Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Irenaeus talks about the lies of Simon Magus:


I would have expected, from the first time I read this passage, that Irenaeus would have said rather:


So, if Irenaeus is correct that the Magus did that claim, then the same words of the Magus would be evidence that there was not a colossal apostle called "Paul" working among the nations, but only the Holy Spirit, who would have inspired a lot of little Pauls in the world.

So Paul could be merely an invented icon for the anonymous figure of the apostles inspired by the holy spirit. The name itself, 'Paul', alludes to the fact that when one is inspired by the Holy Spirit, his personality doesn't matter more, he becomes little so that a distinct being, the Holy Spirit, can talk completely in his place.

According to the mainstream chronology Irenaeus writes in the 2nd century whereas the authorship of the Clementine literature is viewed as a product of the 4th century. It is in this 4th century text that the character of Simon Magus appears to be using Paul to argue against Peter. So in theory Irenaeus could not be aware of the Clementine literature.

Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 5:58 pm According to the mainstream chronology Irenaeus writes in the 2nd century whereas the authorship of the Clementine literature is viewed as a product of the 4th century. It is in this 4th century text that the character of Simon Magus appears to be using Paul to argue against Peter. So in theory Irenaeus could not be aware of the Clementine literature.

My point is that the Simon known by Irenaeus "usurped" for himself the title of Jesus in Judea and of YHWH in Samaria, but not the title of "Paul" in the Diaspora, so implying that there was not a Paul for him to usurp because a Paul never existed.

I'm of the opinion that the entire Simon Magus passage in Irenaeus is a 4th century redaction. Every other mention of Simon Magus in this sort of build up role is from no earlier than the late 3rd century. Why do we assume Irenaeus would be one hundred plus years ahead of all other church fathers (happens with other issues, some specific to theology) with nothing similar in between? A redaction of the works taking his name seems to me the more likely explanation.