'Alternative Beginnings...Thomas and the Construction of Christian Origins'

[MrMacSon]

... the language of the "eschatological," used to refer euphemistically to Jesus' death, resurrection, and the experience of the spirit, must be abandoned as the starting point of scholarly discourse about the beginnings of Christianity. Eschatological language does not express a hard-won category of critical scholarship, but is a self-evident, mystifying notion which serves to maintain a theological claim that "guarantees the uniqueness of early Christianity by locating its novelty beyond data and debate."

We desperately need a critical review of the relationship of the conventional picture of Christian origins (traditionally accepted as authoritative history) to the myths of Christian origins that the biblical texts provide. Such a review is urgent: to continue to imagine the origins of Christianity the same way as Eusebius, governed by Luke's fiction of the genesis and growth of the church, is no longer constructive. If progress is to be made in reconstructing the formative history of Christianity, alternative explanations will have to be given, based on sophisticated theories, supported by detailed descriptions, not restricted to alleged originating moments, and advanced for different academic ends.

IV

A single shift in perspective can launch a new beginning in early Christian studies, by replacing the age-old preoccupation with the dramatic quest for a singular genesis with a fresh, disciplined focus upon the social history and imaginative labor documented by the texts. Such a shift would not only afford scholars the opportunity to produce "thicker" descriptions" of the various movements that make up the Christian tradition. It would also enable them to introduce into the discussion other, "apocryphal" texts often rejected and long neglected by scholarship. from the rich archives of ancient Christian literature.

But the focus of this initiative would be to understand, not the supposed generative experiences, but the social and intellectual occasions for imagining such beginnings. To investigate the reasons for constructing Christian myths, and to position early Christian texts and traditions at the intersection of complex literary and social histories, would be to explore the activities of late antique religious groups as human achievements of cultural significance appropriate for the times. In this respect, a reorientation of early Christian studies as a discipline cannot be accomplished by accumulating more data and then reducing it all to variations of habituated patterns of thought. No. "What is required" are theoretical advances that take seriously "the development of a [descriptive] discourse of 'difference,' a complex term" which, Jonathan Z. Smith has taught us, "invites negotiation, classification and comparison, and, at the same time, avoids too easy a discourse of the 'same'." For in the study of religion, as in any historical discipline, "the greatest impediment to scientific innovation is usually a conceptual lock, not a factual lack."

If alternative origins for Christianity are to be reconstructed, we will have to conceive of a different way to describe the rationales of identifiable communities who documented their beginnings by appealing to Jesus, but who did not necessarily imagine his death (and resurrection) as the decisive moment in the founding of the Christian church.

The Gospel of Thomas raises the critical issue of the historical construction of Christianity, for it is a document from the early period that has been either treated in isolation or simply ignored by most biblical scholars because its account of Christian beginnings does not square with the conventional picture gathered from the writings of the New Testament. The effects of subordinating the Gospel of Thomas to the canonical gospels are especially pernicious, in that Thomas is not taken seriously as a gospel worthy of study in its own right, but is reduced to the status of a textual variant in the history of the synoptic tradition. Whenever Thomas has been discussed, moreover, it invariably has been interpreted according to the prevailing model of Christian origins, even though it recognizes other factors at work in the social formation of its community. Accordingly, Thomas presents a direct challenge to the established construction of the formation of the church.

The Gospel of Thomas is a venerable document ... [it] was read widely in antiquity: the existence of "three different copies of the Greek text made at different times...in the third century"77 is proof of the regard that early Christians accorded this gospel ..//.. Eusebius...identifies a Gospel of Thomas in his list of writings rejected by the church (Hist. eccl. 3.25.6), and he appears to allude to a variant of Gos. Thom. 2, which is referred to as a "written oracle" allegedly used by the "Simonians" (Hist. eccl. 2.13.7).78

... any apparent references in Thomas to the traditional view of Christian origins will have to be assessed on their own terms, without recourse to a kerygmatic imagination, and independently of the dramatic events thought to be essential to the construction of Christian origins ...

... Thomas documents an alternate rationale sufficient to account for its beginnings. Methodologically, therefore, any claim to a single point of origination for Christianity, based on Eusebius, Luke-Acts, or some other textual tradition, will have to be rejected ...

The Gospel of Thomas cannot be explained as a variation of the Christian myth constructed by Luke and canonized by Eusebius. Its challenge to the conventional view of Christian origins is therefore clear. Rather than resurrecting illusory origins or awaiting apocalyptic ends, we are invited to enter into a different world of imaginative discourse, in which an independent group of...people invested its energies in building an interesting, alternate social formation. Thomas challenges the habituated assumptions and patterns of privilege granted the writings of the New Testament. They have no claim to special historical status. With texts like the Gospel of Thomas finally coming into view, our construction of the beginnings of Christianity will now have to be revised.

---

77 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, "The Oxyrhynehus Logoi ofJesus and the Coptic Gospel According to Thomas," in idem, Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (SBLSBS 5; Missaula, MT: Scholars Press, 1974) 362

78 See Grant, Eusebius as Church Historian, 137, who notes that "Eusebius speaks of the greater secrets of the Simonians and says that he who first hears of them will be astonished and 'according to a written oracle of theirs will marvel' " (τόν πρώτον έπαχούσαντα έχπλαγήσεσθαι χαί χατά τι αύτοίς λόγιον έγγραφον θαμβωθήσεσθαι, Hist. eccl. 2.13.7; cf. Gos. Heb. frg. 4)

Ron Cameron 'Alternative Beginnings - Different ends: Eusebius, Thomas, and the Construction of Christian Origins' in Religious Propaganda and Missionary Competition in the New Testament World: Essays Honoring Dieter Georgi, Novum Testamentum, Supplements, Vol. 74; editors: Lukas Bormann, Kelly Del Tredici, and Angela Standhartinger; Brill, 1994: pp.501-25 - specifically pp.517-25.

[mlinssen]

Wow. 1994, Ron Cameron

28 years ago

And it is especially painful to see that we have witnessed large commentaries on Thomas ever since, apart from the very minor stuff such as Valantasis and Leloup, both 240 pages without any Coptic (Leloup does have Coptic but his translation is even more fantastic than Lambdin's so the Coptic is just for show). Plisch has Coptic and Greek but hands out only one translation for the both combined which disqualifies it entirely, and the great Quispel so greatly disappoints with his commentary that has less than nothing to do with Thomas itself.
And then DeConick - it is pure unsubstantiated opinion and focuses entirely on her kernel fantasies alone, and she even manages to e.g. find no offense at all in the logia that explicitly forbid praying and giving alms, etcetera

The only one good work is by Gathercole and it is an amazing scholarly work, and he does deal with some of the predicaments and isn't afraid to throw his hands in the air when the situation calls for it - but no other work is such a brazen example of Christian bias as his, alas.
He emends the Greek, and bends both the Greek English as the Coptic English in order to demonstrate that there really are hardly any discrepancies between the both - while nothing is farther from the truth. Yet Layton / Attridge / Lambdin pulled that trick before in the Brill's, so why be any surprised?

Have we seen a Thomas Commentary by people who primarily look at the text, and do so while not submerged in and programmed by all things Christian, Catholic, orthodox?
Most certainly not - and while Quispel can be considered quite a rebel from an orthodox Christian point of view, he only abuses Thomas to chase his Jewish minimal Jesus across the face of the earth

So, 28 years gone by, without any academic publication by a professional academic that adds anything really

[Leucius Charinus]

///

Eusebius...identifies a Gospel of Thomas in his list of writings rejected by the church (Hist. eccl. 3.25.6), and he appears to allude to a variant of Gos. Thom. 2, which is referred to as a "written oracle" allegedly used by the "Simonians" (Hist. eccl. 2.13.7).78

---

78 See Grant, Eusebius as Church Historian, 137, who notes that "Eusebius speaks of the greater secrets of the Simonians and says that he who first hears of them will be astonished and 'according to a written oracle of theirs will marvel' " (τόν πρώτον έπαχούσαντα έχπλαγήσεσθαι χαί χατά τι αύτοίς λόγιον έγγραφον θαμβωθήσεσθαι, Hist. eccl. 2.13.7; cf. Gos. Heb. frg. 4)

Ron Cameron 'Alternative Beginnings - Different ends: Eusebius, Thomas, and the Construction of Christian Origins' in Religious Propaganda and Missionary Competition in the New Testament World: Essays Honoring Dieter Georgi, Novum Testamentum, Supplements, Vol. 74; editors: Lukas Bormann, Kelly Del Tredici, and Angela Standhartinger; Brill, 1994: pp.501-25 - specifically pp.517-25.

One written "Oracle" about Simon Magus which many scholars deduce would have been in circulation at the time of Eusebius is the "Recognitions of Clement". We should not lose sight of the quite reasonable possibility that this was authored and circulated by an Arian author c.330 CE. The Clementine literature fills in the gap as to what happened to Peter and Paul after the historical fiction known as The Acts of the Apostles finishes:

Here is what Eusebius writes:

Book II, Chapter XIII. Simon Magus.128

1 But faith in our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ having now been diffused among all men,129 the enemy of man's salvation contrived a plan for seizing the imperial city for himself. He conducted thither the above-mentioned Simon,130 aided him in his deceitful arts, led many of the inhabitants of Rome astray, and thus brought them into his own power.

2 This is stated by Justin,131 one of our distinguished writers who lived not long after the time of the apostles. Concerning him I shall speak in the proper place.132 Take and read the work of this man, who in the first Apology133 which he addressed to Antonine in behalf of our religion writes as follows:134

3 "And after the ascension of the Lord into heaven the demons put forward certain men who said they were gods, and who were not only allowed by you to go unpersecuted, but were even deemed worthy of honors. One of them was Simon, a Samaritan of the village of Gitto,135 who in the reign of Claudius Caesar136 performed in your imperial city some mighty acts of magic by the art of demons operating in him, and was considered a god, and as a god was honored by you with a statue, which was erected in the river Tiber,137 between the two bridges, and bore this inscription in the Latin tongue, Simoni Deo Sancto, that is, To Simon the Holy God.138

Which is surely a fraud.

4 And nearly all the Samaritans and a few even of other nations confess and worship him as the first God. And there went around with him at that time a certain Helena139 who had formerly been a prostitute in Tyre of Phoenicia; and her they call the first idea that proceeded from him."140

5 Justin relates these things, and Irenaeus also agrees with him in the first book of his work, Against Heresies, where he gives an account of the man141 and of his profane and impure teaching. It would be superfluous to quote his account here, for it is possible for those who wish to know the origin and the lives and the false doctrines of each of the heresiarchs that have followed him, as well as the customs practiced by them all, to find them treated at length in the above-mentioned work of Irenaeus.

6 We have understood that Simon was the author of all heresy.142 From his time down to the present those who have followed his heresy have reigned the sober philosophy of the Christians, which is celebrated among all on account of its purity of life. But they nevertheless have embraced again the superstitions of idols, which they seemed to have renounced; and they fall down before pictures and images of Simon himself and of the above-mentioned Helena who was with him; and they venture to worship them with incense and sacrifices and libations.

Simon was the author of all heresy?

This is the heresiological catch-cry echoed by all the Ante Nicene heresiological F fathers both before, during and after Eusebius. Simon was a literary character raised to the top of the Apocryphal Top 40 charts by the pernicious Arian author of the Clementine Recognitions. How horrified was Eusebius about this account?

Surely we are dealing with books that contain no history - canonical books, apocryphal books and the books of "Ecclesiastical Legends".

7 But those matters which they keep more secret than these, in regard to which they say that one upon first hearing them would be astonished, and, to use one of the written phrases in vogue among them, would be confounded,143 are in truth full of amazing things, and of madness and folly, being of such a sort that it is impossible not only to commit them to writing, but also for modest men even to utter them with the lips on account of their excessive baseness and lewdness.144

8 For what ever could be conceived of, viler than thevilest thing - all that has been outdone by this most abominable sect, which is composed of those who make a sport of those miserable females that are literally overwhelmed with all kinds of vices.145

Chapter XIV. The Preaching of the Apostle Peter in Rome.

1 The evil power,146 who hates all that isgood and plots against the salvation of men, constituted Simon at that time the father and author of such wickedness,147 as if to make him a mighty antagonist of the great, inspired apostles of our Saviour.

2 For that divine and celestial grace which co-operates with its ministers, by their appearance and presence, quickly extinguished the kindled flame of evil, and humbled and cast down through them "every high thing that exalted itself against the knowledge of God."148

3 Wherefore neither the conspiracy of Simon nor that of any of the others who arose at that period could accomplish anything in those apostolic times. For everything was conquered and subdued by the splendors of the truth and by the divine word itself which had but lately begun to shine from heaven upon men, and which was then flourishing upon earth, and dwelling in the apostles themselves.

4 Immediately149 the above-mentioned impostor was smitten in the eyes of his mind by a divine and miraculous flash, and after the evil deeds done by him had been first detected by the apostle Peter in Judea,150 he fled and made a great journey across the sea from the East to the West, thinking that only thus could he live according to his mind.

5 And coming to the city of Rome,151 by the mighty co-operation of that power which was lying in wait there, he was in a short time so successful in his undertaking that those who dwelt there honored him as a god by the erection of a statue.152

6 But this did not last long. For immediately, during the reign of Claudius, the all-good and gracious Providence, which watches over all things, led Peter, that strongest and greatest of the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others, to Rome153 against this great corrupter of life. He like a noble commander of God, clad in divine armor, carried the costly merchandise of the light of the understanding from the East to those who dwelt in the West, proclaiming the light itself, and the word which brings salvation to souls, and preaching the kingdom of heaven.154

Blah. Blah. Blah.

[mlinssen]

///

Eusebius...identifies a Gospel of Thomas in his list of writings rejected by the church (Hist. eccl. 3.25.6), and he appears to allude to a variant of Gos. Thom. 2, which is referred to as a "written oracle" allegedly used by the "Simonians" (Hist. eccl. 2.13.7).78

---

78 See Grant, Eusebius as Church Historian, 137, who notes that "Eusebius speaks of the greater secrets of the Simonians and says that he who first hears of them will be astonished and 'according to a written oracle of theirs will marvel' " (τόν πρώτον έπαχούσαντα έχπλαγήσεσθαι χαί χατά τι αύτοίς λόγιον έγγραφον θαμβωθήσεσθαι, Hist. eccl. 2.13.7; cf. Gos. Heb. frg. 4)

Ron Cameron 'Alternative Beginnings - Different ends: Eusebius, Thomas, and the Construction of Christian Origins' in Religious Propaganda and Missionary Competition in the New Testament World: Essays Honoring Dieter Georgi, Novum Testamentum, Supplements, Vol. 74; editors: Lukas Bormann, Kelly Del Tredici, and Angela Standhartinger; Brill, 1994: pp.501-25 - specifically pp.517-25.

One written "Oracle" about Simon Magus which many scholars deduce would have been in circulation at the time of Eusebius is the "Recognitions of Clement". We should not lose sight of the quite reasonable possibility that this was authored and circulated by an Arian author c.330 CE. The Clementine literature fills in the gap as to what happened to Peter and Paul after the historical fiction known as The Acts of the Apostles finishes:

Here is what Eusebius writes:

Book II, Chapter XIII. Simon Magus.128

1 But faith in our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ having now been diffused among all men,129 the enemy of man's salvation contrived a plan for seizing the imperial city for himself. He conducted thither the above-mentioned Simon,130 aided him in his deceitful arts, led many of the inhabitants of Rome astray, and thus brought them into his own power.

2 This is stated by Justin,131 one of our distinguished writers who lived not long after the time of the apostles. Concerning him I shall speak in the proper place.132 Take and read the work of this man, who in the first Apology133 which he addressed to Antonine in behalf of our religion writes as follows:134

3 "And after the ascension of the Lord into heaven the demons put forward certain men who said they were gods, and who were not only allowed by you to go unpersecuted, but were even deemed worthy of honors. One of them was Simon, a Samaritan of the village of Gitto,135 who in the reign of Claudius Caesar136 performed in your imperial city some mighty acts of magic by the art of demons operating in him, and was considered a god, and as a god was honored by you with a statue, which was erected in the river Tiber,137 between the two bridges, and bore this inscription in the Latin tongue, Simoni Deo Sancto, that is, To Simon the Holy God.138

Which is surely a fraud.

4 And nearly all the Samaritans and a few even of other nations confess and worship him as the first God. And there went around with him at that time a certain Helena139 who had formerly been a prostitute in Tyre of Phoenicia; and her they call the first idea that proceeded from him."140

5 Justin relates these things, and Irenaeus also agrees with him in the first book of his work, Against Heresies, where he gives an account of the man141 and of his profane and impure teaching. It would be superfluous to quote his account here, for it is possible for those who wish to know the origin and the lives and the false doctrines of each of the heresiarchs that have followed him, as well as the customs practiced by them all, to find them treated at length in the above-mentioned work of Irenaeus.

6 We have understood that Simon was the author of all heresy.142 From his time down to the present those who have followed his heresy have reigned the sober philosophy of the Christians, which is celebrated among all on account of its purity of life. But they nevertheless have embraced again the superstitions of idols, which they seemed to have renounced; and they fall down before pictures and images of Simon himself and of the above-mentioned Helena who was with him; and they venture to worship them with incense and sacrifices and libations.

Simon was the author of all heresy?

This is the heresiological catch-cry echoed by all the Ante Nicene heresiological F fathers both before, during and after Eusebius. Simon was a literary character raised to the top of the Apocryphal Top 40 charts by the pernicious Arian author of the Clementine Recognitions. How horrified was Eusebius about this account?

Surely we are dealing with books that contain no history - canonical books, apocryphal books and the books of "Ecclesiastical Legends".

7 But those matters which they keep more secret than these, in regard to which they say that one upon first hearing them would be astonished, and, to use one of the written phrases in vogue among them, would be confounded,143 are in truth full of amazing things, and of madness and folly, being of such a sort that it is impossible not only to commit them to writing, but also for modest men even to utter them with the lips on account of their excessive baseness and lewdness.144

8 For what ever could be conceived of, viler than thevilest thing - all that has been outdone by this most abominable sect, which is composed of those who make a sport of those miserable females that are literally overwhelmed with all kinds of vices.145

Chapter XIV. The Preaching of the Apostle Peter in Rome.

1 The evil power,146 who hates all that isgood and plots against the salvation of men, constituted Simon at that time the father and author of such wickedness,147 as if to make him a mighty antagonist of the great, inspired apostles of our Saviour.

2 For that divine and celestial grace which co-operates with its ministers, by their appearance and presence, quickly extinguished the kindled flame of evil, and humbled and cast down through them "every high thing that exalted itself against the knowledge of God."148

3 Wherefore neither the conspiracy of Simon nor that of any of the others who arose at that period could accomplish anything in those apostolic times. For everything was conquered and subdued by the splendors of the truth and by the divine word itself which had but lately begun to shine from heaven upon men, and which was then flourishing upon earth, and dwelling in the apostles themselves.

4 Immediately149 the above-mentioned impostor was smitten in the eyes of his mind by a divine and miraculous flash, and after the evil deeds done by him had been first detected by the apostle Peter in Judea,150 he fled and made a great journey across the sea from the East to the West, thinking that only thus could he live according to his mind.

5 And coming to the city of Rome,151 by the mighty co-operation of that power which was lying in wait there, he was in a short time so successful in his undertaking that those who dwelt there honored him as a god by the erection of a statue.152

6 But this did not last long. For immediately, during the reign of Claudius, the all-good and gracious Providence, which watches over all things, led Peter, that strongest and greatest of the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others, to Rome153 against this great corrupter of life. He like a noble commander of God, clad in divine armor, carried the costly merchandise of the light of the understanding from the East to those who dwelt in the West, proclaiming the light itself, and the word which brings salvation to souls, and preaching the kingdom of heaven.154

Blah. Blah. Blah.

This is, apart from the disgusting falsifications of the FF, more than most interesting

7 But those matters which they keep more secret than these, in regard to which they say that one upon first hearing them would be astonished, and, to use one of the written phrases in vogue among them, would be confounded,143

Logion 2 last part right there

(being of such a sort that it is impossible not only to commit them to writing), but also for modest men even to utter them with the lips on (account of their excessive baseness and lewdness.144)

Thomas speaking, logion 13

If you read the NT in full you'll be incapable of belief in any Jesus.
If you read even two dozen pages of a Falsifying Father you will understand why and how Christianity operates as it does - there simply are no limits at all to selling falsehoods as truths

3 Wherefore neither the conspiracy of Simon nor that of any of the others who arose at that period could accomplish anything in those apostolic times. For everything was conquered and subdued by the splendors of the truth and by the divine word itself which had but lately begun to shine from heaven upon men, and which was then flourishing upon earth, and dwelling in the apostles themselves.

Err, sorry guys. But isn't this a feeble attempt to postdate Chrestianity, yet when looking at the dating then "the real Christianity" allegedly came into being just a bit before.
Worse, it coincides with Peter!

and preaching the kingdom of heaven

Wait w00t, not of God?

[MrMacSon]

Here is what Eusebius writes:

Book II, Chapter XIII : Simon Magus

1 But faith in our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ having now been diffused among all men, the enemy of man's salvation contrived a plan for seizing the imperial city for himself. He conducted thither the above-mentioned Simon, aided him in his deceitful arts, led many of the inhabitants of Rome astray, and thus brought them into his own power.

2 This is stated by Justin, one of our distinguished writers who lived not long after the time of the apostles. Concerning him I shall speak in the proper place. Take and read the work of this man, who in the First Apology which he addressed to Antonine in behalf of our religion writes as follows:

3 "And after the ascension of the Lord into heaven the demons put forward certain men who said they were gods, and who were not only allowed by you to go unpersecuted, but were even deemed worthy of honors. One of them was Simon, a Samaritan of the village of Gitto, who in the reign of Claudius Caesar performed in your imperial city some mighty acts of magic by the art of demons operating in him, and was considered a god, and as a god was honored by you with a statue, which was erected in the river Tiber, between the two bridges, and bore this inscription in the Latin tongue, Simoni Deo Sancto, that is, To Simon the Holy God*

4 And nearly all the Samaritans and a few even of other nations confess and worship him as the first God. And there went around with him at that time a certain Helena139 who had formerly been a prostitute in Tyre of Phoenicia; and her they call the first idea that proceeded from him."

5 Justin relates these things, and Irenaeus also agrees with him in the first book of his work, Against Heresies, where he gives an account of the man and of his profane and impure teaching ...

* which is surely a fraud.

Justin mistakes that inscription - to a very ancient god called Semo Sancus - as being for Simon [Magus] the Samarian (and it properly reads “Sanco sancto Semoni deo fidio…” not “Simoni Deo Sancto” [ To Simon, the holy god ]).

I'm pretty sure David Litwa is writing a comprehensive book on Simon the Samarian and the various and likely changing 'traditions' about him

[MrMacSon]

Thomas speaking, logion 13

To clarify: you're saying that -

being of such a sort that it is impossible not only to commit them to writing), but also for modest men even to utter them with the lips on (account of their excessive baseness and lewdness.

- ie. the last third or so of Eusebius' Hist. eccl. 2.13.7 is G.Thomas 13 ?

[mlinssen]

Thomas speaking, logion 13

To clarify: you're saying that -

being of such a sort that it is impossible not only to commit them to writing), but also for modest men even to utter them with the lips on (account of their excessive baseness and lewdness.

- ie. the last third or so of Eusebius' Hist. eccl. 2.13.7 is G.Thomas 13 ?

Tentative would be the least to use for that, yes.
This is the literal part:

oh writer Wholly my(F) mouth will receive he not that say it :
you(SG) resemble who?

Admittedly this only becomes feasible when one wants it to be so - but I'd have to see the original text first

[MrMacSon]

Eusebius' H.E. 2.13.7:

7] τὰ δὲ τούτων αὐτοῖς ἀπορρητότερα, ὧν φασι τὸν πρῶτον ἐπακούσαντα ἐκπλαγήσεσθαι καὶ κατά τι παῤ αὐτοῖς λόγιον ἔγγραφον θαμβωθήσεσθαι, θάμβους ὡς ἀληθῶς καὶ φρενῶν ἐκστάσεως καὶ μανίας ἔμπλεα τυγχάνει, τοιαῦτα ὄντα, ὡς μὴ μόνον μὴ δυνατὰ εἶναι παραδοθῆναι γραφῇ, ἀλλ̓ οὐδὲ χείλεσιν αὐτὸ μόνον δἰ ὑπερβολὴν αἰσχρουργίας τε καὶ ἀρρητοποιίας ἀνδράσι σώφροσι λαληθῆναι.

via https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/te ... ection%3D7

[mlinssen]

Eusebius' H.E. 2.13.7:

7] τὰ δὲ τούτων αὐτοῖς ἀπορρητότερα, ὧν φασι τὸν πρῶτον ἐπακούσαντα ἐκπλαγήσεσθαι καὶ κατά τι παῤ αὐτοῖς λόγιον ἔγγραφον θαμβωθήσεσθαι, θάμβους ὡς ἀληθῶς καὶ φρενῶν ἐκστάσεως καὶ μανίας ἔμπλεα τυγχάνει, τοιαῦτα ὄντα, ὡς μὴ μόνον μὴ δυνατὰ εἶναι παραδοθῆναι γραφῇ, ἀλλ̓ οὐδὲ χείλεσιν αὐτὸ μόνον δἰ ὑπερβολὴν αἰσχρουργίας τε καὶ ἀρρητοποιίας ἀνδράσι σώφροσι λαληθῆναι.

via https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/te ... ection%3D7

λέγει ιης] μὴ παυσάσθω ὁ ζη[τῶν ... ἕως ἂν] εὕρῃ καὶ ὅταν εὕρ[ῃ θαμβηθήσεται καὶ θαμ]βηθεὶς βασιλεύσει κ[α ̤ ὶ βασιλεύσας αναπαήσεται.

https://archive.org/details/MN40272ucmf ... 5/mode/2up

No Greek copy of logion 13, alas

Impossible to relate to it, and χείλεσιν does mean lips, σώφρων means sensible. Which would imply Thomas to be sensible and using his lips - no way José

[Leucius Charinus]

Here is what Eusebius writes:

Book II, Chapter XIII : Simon Magus

1 But faith in our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ having now been diffused among all men, the enemy of man's salvation contrived a plan for seizing the imperial city for himself. He conducted thither the above-mentioned Simon, aided him in his deceitful arts, led many of the inhabitants of Rome astray, and thus brought them into his own power.

2 This is stated by Justin, one of our distinguished writers who lived not long after the time of the apostles. Concerning him I shall speak in the proper place. Take and read the work of this man, who in the First Apology which he addressed to Antonine in behalf of our religion writes as follows:

3 "And after the ascension of the Lord into heaven the demons put forward certain men who said they were gods, and who were not only allowed by you to go unpersecuted, but were even deemed worthy of honors. One of them was Simon, a Samaritan of the village of Gitto, who in the reign of Claudius Caesar performed in your imperial city some mighty acts of magic by the art of demons operating in him, and was considered a god, and as a god was honored by you with a statue, which was erected in the river Tiber, between the two bridges, and bore this inscription in the Latin tongue, Simoni Deo Sancto, that is, To Simon the Holy God*

4 And nearly all the Samaritans and a few even of other nations confess and worship him as the first God. And there went around with him at that time a certain Helena139 who had formerly been a prostitute in Tyre of Phoenicia; and her they call the first idea that proceeded from him."

5 Justin relates these things, and Irenaeus also agrees with him in the first book of his work, Against Heresies, where he gives an account of the man and of his profane and impure teaching ...

* which is surely a fraud.

Justin mistakes that inscription - to a very ancient god called Semo Sancus - as being for Simon [Magus] the Samarian (and it properly reads “Sanco sancto Semoni deo fidio…” not “Simoni Deo Sancto” [ To Simon, the holy god ]).

Do you really think Justin made a mistake? What better way of supporting the argument that Simon is historical than by citing (fake) archeological evidence?

Legions of Christian heresiologists over a supposed two century span are falling over themselves trying to convince the reader and posterity that the minor figure (Simon Magus) in the Acts of the Apostles (an account which is almost certainly an historical fiction) is an historical figure? I don't buy the proposition that Justin made a mistake. I view it as another instance of fraud by the FF.

I'm pretty sure David Litwa is writing a comprehensive book on Simon the Samarian and the various and likely changing 'traditions' about him

I note you apostrophize 'traditions'. That's a start.

Although I have not read this book Litwa's content is basically Eusebius' "historical" writings and his quotation of documents authored by "The Fathers". These are the sources doing the talking.

Found Christianities: Remaking the World of the Second Century CE
by M. David Litwa

M. David Litwa tells the stories of the early Christians whose religious identity was either challenged or outright denied. In the second century many different groups and sects claimed to be the only Orthodox or authentic version of Christianity, and Litwa shows how those groups and figures on the side of developing Christian Orthodoxy often dismissed other versions of Christianity by refusing to call them “Christian”. However, the writings and treatises against these groups contain fascinating hints of what they believed, and why they called themselves Christian.

Litwa outlines these different groups and the controversies that surrounded them, presenting readers with an overview of the vast tapestry of beliefs that made up second century Christianity. By moving beyond notions of “gnostic”, “heretical” and “orthodox” Litwa allows these “lost Christianities” to speak for themselves. He also questions the notion of some Christian identities “surviving” or “perishing”, arguing that all second century "Catholic" groups look very different to any form of modern Roman Catholicism.

Litwa shows that countless discourses, ideas, and practices are continually recycled and adapted throughout time in the building of Christian identities, and indeed that the influence of so-called “lost” Christianities can still be felt today.

The fact is that the influence of the Ante Nicene, Nicene and Post Nicene "Fathers" can still be felt today. These are the "Father Figures" of Christian origins. Did they write about historical events or did they write dissembling and fictional narratives about the first 300 years? Did Justin forge a "preposterous rescript of Marcus Aurelius? Did Justin forge a reply to his First Apology, addressed to the Emperor Antoninus Pius?

Simon of Samaria and Helen of Tyre
M. David Litwa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYQME7S_aL0