The forgotten third Christian movement

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
RParvus
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 8:16 am

Re: The forgotten third Christian movement

Post by RParvus »

neilgodfrey wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 9:54 pm Roger -- I am reminded (it is a long time since I read the Gospel of Judas) that Judas is not one of the Twelve. Rather, he stands apart, perhaps comparable the Gospel of John's Beloved Disciple, yet alongside the Twelve. (I am mentioning this point because it relates to another question I have expressed in another thread re the origin of Judas in our canonical gospels.)
In the Gospel of Judas (at 35-36) Jesus says to Judas:

“Step away from the others and I shall tell you the mysteries of the kingdom. It is possible for you to reach it, but you will grieve a great deal. For someone else will replace you, in order that the twelve may again come to completion with their god.”

It looks like Jesus is foretelling that the rest of the twelve will replace Judas because he, having been enlightened by Jesus, is no longer on board with their god. Nothing here about Judas betraying Jesus in the future.

Now suppose that a parable-telling Jesus was a modification introduced by Basilides into an earlier version of gMark. And suppose that at Mk 4:10 Basilides had: “And when he was alone, Judas questioned him about the parables… “ And that Jesus explained to him that there are two types of soil: good and bad.

That is something the proto-orthodox would either have to delete or modify. Perhaps changing it to “And when he was alone, those present along with the Twelve questioned him about the parables…” (which is the way it reads at present). And changing Jesus’ explanation of the parable so that the responsibility for fruitfulness lies with the soils, not their maker.

I realize I am supposing a lot. It is for illustration purposes only.
RParvus
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 8:16 am

Re: The forgotten third Christian movement

Post by RParvus »

MrMacSon wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 2:00 pm
RParvus wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 1:29 pm It is the same incident as the switcheroo I mentioned between Simon of Cyrene and the laughing Jesus (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1,24, 4). Some think it was gMark’s careless use of pronouns at 15: 21–25 that gave Basilides the idea for the switcheroo. But if, as I suspect, Basilides modified an earlier gMark, the so-called carelessness may have been deliberate.
What is Mark modified Basilides? (fwiw, I think switcheroos were more common than is acknowledged)
Yes, the proto-orthodox had the last say. I think they kept a lot of what Basilides brought in but changed it wherever necessary to mesh with their own beliefs. Same thing in regard to Saturnilus’ interpolation of Paul’s letters. The proto-orthodox liked to claim that their beliefs were in direct continuity with the earliest belief in Jesus. But some of them must have known how extensive the Simonian contribution to the New Testament was.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The forgotten third Christian movement

Post by neilgodfrey »

RParvus wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 2:48 pm I realize I am supposing a lot. It is for illustration purposes only.
At least it suggests that there need not be an incompatibility in the hypotheses and Irenaeus's larger account.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The forgotten third Christian movement

Post by MrMacSon »

RParvus wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 3:06 pm
MrMacSon wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 2:00 pm
RParvus wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 1:29 pm It is the same incident as the switcheroo I mentioned between Simon of Cyrene and the laughing Jesus (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1,24, 4). Some think it was gMark’s careless use of pronouns at 15: 21–25 that gave Basilides the idea for the switcheroo. But if, as I suspect, Basilides modified an earlier gMark, the so-called carelessness may have been deliberate.
What is Mark modified Basilides? (fwiw, I think switcheroos were more common than is acknowledged)
Yes, the proto-orthodox had the last say. I think they kept a lot of what Basilides brought in but changed it wherever necessary to mesh with their own beliefs. Same thing in regard to Saturnilus’ interpolation of Paul’s letters. The proto-orthodox liked to claim that their beliefs were in direct continuity with the earliest belief in Jesus. But some of them must have known how extensive the Simonian contribution to the New Testament was.
Cheers Roger, but. apart from my spelling error, I meant 'What if Mark modified Basilides?", though I think you've picked up on the intended question
davidmartin
Posts: 1588
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: The forgotten third Christian movement

Post by davidmartin »

Simon of Cyrene and the laughing Jesus
This scene and others like it (and the Judas gospel) is really a response to orthodoxy from the likes of Saturnilus
I don't think there's any certainty the original Simonians were as dualistic as he was, and some evidence they weren't eg what Hippolytus says about them - here the Simonians make allegorical use of the Hebrew scriptures. They're straight up 'mystical' but not classical gnostics, they could easily have influenced the gospels, because there's plenty of similarities between Simon's story and Jesus's. Perhaps some later gnostic groups might have disliked the Simonians for not being true gnostics... evidence for that too is found in the Coptic apoc. of Peter where Simon and Helena are opposed
rgprice
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: The forgotten third Christian movement

Post by rgprice »

I've gone back and read Irenaeus' account of Simon Magnus: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103123.htm

It is very interesting that Irenaeus alleges that Simon Magnus essentially was portraying himself very much as a Jesus like figure. Irenaeus certainly believed that a real Simon had really done these things, which sound almost identical to the portrait we get of Jesus in the Gospels. How reliable the account of Irenaeus is, however, is another question entirely.
davidmartin
Posts: 1588
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: The forgotten third Christian movement

Post by davidmartin »

RG I think Irenaeus's account has problems. It's well known his account differs from Hippolytus but I read that the same problem is found in both's account of Basilides and regarding the latter Hippolytus seems more reliable so why shouldn't he be for Simon as well?
The suspicion as I understand it is Irenaeus is using later sources that are less reliable
But none of them are too reliable. Yes he's Jesus like, so Acts makes sure to separate him out as later than Jesus, and not part of the original thing and not welcome either. What i was trying to say is we have no idea who he really was at all or anything much about him. To me they're just some early Christians we don't know much about

The best place to check this is http://gnosis.org/library/grs-mead/grsm_simon_magus.htm
It's got all the patristic accounts in one place. GRS Mead
Post Reply