samaritan community which antedated the ministry of Jesus and perhaps Simon was a renegade from that community, the Eeshim or Christianity are 'boxed' in as a Samaritan movement. Why else would the first heresy have been the followers of Dositheus? It is a problem. Perhaps Justin's Samaritan background explains the interest in Dositheus. However if the point was that Dositheus was first and Simon second and so on then you still have the perplexing problem of 'what is the opposite of Dositheus' or better yet why was the early Church opposed to the Dositheus unless 'the true Church' was Samaritan. The opposite of Dosithean in historical Samaritanism is 'those of Mark' (Marqe)

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Stephan,

Fascinating thread. It is wonderful how few positive doctrines are used to refute the heresies. At so many moments where we would expect a reference to the Gospels or Acts to settle the issue, there is none.

Please continue.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

[perseusomega9]

The opposite of Dosithean in historical Samaritanism is 'those of Mark' (Marqe)

Can you give a quick refresher on what this means?

[Stephan Huller]

Because the current orthodoxy (liturgy etc) was established by Marqe and Dositheus was the traditional heretic of the community.

[Stephan Huller]

If we strip down the order of Irenaeus Adv Haer 1.23 - 31:

Simon Magus
Menander
Saturninus
Basilides
Carpocrates - - - - - - > Hegesippus
Cerinthus
Ebionites
Nicolaitanes
Cerdo - - - - - - - - - - >
Marcion - - - - - - - - - >
Tatian & Encratites
(Ends with broad statement tying up the last section as a unit) "Others, again, following upon Basilides and Carpocrates, have introduced promiscuous intercourse and a plurality of wives, and are indifferent about eating meats sacrificed to idols, maintaining that God does not greatly regard such matters. But why continue? For it is an impracticable attempt to mention all those who, in one way or another, have fallen away from the truth. " (1.28.2)
Various gnostic sects (begins with a statement that ties this next section with the Simonian material) "Besides those, however, among these heretics who are Simonians, and of whom we have already spoken, a multitude of Gnostics have sprung up, and have been manifested like mushrooms growing out of the ground. I now proceed to describe the principal opinions held by them. Some of them, then, set forth a certain AEon who never grows old, and exists in a virgin spirit: him they style Barbelos." (1.29.1)
Ophites & Sethians
Cainites (makes reference to Carpocratians which did not belong in Justin's Syntagma)

Philosophumena Book 5
Begins with a list that starts with Simon but assumes they are sectarians of the Ophites "Whatever opinions, then, were entertainedby those who derived the first principles (of their doctrine) from the serpent, and in process of time deliberately brought forward into public notice their tenets, we have explained in the book preceding this, (and) which is the fifth of the Refutation of Heresies. But now also I shall not be silent as regards the opinions of (heresiarchs) who follow these (Ophites in succession); nay, not one (speculation) will I leave unrefuted, if it is possible to remember all (their tenets), and the secret orgies of these (heretics) which one may fairly style orgies,--for they who propagate such audacious opinions are not far distant from the anger (of God),--that I may avail myself of the assistance of etymology." (5.1)
Simon Magus (attributes him to the philosopher Empedocles
Valentinus (attributes him to the philosopher Pythagoras 'who is like Empedocles')
Secundus
Ptolemy
Marcus (with reference to Irenaeus repeated over and over)
Basilides

Saturnilus & Menander (but the text seems to have originally followed a discussion of Menander as in Adv Haer "But one Saturnilus, who flourished about the same period with Basilides, but spent his time in Antioch, (a city) of Syria, propounded opinions akin to whatever (tenets) Menander (advanced). He asserts that there is one Father, unknown to all--He who had made angels, archangels, principalities, (and) powers; and that by certain angels, seven (in number), the world was made, and all things that are in it."
Marcion - - - - - - - - - - - - - >
Carpocrates - - - - - - - - - - - >
Cerinthus
Ebionites
Theodotus
Melchizedekians
Nicolatians
Cerdon
Apelles
Monoimus
Tatian & Encratites

[Stephan Huller]

There is this core text which emerges here

Menander
Saturninus/ilus
Cerinthus
Ebionites
Nicolatians
Tatian & the Encratites

There was no reference to Carpocrates, Cerdo, Marcion and the rest (Carpocrates comes from Hegesippus, the two accounts of Marcion are totally different). The difficulty though is that Tatian was also not on the list because Justin couldn't have identified his student as a heretic. The list necessarily comes from some period subsequent to Justin, maybe Irenaeus. But notice the list didn't originally begin with Simon either as there are two different accounts of Simon.