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

[MrMacSon]

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?

Dunno. Don't care. The main thing is that this is increasingly known as 'misrepresentation' (& I did wonder^ about saying misrepresented).

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

Litwa has also produced

• a review of Salles Dabadie's book, Simon le Mage
  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9bPTjYOFX0

• a review of Karlmann Beyschlag's Simon Magus
  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AELRYgcDigg&t=556s

• a review of Gerd Ludemann's Simonian Gnosis
  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ket-NYs3XaI

and

• a review of Sami Yli-Karjanma's Reincarnation in Philo to see if Philo's views about reincarnation/transmigration might have been able to influence Simonian Christians)

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RH9mICMd4s&t=96s
  
  Litwa concludes Philo's views did pave the way for consideration of transmigration by early Alexandrian Christian authors, with "figures like Carpocrates, Basilides, and possibly Simonians, all affirming some version of transmigration." [17.15f]

There's a few more video's and articles on Litwa's Patreon about 'Simon' and Simonians such as

• a review of Jarl Fossum's, The Name of God, in which Fossum gives a grand synthesis of how Simon of Samaria was 'a heretical Samaritan'. Therein Litwa focuses on weakness of method.

• Simon the Sorcerer I
  • an exposition of Simon in the book of Acts 8:9-24 ... how this passage in Acts was constructed; the significance of the Great Power title; and what Acts indicates about Simonians in second-century Samaria.

• Simon the Sorcerer II
  • "Did Justin lie about Simon’s statue in Rome? Was he just confused? Were Simonians misled or did they reasonably see Simon in the statue? How did they get from Samaria to Tiber island in Rome? Find out. Rome [was] not as Catholic as you think …"

• 'Who were the Samaritans'

and

• Who were the Magi?

Hence, I think a book by Litwa about Simon and Simonians will be forthcoming.

[Leucius Charinus]

Do you really think Justin made a mistake?

Dunno. Don't care. The main thing is that this is increasingly known as 'misrepresentation' (& I did wonder^ about saying misrepresented).

Fair enough.

Hence, I think a book by Litwa about Simon and Simonians will be forthcoming.

That may prove to be interesting. Different versions of Simon Magus are starting to appear as did the different versions of the historical Jesus. Thanks for the links.


To your knowledge does Litwa demonstrate any skepticism whatsoever as to the historical existence of Simon and these so-called Simonians? I do understand Litwa is relating information following research but does he make any subjective assessments - or disclaimers - about his source material (primarily heresiological texts)?

[MrMacSon]

To your knowledge does Litwa demonstrate any skepticism whatsoever as to the historical existence of Simon and these so-called Simonians? I do understand Litwa is relating information following research but does he make any subjective assessments - or disclaimers - about his source material (primarily heresiological texts)?

In Founding Christianities, Litwa notes there is a Simonian text pretty well preserved in the Refutation of all Heresies 6:14-18 which he, at least, calls the (Great) Declaration Commentary. At its heart is allegorical reading on Genesis 1-3. In it, the term logos refers once to scripture and another time to Moses.

Litwa notes that Acts' [of the Apostles], Irenaeus' and Justin Martyr's accounts are polemic enough to strongly suggest Simonian beliefs were a problem in the mid second century (though Irenaeus reflects Acts): Simon was seen as a manifestation of Christ, and eventually as Christ. Simonians eventually even saw the Trinity a manifestation of Simon.

Justin said Simonians worshiped Simon as “the primal God” which would have elevated him above other deities such as Romulus, Heracles and Jesus, who were portrayed as 'Sons of Gods' ie. subordinate to the High Deity. Litwa thinks Justin was exaggerating to make Simonian Christians appear ridiculous and as an appeal that his - ie. Justin’s – Christian group were more reasonable.

He notes that Justin Martyr claimed all Samarians worshiped Simon but thinks that he was just referring to Samarian Christians in Rome.

Origen observed that the only people who spoke of Simon are Christians.

But Litwas says 'Simon of Samaria' is an elusive figure.

He also noted:

Eusebius of Caesarea...had to admit that there were even earlier figures [whose followers] - wrongly in his opinion - presented themselves as Christians: Meander of Antioch [who] appeared about 80CE; Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans lived in late first-century Asia Minor. Still earlier was Simon of Samaria about 35 CE. So, in spite of Eusebius's theory that 'heresy' was late, derivative, and short-lived, his own history indicates that in some cases it was early, independent, and enduring.

It'll be interesting what Litwa's recent research comes up with.

[Leucius Charinus]

To your knowledge does Litwa demonstrate any skepticism whatsoever as to the historical existence of Simon and these so-called Simonians? I do understand Litwa is relating information following research but does he make any subjective assessments - or disclaimers - about his source material (primarily heresiological texts)?

In Founding Christianities, Litwa notes there is a Simonian text pretty well preserved in the Refutation of all Heresies 6:14-18 which he, at least, calls the (Great) Declaration Commentary. At its heart is allegorical reading on Genesis 1-3. In it, the term logos refers once to scripture and another time to Moses.

Litwa notes that Acts' [of the Apostles], Irenaeus' and Justin Martyr's accounts are polemic enough to strongly suggest Simonian beliefs were a problem in the mid second century (though Irenaeus reflects Acts): Simon was seen as a manifestation of Christ, and eventually as Christ. Simonians eventually even saw the Trinity a manifestation of Simon.

Justin said Simonians worshiped Simon as “the primal God” which would have elevated him above other deities such as Romulus, Heracles and Jesus, who were portrayed as 'Sons of Gods' ie. subordinate to the High Deity. Litwa thinks Justin was exaggerating to make Simonian Christians appear ridiculous and as an appeal that his - ie. Justin’s – Christian group were more reasonable.

He notes that Justin Martyr claimed all Samarians worshiped Simon but thinks that he was just referring to Samarian Christians in Rome.

Origen observed that the only people who spoke of Simon are Christians.

But Litwas says 'Simon of Samaria' is an elusive figure.

He also noted:

Eusebius of Caesarea...had to admit that there were even earlier figures [whose followers] - wrongly in his opinion - presented themselves as Christians: Meander of Antioch [who] appeared about 80CE; Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans lived in late first-century Asia Minor. Still earlier was Simon of Samaria about 35 CE. So, in spite of Eusebius's theory that 'heresy' was late, derivative, and short-lived, his own history indicates that in some cases it was early, independent, and enduring.

It'll be interesting what Litwa's recent research comes up with.

Thanks for all that Mac. My own take on the relatively small amount of material I have gleaned from Litwa is that he does not have much skepticism for the "Fathers" and/or Eusebius. He seems to recount myriad patristic elements as though they were facts.